Charles and Kristie Cripps

XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
June 24, 2018

The Honorable Kirk Watson

Texas Senate
P.O. Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711

RE: Hunter Burkhalter Complaint & Letter of Support for Chief ALJ Lesli Ginn, ♦
Burkhalter’s Violations of SOAH Code of Conduct, ♦Violations of the TEA and SOAH
Inter-Agency Contract, ♦Violations of IDEA Federal Requirements, ♦Procedural
Violations and ♦Violations of Public Trust, **AS OF August 15, 2018 - We Authorize this
Complaint on Hunter Burkhalter be Disclosed to the Public, Charles and Kristie Cripps**

Dear Senator Watson:

In recent months, we have been following the recent firing of Hunter Burkhalter
from the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Incidentally at that same time,
we had also been making Public Information Requests (PIRs) from SOAH and from the
Texas Education Agency (TEA) regarding Mr. Burkhalter and regarding records from our
son’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Hearing that Mr. Burkhalter
presided over in 2014. We were taken aback when reading the recent Austin Chronicle
articles regarding Mr. Burkhalter’s recent firing as we had also had some stunning
concerns regarding Mr. Burkhalter’s presiding over our son’s case. The decision was
heavily biased in favor of Mr. Burkhalter’s alma-mater, the Hurst-Euless-Bedford
Independent School District that he attended as a child from K-12. Additionally, there
were many findings of fact that were false. We want to make it very clear that we are not
writing in order to contest that decision although we have been very concerned with

1
additional information we have been uncovering in recent PIRs and retrieving all of our
son’s records from those proceedings. We are writing to share with you what we have
discovered in our Public Information Requests from both SOAH and from TEA regarding
personal and professional conflicts of interest of Mr. Burkhalter’s in our 12 year old son’s
hearing as a public school student with disabilities while enrolled in the
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD (HEBISD), the same school district Mr. Burkhalter attended
throughout his school years and grew up in.

Mr. Hunter Burkhalter’s Flagrant Impropriety

and Personal and Professional Conflicts of Interest

Mr. Burkhalter was not only a past alumni of HEBISD, but he was also friends
with one named in the complaint, Darla George Clark. Mrs. Clark was our son’s
elementary Assistant Principal that was primarily responsible for having denied our son
for disability services after over seven years with no services and identification. His
disabilities had been replete in the school records as far back as five years old. Our son
is a victim of the recently discovered unlawful Texas Education Agency 8.5% Disability
Identification Cap that was recently and forcefully lifted after the Department of
Education intervened, after Governor Greg Abbott intervened and after heavy media
exposure. Prior to understanding why our son was denied services for so long due to
that illegal Cap and prior to that 8.5% Cap being lifted, we finally were able to start the
official process of IDEA identification of our 12-year old son, who had been forced to
struggle in school because the school district had blatantly disregarded our son’s need
for academic supports and services for over seven years while illegally instructing us to
medicate our young son in lieu of services. HEBISD school administrator and friend of
Mr. Hunter Burkhalter’s, Darla George Clark had been named in our complaint. Darla
George Clark had also attended HEBISD from K-12 and graduated the same year as
Mr. Burkhalter. They were friends and had known each other nearly their entire lives.
[SEE EXHIBIT A ]

Mr. Burkhalter disclosed both the aforementioned personal conflicts to our past
attorney during a pre-hearing conference, but did not disclose his professional conflicts
of interest. He told our past counsel that it was up to us to have him recused for the

2
personal conflict of interests. What Mr. Burkhalter failed to share with us was that
his own employer, the State Office of Administrative Hearings Code of Conduct
required him to recuse himself.

Canon 2 of the SOAH Code of Conduct reads as follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE

APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.

Furthermore in noting the above, SOAH Code of Conduct on page 1 defines

“shall” with the following language: “Refers to conduct that is required.”

