Respondents assert that, at the time of the conversation between respondent Stratton and petitioner in March 1999 about her job performance, Mr. Stratton advised petitioner that he intended to terminate her probationary employment but would allow her to resign rather than be terminated. It was respondent Stratton's understanding at that meeting that petitioner agreed to resign prior to the 1999-2000 school year in lieu of termination, and he reiterated this belief to petitioner in July 1999. The record does not reflect any response by respondents to this last letter. Respondents deny that petitioner is entitled to placement on the PEL, or that she was entitled to appointment to the new full-time guidance position. Respondents contend that petitioner voluntarily resigned her position prior to the 1999-2000 school year in lieu of termination, and that the position she vacated at Stockbridge was never filled.
Respondents also raise a number of procedural objections.
Respondents claim that this appeal is untimely, that it fails to state a cause of action, that the appeal is moot, that petitioner seeks an advisory opinion, that the appeal is premature because she has not requested reinstatement and is thus not an aggrieved party, and that accepting a guidance position at Stockbridge would violate the terms of her unpaid leave from Rome. I will address these procedural objections first. I find that the petition is untimely and must be dismissed. However, this appeal was not commenced until service upon the respondents on November 1, 1999. In view of this disposition, I need not address the parties' remaining contentions.