Petitioners, who had moved to Rhode Island, did not attend the reconvened hearing. The hearing officer held that his appointment was improper because respondent could not establish how the hearing officer had been informed of his appointment. While agreeing with the hearing officer's conclusion the child's mother nevertheless appealed from the decision on the ground that the hearing officer had failed to grant her the relief she had sought in the hearing. However, respondent was directed to appoint a hearing officer to consider petitioners' claims, including what, if any, relief would be warranted by respondent's failure to establish that it had validly appointed a hearing officer on a timely basis. The hearing which is the subject of this appeal was held on May 4, 1993.
Petitioners raise both procedural and substantive objections to the hearing officer's decision.
In this instance, petitioners requested a hearing on September 8, 1992. However, the two intervening appeals necessarily delayed the completion of the hearing. In Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition , Appeal No. 93-10, respondent was directed to appoint a hearing officer within 30 days after the date of that decision, which was rendered on March 29, 1993. The hearing officer's decision was rendered on June 21, 1993. Respondent has not explained why the hearing was not commenced until almost one month after the hearing officer was appointed, although respondent bears the responsibility of assuring that hearing officer decisions are rendered on a timely basis.