On Page 8 of the SOAH Code of Conduct part C (2) reads as follows:

Recusal. An administrative law judge shall recuse himself or herself in any

proceeding in which:

(a) The judge’s impartiality might be questioned.

Additionally, TEA’s Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Special Education

Services enforces the Texas Administrative Code RULE §89.1170 for Impartial
Hearing Officers requires the same. The language in the code was written as follows:

(c)A hearing officer must possess the knowledge and abilities described in 34
Code of Federal Regulations (IDEA), §300.511(c),

and must not be:

……………….
(2) a person having a personal or professional interest that conflicts
with the person’s objectivity in the hearing.

3
 In the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct amended by the Supreme Court of
Texas, has the following language:

● Canon 1: Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.

A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high
standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the
integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved. The provisions of this
Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective.”

● Canon 2: Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of

the Judge’s Activities.

A. A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner
that promotes the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.

Mr. Burkhalter had a duty to recuse himself having been a student from K-12 in
the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD and as an HEBISD classmate and friend of Darla George
Clark that also attended HEBISD K-12 with Mr. Burkhalter, but also was a school
administrator IN HEBISD when our son was so grossly harmed. Per his own agency’s
Code of Conduct he shall recuse himself, per the IDEA Federal Regulations and the
Texas Education Agency’s Commissioner’s rules, Mr. Burkhalter had an absolute duty
to recuse himself from our son’s hearing and did not.

In briefing ourselves with recent events that have taken place in Mr. Burkhalter’s
recent dismissal, we found this statement in Mr. Burkhalter’s February 20, 2018 letter
to the Honorable Lesli Ginn on page 9, Part IV. Additional Thoughts and Concerns
regarding his presiding over that case:

4
 “It ultimately became my case after Judge Starnes recused herself because she
was a personal friend of one of the witnesses.”

The above declaration in Mr. Burkhalter’s own words, plainly reveals that he was
clearly aware of Judge Starnes’ need to recuse herself to avoid the appearance of her
own impropriety as he took her place in the TMB case. Although Mr. Burkhalter knows
the Canons required by his office, he clearly decided that they were for others and they
did not apply to himself regarding his alma-mater, the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD and his
friend Darla George Clark named in our son’s complaint. It was absolutely unethical for
Mr. Burkhalter to preside over our son’s complaint against the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD
and ultimately brought the State Office of Administrative Hearings into disrespect in the
community and the state of Texas at large.

Furthermore in a pre-hearing conference call with our past counsel, Mr.

Burkhalter in reference to his relation with Darla George Clark said the following
regarding his being the SOAH Administrative Law Judge for the HEBISD case with his
friend named in the complaint:

“And what are the odds of that Right? My first IDEA case. I’d rather have
used -- beat those long odds on the lottery or something like that, but --”.

His comment might have been believable had Mr. Burkhalter been assigned by an
alphabetical rotation as a noted requirement by TEA Commissioner Rules except that
alphabetically ALJ Craig Bennett of SOAH would have come before Mr. Hunter
Burkhalter. His aforementioned comment might also have been believable except,
Kathleen Cameron of the Texas Education Agency specifically asked SOAH to assign
Mr. Hunter Burkhalter to his alma-mater case with the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD docket.
[SEE EXHIBIT B] The referring agency, the Texas Education Agency wrote the
following in a document to the State Office of Administrative Hearings:

“Deliver this request to Suzanne Marshall or Tom Walston; DO NOT PUT

IN TokOpen; Please assign to Hunter Burkhalter or next ALJ in rotation.”

5
 So Mr. Burkhalter’s claim of the odds being similar to some lottery win - were
never comparable to some mere slim chance. Mr. Burkhalter was 100% CHOSEN by
TEA to preside over his friend, Darla George Clark’s case and his K-12 alma-mater the
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. How did Kathleen Cameron and Susan Gage1 of the Texas
Education Agency know to choose Mr. Burkhalter with this many conflicts? The
impropriety was glaringly and obviously calculated and intentional.

