The Commissioner’s decision in Doornwaard v. Socorro ISD appears to rely on an insistence that the petitioner has to cite the correct section of the Education Code to justify the Commissioner’s jurisdiction. In this case, the Petitioner cited T.E.C. 7.057(a)(1) when she should have cited 7.057(a)(2). 

OK.  That’s important for the lawyers.  But the Commissioner went on to make a Dawgworthy ruling with important implications for HR directors, superintendents, and board members.

To see if this case is important in your district, pull up your Policy DGBA (Local). That’s the one about employee grievances.  This case involved the legality of a provision that is commonly found in that policy.  The provision gave the board “at its sole discretion” the power to decide if it will actually hear a live presentation of the grievance, or “to allow only the written information.” In other words, the policy did not guarantee that the grieving party would get to present the grievance directly, in person, to the board. The grievant might be limited to having the board review what is submitted in writing. Is that OK?

The Commissioner ruled that it was. In fact, this is the second time that the Commissioner gave his approval to this version of DGBA. The first time was in Parents v. Eanes ISD, Docket Number 037-R10-04-2020 (2020).

This one was decided by Commissioner Morath on November 5, 2021. Docket No. 036-R10-05-2021.

DAWG BONE: CHECK OUT YOUR DGBA.  YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO WHAT EANES AND SOCORRO DO.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!!