After being told by the district's administrator for the Committee on Special Education that petitioners could not employ a psychologist of their choice, petitioners obtained counsel on June 23, 1997. This appeal ensued. Petitioners further claim that the district failed to provide timely written notification of the suspension and that the informal conference held by the principal was deficient because he did not include J.G. or provide an opportunity to speak to the complaining witnesses. Petitioners further claim that the principal did not inform them of their legal rights prior to entering into the agreement. They also argue that the agreement violates public policy, the Education Law and Commissioner's regulations.
Respondents submit that the petition is time barred.
Respondents also argue that petitioners' decision to unilaterally select a psychologist was contrary to the agreement. Finally, respondents maintain that parents can knowingly and freely waive any and all rights granted by Education Law 3214. Before reaching the merits, I will address the issue of timeliness. The agreement was entered into on June 5, 1997. Under these facts, I find timely petitioners initiation of this appeal within 30 days of respondents' refusal to consider petitioners' request to rescind the agreement.