Steve Hirase

Dixie Huefner

Jack Rudio

Ken Hennefer

Mae Taylor-Sweeten

Joyce Barnes

Jerry Christensen

Emily Johnson

Minutes for both the 12-15-97 meeting and the 1-20-98 meeting were approved.

There has been no activity.

Emily distributed copies of the current Utah compliance checklist and two examples of user's manual worksheet items from the IEP Task Force.

Steve distributed color-coded copies of a draft of the current (old) Utah rules, with our recommended items from the draft federal regulations inserted in red. He coded items which are unique to the Utah rules in blue.

Planning Committee has not met since the last Procedural Safeguards Task Force meeting.

Dixie noted that, in the current Utah rules, procedural safeguard items are scattered throughout the document. She suggested that we consider recommending that all items related to procedural safeguards be placed together in one section.

We reviewed the "due process" section of the draft Steve had prepared. See the draft document for specific edits.

Joyce mentioned a video she uses to show people who may be resisting the idea of mediation some of the positive outcomes others have experienced from the process. She suggested that some group, e.g., the ULRC, might want to produce a similar video aimed specifically at education. This led to a discussion of including a resource section on the user's manual worksheet. Resources listed therein might include various types of materials as well as the names of persons qualified and available to conduct training or do presentations on the topic.

Mae reported on her discussions with several people from OSEP regarding the restriction in the draft federal regulations regarding SEA personnel acting as mediators. She said that since USOE neither funds nor directly provides services to students in Utah, this restriction does not apply in our state. She stated her intention to have USOE staff members trained in mediation, and to use them whenever possible to serve as mediators. If at some point the demand appears to exceed the supply, USOE will also maintain a list of independent mediators who are qualified to serve in that capacity for disputes between parents and school districts.

We discussed a inserting a section which describes informal dispute resolution procedures which should be used prior to the filing of a state complaint or request for due process. Steve felt that it would be inappropriate to require districts to include this information in, for example, their procedural safeguards documents, so we agreed to include it as an informational preface to the section on formal dispute resolution procedures.

Mae recommended that we include a two-level hearing process in the Utah rules. The second, or appeal, level may specify a hearing by either a single hearing officer, or by a tribunal composed of three persons.

Dixie suggested that we reorder the due process section, placing the description of mediation procedures before those for due process hearings. Currently, the due process information comes first. The order of items in that section would then be as follows:

1. Preface describing informal dispute resolution procedures;

2. Mediation procedures;

3. State complaint procedures;

4. Due process hearing procedures;

5. Appeal procedures;

6. Availability of litigation, if all the above fail to result in resolution.

No formal recommendations were made, but the Planning Committee is asked to consider the following:

- adding a "resource" section to the user's manual worksheet;

- gathering all procedural safeguards items together in one section;

- making a decision about the final format of the Utah rules, i.e., similar to the current Utah rules, or similar to the draft federal regulations.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 18, 1:30-4:00 p.m. at the ULRC.

Before the February 18 meeting, task force members should have done the following:

- reviewed the NEW draft rules document prepared by Steve;

- reviewed, specifically, the existing procedures for filing a state complaint, so that we may draft revised procedures.

During the February 18 meeting, we will assign sections to individual task force members so that each of us may begin drafting items for the user's manual. We anticipate that the electronic discussion group may be a useful tool as we write these items. Emily will see that the surrogate parent section and the revised due process section prepared by Steve are distributed to all task force member.

We're proud that Steve's draft, which merges existing rules with recommended new items, is being sought as a model by other task forces. We appreciate the extra work he's done, and the excellent quality of the document he's provided for us.