COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
_______________________________
In Re: Student & Nashoba Regional School District
BSEA #25-04139
_______________________________
ORDER ON REQUEST TO ADVANCE CONFERENCE CALL AND TO RECORD CONFERENCE CALLS
At Parent’s request, the Conference Call scheduled for October 28, 2024, has been advanced eight business days and will take place at 3:00 PM on October 16, 2024. The parties are instructed to call the following phone number: 1-(857) 327-9245 at that time, and then enter the following passcode when promptedp: 133 966 91#.
On October 10, 2024, Parent also requested, through her attorney, that this Conference Call “please be recorded for completeness of the record, as substantive matters regarding the student’s need for an accepted hearing will be discussed[1].” To date, the District has not responded to this request[2].
Parent’s request to record this or any future Conference Calls is denied, and Conference Calls in this matter will not be recorded by myself or any Party. The information discussed during a Conference Call is not part of the record of a due process proceeding. Further there is no legal requirement for a verbatim record to be made of Conference Calls[3] and I decline to approve the request in this case, particularly as the October 16, 2024, Call is the initial call between the Parties in this matter. Moreover, I note that while generally the discussions during the initial Conference Call are limited to scheduling, logistical, and other non-substantive matters, and argument or substantive discussion does not occur, in this case Parent has sought to have her request for an accelerated hearing reviewed. Although I am willing to have the Parties to address this request during the October 15, 2024 Conference Call, I do not find such a discussion to warrant the need for the Call to be recorded, when no legal obligation exists to do so, and the outcome of the discussion can be reflected in a written order or ruling after conclusion of the Call (subject to receipt of any necessary motions or request filed in accordance with the BSEA Hearing Rules and Standing Orders).
To the extent anything discussed by the Parties during the Conference Call (none of which, again, will be substantive in nature, with the exception, at the choice of the Parties, of Parent’s request for an accelerated hearing) is sought by any Party to be made part of the record in this matter, that Party should submit the request in writing and a written Ruling will be issued. Alternatively, the request will be further discussed verbally on the record during the stenographically recorded Hearing on the merits.
Should Parent decline to discuss her request for an accelerated hearing during the Conference Call, given that it will not be recorded, she may file any additional supplemental argument and information relating to her request for an accelerated hearing not already set forth in the Hearing Request in writing, by the close of the business day on October 11, 2024. The District will file any written responsive argument and information, not already contained in its October 8, 2024 reply letter, by the close of the business day on October 15, 2024[4], and I will issue a Ruling with regard to this request prior to the Conference Call on October 16, 2024. That Call, then, will be limited to discussing scheduling, logistical and technical matters and any agreements in those areas will be reduced to writing after the Call (subject to receipt of any necessary written Motions or requests as noted above).
The Hearing on the merits remains scheduled for November 12, 2024[5], and at Parent’s request contained in the Hearing Request it will be stenographically recorded. The Parties are reminded that any requests for postponement must be in writing and specify the reasons for and length of the postponement sought. Should the Parties resolve the matter prior to the Hearing, the moving Party shall submit a withdrawal of the Hearing Request.
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell
Date: October 10, 2024
[1] Although this email did not comply with the requirements of the BSEA’s Standing Order 23-1, as the request was contained wholly within the body of the email, without any attachments to the email, I do not require compliance with this Standing Order for this particular emailed request, only, given that the advanced Conference Call will occur in three business days, and the potential written submission deadlines contained in this Order. Going forward, the Parties are advised to ensure all of their submissions comply with the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) and the BSEA’s Standing Orders including but not limited to Standing Order 23-1. Emails should be limited to scheduling and provision of non-substantive information.
[2] Rule VI of the Hearing Rules provides, among other things, that “any party may file written objections to the allowance of the motion and may request a hearing on the motion within seven (7) calendar days after a written motion is filed within eh Hearing Officer and the opposing party, unless the Hearing Officer determines that a shorter or longer time is warranted.” For the same reason as my decision not to require compliance with Standing Order 23-1, for this particular emailed request only, to the extent necessary, I deem that a shorter timeframe is warranted here and issue this Order at this time.
[3] Compare 20 USC 1415(h)(3); 34 CFR 300.512 (a)(4) and (c)(3); Rule X(A)(7) of the Hearing Rules providing the right to a “written or at the option of the parents, electronic verbatim record” of IDEA due process hearings on the merits, at no cost to any party, upon written request.
[4] Again, all such filings shall occur in accordance with the BSEA’s Hearing Rules and Standing Orders.
[5] This date is subject to my review of Parent’s request for accelerated status that will occur in accordance with the provisions of this Order.