To add insult to injury, in 2008, students and parents had been complaining to
Texas legislators for years that the Texas Education Agency Hearing Officers and even
the attorney representing the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District, Ms.
Nona Matthews actions had been so offensive to Texas public school children with
disabilities and the IDEA hearing process that they implored legislators to transfer the
hearing officer function for due process proceedings from the Texas Education Agency
to the State Office of Administrative Hearings to avoid the appearance of both actual
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. [SEE EXHIBIT C]. Mr. Hunter Burkhalter
having ignored the Canons of his own office was an unequivocal slap in the face to
children with disabilities, their parents and to the years of injustice taken against our
disabled children in this state. Not only was it a slap in the face, but Mr. Burkhalter’s
misconduct completely eroded the public’s confidence in the IDEA Hearing process
after years of hard work to have the IDEA Hearings transferred from the Texas
Education Agency to the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

And it only gets worse....after reviewing recent Public Information Requests and
documents, Mr. Burkhalter knew he was required to recuse himself from our son’s
hearing against the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. His actions were even more abominable.
Mr. Burkhalter was the very first SOAH Hearing Officer to preside over an IDEA
hearing. It was absolutely reprehensible of Mr. Burkhalter to even consider to preside
over the very first SOAH IDEA Hearing with the obvious impropriety. Moreover, his
actions were a complete and utter disregard to the years of efforts that public school

1
Correction. Susan Gage worked for the State Office of Administrative Hearings and also allowed the
assignment of Hunter Burkhalter although he was ineligible.
6
children with disabilities and their families took to move the hearings from TEA to SOAH
to avoid this very matter. Mr. Burkhalter’s actions were a completely detestable betrayal
of trust bestowed to our government officials. Any State Office of Administrative Hearing
Administrative Law Judge that never receive consequences for their actions is a stain
on their hard working public servant colleagues and their legal professions.

Mr. Hunter Burkhalter’s Lack of Required Training

and

Breach of the Inter-Agency Contract between the Texas Education Agency and
the State Office of Administrative Hearings

After discovering Mr. Burkhalter’s aforementioned breaches from the prior Public
Information Requests lead to our requesting more information. We then requested the
inter-agency contract between the Texas Education Agency and the State Office of
Administrative Hearings. With yet another appalling discovery, Mr. Burkhalter
reprehensibly had not even fulfilled the inter-agency’s clear stipulation that all SOAH
Hearing Officers must first be fully trained prior to being placed in the rotation to preside
over a TEA IDEA Hearing. Per the inter-agency contract’s own language, [SEE
EXHIBIT D] the designated SOAH Hearing Officers “must attend and observe at
least one special education due process hearing before being assigned a case by
TEA.” Only “after a designated hearing officer completes the required training and
observations, TEA will add that hearing officer’s name to the alphabetical
rotation.”

The Texas Education Agency Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Special

Education Services also enforces the Texas Administrative Code RULE §89.1170 for
Impartial Hearing Officers and it clearly states that per RULE §89.1170, -(c) A

7
hearing officer must possess the knowledge and abilities described in 34 Code of
Federal Regulations §300.511(c). The language from the Federal IDEA Code states
the following:

(1) At a minimum, a hearing officer -

(ii) “Must possess knowledge of, and the ability to understand, the
provisions of the Act, Federal and State regulations pertaining to the Act, and
legal interpretations of the Act by Federal and State Courts.”

Mr. Burkhalter in absolute breach of the inter-agency contract did not observe an
IDEA Due Process until two months AFTER our hearing against the
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD for the gross mistreatment of our 12 year old son. [SEE
EXHIBIT E ] Furthermore, Mr. Burkhalter in violation of the Federal IDEA Code - did not
receive IDEA training until four months AFTER our hearing against the
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. [SEE EXHIBIT F] Additionally, Mr. Burkhalter also had
access to the HEBISD hearing disclosures that included the Procedural Safeguards
[SEE EXHIBIT G ] that specifically once again reiterated on page 15: that “the
hearing officer must possess the necessary knowledge and skill to serve as a
hearing officer. Hearing officers are paid through federal IDEA funds”.

