Those attending the meeting were as follows:

Helen Post

Steve Hirase

Dixie Huefner

Jerry Christensen

Margaret Lubke

Ken Henefer

Donna Suter

The mailing list was updated.

Jerry obtained contact information from Dixie and Donna (new member).

The draft federal regulations were distributed to all.

Tom Roush provided a handout detailing the outline structure used in P. L. 105-17.

Copies of these materials are available upon request from the Jerry at the ULRC.

Minutes from the previous meeting, 9-29-97, were approved with the following additions:

1. The following statement was added to the discussion of the term "complaint": "The group noted that parents will need training on this issue."

2. A transcript of the electronic discussion group digest is to be appended to the minutes.

Helen and Steve attended the planning committee meeting on October 21, 1997, and presented our task force's questions to the committee and the representatives from OSEP who were also at the meeting. The questions, and the PC/OSEP responses were as follows:

The representatives from OSEP, Chuck Laster and Sheila Friedman, arrived in person midway through the procedural safeguards task force meeting. Introductions were made, and Chuck and Sheila explained the purpose of the OSEP visit. They then entertained questions on the law and draft regulations from task force members. The questions and OSEP responses are summarized below. See also the discussion section, below, for further comments on these issues.

Question: Does the term "complaint" in Sec 615 (b)(6) refer to any and all written complaints or only to a request for due process?

PC/OSEP Response: As used in the federal documents, the term "complaint" refers only to the procedure which triggers a due process hearing. The term "due process hearing" includes expedited due process hearings (which must occur within 10 days of the complaint) as well. [See also discussion section, below.]

Question: Can a document other than one entitled "Prior Notice" be used to satisfy the prior notice requirements, provided it contains all the required components? For example, can the IEP document itself be considered prior notice of placement, if it contains all the information required for prior notice?

PC/OSEP Response: Yes, prior notice requirements may be met by other documents in the file, provided all prior notice requirements are met (including documentation that the information was given to the parent/guardian/adult student). Mae commented that it is highly unlikely that any document other than one specifically designed as a prior notice would, in fact, contain all required components, but it is possible, in theory. [See also discussion section, below.]

Question: Margaret asked about the perceived requirement that prior notice be given not less than 5 days before the event. She noted that this can create a difficult situation if notice for IEP implementation must conform to such a timeline.

OSEP Response: The OSEP representatives said that, although some states have included prior notice timelines in their state rules, there is no specific federal requirement on this point. The law simply states that notice must be given "a reasonable amount of time" before the event.

Jerry reported on the electronic discussion group activity, which to date includes exactly one question and one response. A transcript of the discussion is appended to the minutes of the 9-29-97 meeting.

The term, "complaint". The OSEP representatives reiterated the response given in the Planning Committee meeting, namely, that "complaint" refers only to the initiation of a due process hearing. Dixie asked if the term "due process hearing" includes expedited due process hearings. The representatives responded that it does include both expedited and "regular" due process hearings. Dixie also noted that the term appears in several places in the current Utah state rules, and sometimes refers to a concern processed at a level other than due process (e.g., state complaint procedure, mediation). The task force decided that the new Utah state rules should use a different term, such as "concern" to indicate non-due process items. Mae noted that in the draft federal regulations, a complaint (in the new sense) may be initiated not more than one year after the date of the incident or condition with which the complaint takes issue. Helen stated that there is a need for parent training in the area of complaints and due process hearings; she is concerned that existing resources may not be adequate to address this need. The OSEP representatives said that the state should define a process for the handling of "concerns" and "complaints". Parents should be encouraged to express their concerns.

Prior notice. In a discussion based on the OSEP interpretation of prior notice (see Planning Committee report, above), Steve noted that some Wasatch Front districts have simply attached to the prior notice form whatever additional documentation is needed in order to meet federal and state requirements.

Transfer of rights to adult students. Donna raised the issue of transfer of rights, citing Draft Regulations, Sec. 300.517, p. 211, which states that rights may be transferred from parent/guardian to the student once the student is 18 years of age. Mae commented that this issues will be addressed in the state's policies and procedures document. Donna suggested that task force members discuss this issue with their colleagues in various agencies so that the task force can make a reasonable recommendation to the Planning Committee. Ken asked that we pay particular attention to the case of students who may be homeless or incarcerated.

Attendance of attorneys at mediation conferences. Dixie brought up this issue, asking specifically whether attorneys should be discouraged from attending mediation conferences. Jerry noted that the presence of attorneys may shift the focus of a mediation conference more toward due process, thereby undermining the likelihood of resolution through mediation.

Draft Utah rules. Margaret proposed that we create our recommendations for the draft Utah rules by editing the draft federal regulations. Helen suggested that we also refer to the existing Utah rules on some issues, in order to be more productive. Margaret explained the OSEP planning document and suggested ways we might make use of it.

At this time, due to the recent release of the draft federal regulations, the task force has no items to be submitted to the Planning Committee.

Members are to read the draft federal regulations, particularly the sections related to procedural safeguards, and prepare questions on pertinent issues and needed clarifications for the next meeting.

Members should also utilize the electronic discussion group to air these issues before the next meeting.

Margaret will get a copy of the OSEP inventory to Jerry, who will distribute it to members of the task force.