Attorney outlines grievance and termination hearing differences under LEARNS Act; board cautioned about backlog, processes

LRSD legal counsel Chris Heller told the board on March 13 that the LEARNS Act and a subsequent Attorney General opinion make the district’s grievance procedures a likely avenue for employees who learn they will not be renewed — and that the board itself must decide whether a staff member’s complaint is grievable before a hearing can proceed.

Heller summarized key procedural differences: grievance hearings are initiated by the employee and the grievant bears the burden of demonstrating their specific objections, the facts that support them, and the relief requested; termination hearings (for recommended dismissals) begin with written reasons provided by the superintendent and the district then presents its case first. Heller said grievance hearings are statutorily limited to 90 minutes (administration cases are typically afforded comparable time), and board practice should aim for a prompt written decision — the district’s policy references a 10‑day window.

Why this matters: board role and potential volume

The attorney said the LEARNS Act repealed earlier fair‑dismissal statutes and left grievance procedures as a broad mechanism for personnel disputes. He cited an Attorney General opinion saying that when an employee knows of an intended nonrenewal, that employee can pursue a grievance under a compliant grievance policy. That leaves the board to determine, in some cases, whether a complainant’s issue is grievable.

Board members raised concerns about process clarity and capacity. Several directors said they do not want to substitute board judgment for routine human‑resources decisions, while others said the board’s role as the district’s ultimate decision maker requires it to have clear guidance and capacity to hear appeals. Directors warned a large number of individual grievances could create a backlog and asked whether the district can group similar grievances and how to avoid protracted hearings that consume months of calendar time.

Practical proposals from counsel and staff

Counsel and district staff recommended several practical steps that would make hearings more efficient and defensible: require parties to submit witness lists and exhibits in advance; limit the volume of attachments (one board member suggested a page limit); produce a concise cover sheet for the board that states the precise question to be decided and the policies at issue; and consider grouping multiple employees’ similar grievances into a single hearing.

Board members also discussed recusals and the appearance of bias. Counsel said there is no statewide legal rule that enumerates specific recusals for boards, and recommended adopting local guidance modeled on judicial standards to avoid appearances of impropriety when a board member has a close personal relationship with a party.

What the board did not decide

No formal policy changes were adopted. Board members asked administration to draft clear processes and asked counsel to return with more detailed recommendations; administration requested specific guidance from the board on how the district should schedule and manage grievances so staff can implement consistent procedures.

Key procedural details cited in the session

• Grievance hearing time allocation: 90 minutes recommended in policy for hearings that reach the board.

• Burden of proof: the grievant bears the initial burden in grievance hearings; the superintendent presents reasons first in termination hearings.

• Appeals and timing: the board is the body that determines whether an employee’s appeal is grievable; the district’s grievance policy and the LEARNS Act set timing expectations but counsel said courts have not yet settled every practical question raised by the change in law.

Next steps

Counsel offered to prepare model hearing procedures and to work with staff on pre‑hearing exhibit rules and suggested limits to exhibit volume; administration asked the board to indicate whether hearings should be scheduled at the next regular meeting, to allow timely resolution. Several directors asked for a policy that clarifies recusals and a repeatable template cover sheet for hearings.