If there was any question of Mr. Burkhalter’s impropriety, all doubt was erased
after uncovering Mr. Burkhalter’s obviously intentional favoritism for the
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD and Ms. Darla George Clark. Mr. Burkhalter additionally felt
he had unrestricted powers to do as he pleased with absolutely no regard to the State
Office of Administrative Hearings nor the SOAH Code of Conduct, no regards to the
TEA and SOAH Inter-agency contract, no regards to IDEA Federal requirements, no
regards to the public’s trust, nor the disabled child or disabled public school children. Mr.
Burkhalter’s actions completely erodes any trust in the IDEA hearing process after years
and years of neglect to our disabled public school children in this state. Additionally,
Burkhalter’s lack of required IDEA training was also detrimental to all adverse outcomes

8
and has grossly affected our lives and will affect our lives for years to come. His lack of
required training was obvious that he had little knowledge of relevant law and
procedural status of the case.

Hunter Burkhalter’s Clear and Improper Bias

for the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District

During our requested hearing against the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD for the gross
mistreatment of our 12 year old son while seeking long overdue disability identification
under the illegal Texas Education Agency 8.5% Cap for needed accommodations and
services, Mr. Hunter Burkhalter openly expressed many biases for the H-E-B
Independent School District. The following is expressly shared only to give

examples of the bias and how that bias grossly affected our lives and imperiled
our son’s future.

Bias #1

1. Lack of Discipline Hearing prior to the Manifestation Determination

Review (MDR) meeting for our 12 year old son for a predetermined false criminal
allegation by Nona Matthews, the HEBISD Assistant Principal and Principal.

1.1 During the MDR meeting, our son’s advocate continually time after time requested
the discipline hearing as stipulated that our son was denied prior to the meeting.

1.2 Hunter Burkhalter after listening to the audiotape provided in the hearing disclosures
of the MDR meeting decided that he was “not going to decide whether he was properly
disciplined under the separate disciplinary procedure.” [SEE EXHIBIT H ]. Per Mr.
Burkhalter’s own words said during the hearing, “I don’t have the terminology. I’m not
fluent in the terminology. I’m not going to re-decide that issue.”

9
1.3 It was obvious from the audio recording that Mr. Burkhalter listened to that our son
was denied a discipline hearing. There was no way that the MDR meeting and
attendees could establish whether or not the behavior of the false allegation was a
manifestation of the disability specifically due to impulsivity when the incident and
provided hearsay children’s statements had many discrepancies as also noted in the
recording. The meeting was infirm and Mr. Burkhalter knew it after listening to the very
contentious recording.

1.4 Rather than noting this obvious blatant lack of a discipline hearing that the school
district counsel, Nona Matthews and school district employees continually refused our
son, Mr. Burkhalter appallingly decided the meeting was done in good faith by the
school district, entirely negated to note this blatant breach and allowing the district to
intentionally use hearsay statements against our son. The entire MDR meeting was
made adverse by the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD attorney, Nona Matthews stepping
entirely outside the scope of her duties. She had never even met our son and would
later go on to represent herself in filings on appeal. Mr. Burkhalter had a duty to
disqualify her as a material witness and as she was acting on her own behalf in Mr.
Burkhalter’s chosen assigned hearing.

