PELSB Failed Notice-to-Teachers Requirement

The Impact to Current Licensed Teachers is an Issue Absolutely Missing from the Record of ALJ Examination, which Invalidates the Rulemaking

There is a question of law and fact over whether PELSB adequately or properly notified all interested persons in the matter. In law, one speaks of "giving notice" rather than "notifying." The issue with this PELSB failure is obvious from the basic sense of "notice" or "notify" as well as the particularly legal principles.

The basic fact is that ALJ Mortenson states all interested persons were notified of the rulemaking, so as to afford them an opportunity to let PELSB know if there were any serious issues. This is, in large part, how rulemaking hearings are supposed to go--their function. ALJ Mortenson's position was originally called "Hearing Examiner."

So, this situation then goes to the meaning of interested.

Bird watchers have an interest in important habitats, so if there were to a be some proposal that would impact a critical bird habitat, a bird watcher society involved with the site might need to be notified, before any feasibly significant impact could proceed.

Here, teachers stand out as an obviously interested party.

But, did PELSB, the keeper of emails and addresses of all licensed teachers notify all licensed teachers of that which would seriously impact their jobs, not mere hobby interests, et cetera?

No, ALJ Mortenson approved the PELSB "Notice Plan" which included notice to a few small specialist groups and "A random sample of 100...teachers."

Did ALJ Mortenson address this issue?

No. Either ALJ Mortenson ignored our comment on the issue or His Honor decided not to address the issue.

But, apart from the specific context of the necessary procedural "notice" requirement, a premise that must be satisfied for the rulemaking to not have to start at the beginning, again, seeking authorization (this time), there were many who rightly spoke up about the impact to current teachers that is obvious would occur from PELSB changing the parameters of what is required of teachers.

PELSB kept gaslighting the comment, about the impact to current teachers, and, here, we have Education Standards of America nailing out how this deception invalidates the proceeding, but simply the absence of ALJ Mortenson or Chief ALJ Starr on the issue. Does this imply an approval of the gaslighting? The alternative would be that ALJ Mortenson either disagrees that teachers jobs are serious, which cannot be what His Honor is thinking possibly suppose, that ALJ Mortenson is unaware of the concrete and direct impacts to current teachers, in spite of very clear notice from the public in the Hearing record, or that His Honor disagrees with the details of the impacts to current teachers being significant.

If the latter, it absolutely would have been necessary for His Honor to articulate such a theory, as things stand, the most parsimonious and likely occurence is that ALJ Mortenson believed the gaslighting fraud from PELSB on this issue and never examined the relevant facts.

Regardless of what is behind the Office of Administrative Hearings error, teachers are among those who clearly are unfairly put at risk of prejudice with respect to their licenses, as the changes PELSB proposes change 1) the terms of their employment and HR evaluations, 2) the ease with which a qualified experienced teacher can be replaced by a teacher with no subject matter qualifications, and 3) the ease "cultural competency,"

Furthermore, zero teachers were given the accurate information, as notice, upon which they needed to have been afforded time to comment. PELSB, as they started to be cornered on this issue, retreated in their rebuttal comment to responding to all of these concerns by changing the subject.

They write in three different rebuttal sections that public and teacher concerns about the impact of the change to current teachers was nothing of any consequence, because no one was being forced into a re-training class. Well, that was the complaint expressed by approximately zero of those expressing concerns about the issue of the impact to classrooms and teachers. This is, again, gaslighting--combined with pretending to confuse one range of concerns with something they obviously were not.

But, even if one wanted to credit PELSB with mere incompetence as opposed to deliberate dishonestly to thwart the legal propriety and validity of discussion and engagement on the issue, this is a serious failure of PELSB and it clearly controls zero teachers were honestly disclosed the information upon which teachers (et alia) could be said to have had the opportunity to express their concerns.

When the agency is falsely stating what the facts are, in an a consequential part or aspect of the issue, there is no fair opportunity for even those aware and engaged in the hearing to have been given notice upon which valid rulemaking action could occur.