DOCKET NO.431-R5-695



DOCKET NO. 431-R3-695

MARY NAN WHITE § BEFORE THE STATE

§

§

V. § COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

§

CONROE INDEPENDENT §

SCHOOL DISTRICT § THE STATE OF TEXAS

DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

Statement Of The Case

On June 16, 1995, Petitioner filed a Petition For Review appealing a decision made by Respondent on December 16, 1993. On September 30, 1994, Petitioner resigned from Conroe Independent School District. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for untimely filing and for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a reply on August 18, 1995.

Lorraine J. Yancey was the Administrative Law Judge appointed by the State Commissioner of Education. Petitioner was represented by Sam E. Rowland, Attorney at Law, Bryan, Texas. Respondent was represented by Christopher B. Gilbert, Attorney at Law, Houston, Texas.

Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 19, §157.1051 requires the filing of a petitioner for review within 45 calendar days after the decision, order, or ruling complained of is first communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner’s reasons for the delay do not constitute good cause for such a lengthy delay.

On September 12, 1995, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposal for Decision recommending that Petitioner’s appeal be dismissed for untimely filing. Exceptions and replies were timely filed and considered.

Findings Of Fact

After due consideration of the evidence and matters officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:

1. By letter dated June 13, 1994, Respondent notified Petitioner that she was reassigned from Chapter I Coordinator to teacher of a new at-risk program for students, Project RESTORE.

2. By letter dated September 17, 1994, Petitioner notified Respondent that her final day of employment would be September 30, 1994.

3. On June 16, 1995, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the State Commissioner of Education.

4. Petitioner's Petition for Review was filed more than forty-five days after the decision or ruling complained of was first communicated to Petitioner.

Discussion

Petitioner's appeal to the State Commissioner on February 19, 1993 was untimely, pursuant to 19 Texas Administrative Code §157.1051.

Conclusions of Law

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the following Conclusions of Law:

1. The Commissioner of Education does not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it was untimely filed.

2. Petitioner's contention that Respondent’s harassment, discrimination, and resulting family financial responsibilities precluded a timely filing of a Petition for Review does not constitute good cause for the untimely filing of a Petition For Review.

3. Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 19, §157.1051 requires the filing of a petitioner for review within 45 calendar days after the decision, order, or ruling complained of is first communicated to the petitioner.

4. Petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed for untimely filing.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, it is hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal be, and is hereby, DISMISSED for untimely filing.

SIGNED AND ISSUED THIS _______ day of _____________________________, 1995.

____________________________________

MIKE MOSES

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download