1.5 Had Mr. Burkhalter known the applicable Texas Education Code § 37.009 and had
he been trained or reviewed the applicable code, he would have known that Texas
Education Code § 37.009 requires the Assistant Principal and Principal to make “valid

attempts” to arrange a discipline hearing. Mr. Burkhalter KNEW our son did not
receive one after listening to the provided recording. [SEE EXHIBIT I ]. There was no
way that the MDR committee could make a reasonable decision about our son’s
behavior for the false allegation without one especially when Mr. Burkhalter KNEW our
son did not receive a discipline hearing. Mr. Burkhalter chose to ignore this very
obvious breach by the school district although H-E-B ISD counsel, Ms. Nona Matthews
continually denied our son’s right to the school discipline hearing in that meeting

10
recording. Instead Mr. Burkhalter attacked our son’s advocate’s character in his decision
for being upset about our son’s denied rights.

Mr. Burkhalter wrote the following (amongst other character attacks) rather than
acknowledging that Ms. Nona Matthews refused to allow our son a discipline hearing:

“The MDR meeting was made difficult by misbehavior by Ms. Liva.”

This was a completely and very obviously biased statement by Mr. Burkhalter made with
favoritism for the HEB school district and their counsel, Ms. Nona Matthews as there
was absolutely no mention of Ms. Matthews repeatedly denying our son’s rights to a
discipline hearing nor any mention of Ms. Matthews entirely stepping outside the scope
of her duties in that MDR meeting.

1.6 Importantly, Ms. Nona Matthews knew that by denying our son a discipline hearing
that this would not be allowed to be part of the IDEA hearing that Mr. Burkhalter was
presiding over. “The grant of jurisdiction to an IDEA hearing officer does not include
appeal of matters properly raised and decided under the school district’s regular
education student code of conduct.” See, e.g. Poteet Indep. Sch. Dist., 29 IDELR (SEA
TX 1998). See also Letter to Anonymous, 49 IDELR 227 (OSEP 2007). Mr. Burkhalter
knew from the audio recording that it was not properly raised. There was a personal
incentive for Mr. Hunter Burkhalter to ignore that our son did not receive a proper
discipline hearing and to ignore Ms. Nona Matthews continual denial of our son’s access
to a discipline hearing and the many discrepancies in student statements as our son
was wrongfully targeted. Mr. Burkhalter’s decision would never have landed in favor of
his alma-mater’s, the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD otherwise. Everything was infirm due to
the adverse MDR. By ignoring the ISD’s breach in our son’s right to discipline hearing

11
would show favor to his alma mater and his childhood friend and classmate, Darla
George Clark also named in our son’s complaint against the school district.

1.7 Mr. Burkhalter’s blatantly ignoring this breach would imperil all proceedings
thereafter upon appeal as Ms. Matthews defended her own actions for denying our
son this process.

1.8 The MDR meeting is “well advised to be sure that the process is done “carefully and
thoroughly.” These words come directly from the House-Senate Conference Committee
that gave final approval to the language of the law. Had Mr. Burkhalter been trained
he would have known that there was no way that the MDR meeting could make any
proper conclusion to whether the behavior (impulsiveness) was a manifestation of our
son’s disability or not. Actually common sense should have revealed that to Mr.
Burkhalter. [SEE EXHIBIT J ].

Bias #2

2. Had Mr. Burkhalter had the Required Training He Would have Recognized
that the HEBISD’s counsel, Ms. Nona Matthews was not a relevant ARD meeting
participant to our son’s MDR meeting. [SEE EXHIBIT K, BOTTOM OF PAGE 3 AND
TOP OF 4 ].

2.1 Participants should have some knowledge of our son. Ms. Matthews had never even
met our son, leaving her sole purpose in the meeting to out maneuver and intimidate,
the family and advocate interfering with their right to meaningfully participate. [SEE

EXHIBIT L, Our Son’s Grandfather’s Letter to the Department of Education; 2nd

Paragraph]

2.2 Ms. Nona Matthews was wrongfully and inappropriately a controlling and
contributing ARD member throughout that meeting, completely stepping outside the

12
scope of her duties. See Section 300.344(a)(6)2, “an attorney’s presence would have
the potential for creating an adversarial atmosphere that would not necessarily be in the
best interest of the child. Therefore, the attendance of attorneys at IEP (MDR) meetings
should be strongly discouraged. It was obvious that Mr. Burkhalter did not know of
Section 300.344(a)(6) and/or he intentionally ignored it in favor of the school
district. Either way, it was an outright abomination to our son for HEBISD counsel, Ms.
Nona Matthews to take it one step further by having inappropriately taken over the MDR
meeting.

2.3 After Mr. Burkhalter listened to the MDR audio recording provided in disclosure
[SEE EXHIBIT U ] of Ms. Matthews wrongfully dominating, controlling and contributing
to the MDR meeting, Mr. Burkhalter should have immediately disqualified Ms. Matthews
as a material witness as it was also obvious that Ms. Matthews had personal reasons to
defend her own wrongful actions. Blatantly disregarding this matter, Mr. Burkhalter
imperiled the entire decision as he relied on Ms. Matthews to guide him without his
required training.

2.4 Mr. Burkhalter ignored the signature page of the MDR meeting where counsel, Ms.
Nona Matthews signed in attendance only. That signature page provided in disclosures
should have alerted and alarmed Mr. Burkhalter after listening to the provided audio
recording of the MDR meeting that Ms. Matthews was completely stepping outside the
scope of her duties by controlling that meeting throughout the duration of that meeting.
It was obvious that Ms. Matthews was not in attendance only. Mr. Burkhalter
absolutely made no mention of this, but rather attacked the character of our son’s
advocate and laid blame on our advocate for the adversity. [SEE EXHIBIT M AND
EXHIBIT V]

2
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/iep.law.appendixa.htm Section 300.344 #29.
13
2.5 Had Mr. Hunter Burkhalter been trained, he would have known that the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act State Board of Education Rules Commissioner’s Rules,
Texas State Laws, §89.1050 (h) stipulates in the following language:

“All members of the ARD committee shall have the opportunity to participate in a
collaborative manner…”

After Mr. Burkhalter listened to the provided MDR audio recording provided in
disclosures, he completely negated the fact that school officials and the family had very
little opportunity to participate as HEBISD counsel, Nona Matthews took over the
meeting as a controlling and contributing member. [SEE EXHIBIT L, 2nd
PARAGRAPH] and [SEE EXHIBIT C TOP OF PAGE 3 UNDER HENSLEE SCHWARZ
LLP SUBTITLE]. The meetings are intentionally made adversarial in complete
contradiction to the Federal IDEA’s required collaboration.

2.6 On Page 27 of Mr. Burkhalter’s decision, Mr. Burkhalter wrote: “that Ms. Liva
behaved bizarrely at the end of the meeting, snatching up the signature page for those
who had attended the meeting and stating, in an agitated voice, that she was taking it.
Ms. Liva acted in such an agitated manner that the ED was in fear for her physical
safety.” Our son’s grandfather, Ron Caldwell, witnessed this and in no way was anyone
in any physical danger of Ms. Liva. [SEE EXHIBIT L , PARAGRAPH THREE]. It was a
patently false allegation and Mr. Burkhalter placing this as part of his decision was
reckless and an intentional bias to the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School
District. All of the negative verbiage regarding our son’s advocate was also a complete
deflection to the fact that our son never received his rights to a discipline hearing and
that the MDR was infirm for that very reason amongst many other reasons harmful
towards our son by the district and their counsel, Ms. Matthews direction. Most
importantly after listening to the audio recording, Mr. Burkhalter would have known that
Ms. Liva was upset that Mr. Burkhalter’s alma mater HEBISD counsel, Ms. Nona

14
Matthews had school officials sign the signature page prior to having it filled out. The
committee did not even know what they were signing. [SEE EXHIBITS M and R]

2.7 To further show bias, Mr. Burkhalter completely omitted that Ms. Matthews was
reprehensibly laughing in the MDR meeting at the horrific predicament we found our
son in with false charges due to the lack of the discipline hearing continually denied to
our son. [SEE EXHIBIT T] Ms. Matthews cruel behavior was throughout the audio
recording. Mr. Burkhalter made no mention of that and why should he? He had a
personal conflict of interest. It was obvious that Mr. Burkhalter was swayed to protect his
alma-mater’s interests.

Bias #3

3. Mr. Burkhalter’s Bias as He Ignored (Relevant Evidence) a Settlement

Agreement for an Independent Education Evaluation that was Still Pending at the
Time of the Infirm MDR Meeting and Showed Bias by Gross Negligence of
Reviewing the Facts Carefully.

3.1 Mr. Burkhalter wrote in his decision that the Licensed Specialist in School
Psychology (LSSP) was already familiar with Student’s disabilities, having prepared an
in-depth psychological report on the student implying that the LSSP could decide
whether or not our son’s behavior was part of the his disability. Mr. Burkhalter did not
acknowledge the Settlement Agreement provided in disclosures that the IEE was

granted in order to replace the LSSP’s report due to subjectivity and very
dangerous wrongful conclusions regarding our son’s health. The HEBISD LSSP
in no way knew anything about our son in the very little time she spent with him.
Mr. Burkhalter completely ignored relevant evidence.

15
The HEBISD LSSP wrote the following in her report:

“His parents believe that his ADHD is caused by many food allergies and
have gone to a lot of time and money to address these problems medically, but C. does
not appear to “buy into” this as he is observed at school eating whatever he wants.
Teachers tend to wonder if he uses this as an excuse for his misbehaviors.” [SEE
EXHIBIT O].

First and foremost, our son had been diagnosed with ADHD five years prior to meeting
the HEBISD LSSP. HEBISD elementary school teachers in his prior HEB school had
been reporting his severe attentional difficulties as far back as seven years prior.
HEBISD illegally told us to put him on stimulant medications because we were told
HEBISD did not have any services for ADHD. We did as we were told until our son had
a return in severe anaphylaxis during his seventh grade year incidentally when we were
once again attempting to have him identified under the Unlawful TEA 8.5% Identification
Cap. There was absolutely no way that the LSSP could have had expert knowledge
about our son. By writing the aforementioned in her report, it was a clear sign of gross
negligence that endangered our son’s life. That very same year and over the next two
years - our son was in and out of the hospital with anaphylaxis that began in his head,
closing both his ear canals and throat. The IEE was granted because of the LSSP’s
gross negligence to write the aforementioned and many other false statements in our
son’s report. [SEE EXHIBIT O ].

Mr. Burkhalter completely ignored the Settlement Agreement provided in

disclosures [SEE EXHIBIT P ] dated January 23rd that granted an IEE for just this
reason. [SEE EXHIBIT Q ] HEBISD counsel, Nona Matthews, completely knowingly
and recklessly made a false statement of material fact amongst many to Mr. Burkhalter
and Mr. Burkhalter in turn ignored our testimony in that hearing and reprehensibly wrote

16
in his decision that the HEBISD LSSP had extensive expert knowledge of our son when
she did not.

The MDR was infirm because the majority of the attendees chosen by the
HEBISD did not know our son well at all as he had only been in Mr. Burkhalter’s alma
mater HEBISD Bedford Junior High (Burkhalter also attended the same junior high as
our 12 year old son) for only about three months. Had Mr. Burkhalter been trained, he
would have known we had a right to choose members of the MDR Committee. Hearing
testimony by Charles Cripps, our son’s father, included the fact that we did not even
know at the time that we could choose anyone to attend prior to the meeting and the
one person we requested during the MDR meeting they said she was not allowed to
attend. No one in that meeting was part of the family’s request to attend other than the
advocate.

3.2 Mr. Burkhalter then went on to write on Page 33 of his decision that “Without
exception, all of these experts agreed the Student’s behavior in the incident was not
caused by or directly and substantially related to the student’s disability.” The HEBISD
“experts” Mr. Burkhalter referred to were making very dangerous conclusions about our
son’s disabilities which included lifelong ADHD with Executive Function Disorder and
with gross negligence falsely claimed that our son did not “buy into” his anaphylaxis.
Importantly, Mr. Burkhalter knew our son never received a discipline hearing and that
statements provided by other students were hearsay due to our son being the wrongful
subject of the Assistant Principal’s investigation and the many discrepancies pointed out
to the MDR Committee by our advocate that Mr. Burkhalter heard in that MDR audio
recording provided in hearing disclosures and ignored.

17
 Bias #4

4. Mr. Burkhalter Refused a Re-Hearing Upon Discovery of the HEBISD’s

Assistant Principal’s Aggravated Perjury.

[SEE EXHIBIT L, PAGE TWO...ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST]

4.1 After Mr. Burkhalter wrote his decision in breach of all of the aforementioned
reasons, it was discovered that the Assistant Principal had committed aggravated
perjury.

4.2 Importantly upon Mr. Burkhalter summarily refusing the Re-Hearing with the noted
aggravated perjury, he also allowed many more provable counts of perjury by the H-E-B
School District Assistant Principal entirely allowing a very compromised decision to go
into Federal Court on Appeal.

Bias #5

5. Mr. Burkhalter Refused Admissible Evidence that our Son was Treated
More Harshly than Other Students While Seeking Disability Identification Status
under the TEA Illegal 8.5% Cap

5.1 This decision was a reckless and intentional bias to the HEBISD District. The
evidence was admissible as long as personally identifiable information was redacted.
Mr. Burkhalter did not know the applicable laws regarding FERPA and admissible
records so long as FERPA laws were upheld.

18
****************************************************************************************************

^^^The above was briefed in this letter only to strictly show Mr.
Burkhalter’s intentional bias to the school district in our son’s hearing
decision.^^^

****************************************************************************************************

Conclusion of Mr. Hunter Burkhalter’s Violations and Impropriety

It was obvious due to ALL of the aforementioned including Mr. Burkhalter’s lack

of training as required by the Texas Education Agency inter-agency contract with

the State Office of Administrative Hearings that Mr. Burkhalter breached caused a
reckless and biased decision to come out towards our son. Additionally, Mr.
Burkhalter was required by Federal IDEA §300.511 and as noted in the Procedural
Safeguards provided in hearing disclosures to “possess (at a minimum) knowledge of,
and the ability to understand, the provisions of the Act, Federal and State regulations
pertaining to the Act, and legal interpretations of the Act by Federal and State Court
prior to presiding over an IDEA Hearing. **Mr. Burkhalter did not attend IDEA training
until four months after our son’s hearing and two months after his decision.**

Furthermore, Mr. Burkhalter was intentionally chosen by the Texas Education

Agency and allowed to preside over an IDEA Hearing in breach of the
Inter-Agency Contract and the State Office of Administrative Hearings Code of
Conduct and without training and should never have been placed into rotation for
hearings. Mr. Burkhalter had shown very little due diligence to meet the requirements of
the aforementioned and could not have properly applied relevant law as he was

19
obviously not trained in the law as required for all of the aforementioned reasons. Mr.
Burkhalter was careless, rushed and indifferent towards the IDEA Hearing process and
requirements.

Mr. Burkhalter was reckless in his many breaches and with his intentional bias to
the district. Instead Mr. Burkhalter relied upon hearsay statements and knowing our son
never received a proper discipline hearing. Without any training for the hearing, Mr.
Burkhalter relied upon his alma mater’s Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD counsel, Nona
Matthews to then guide him instead of his responsibility to disqualify Ms. Matthews from
the hearing as the MDR audio recording revealed she was wrongfully a controlling and
contributing member to the MDR meeting and a material witness. Ms. Matthews’ dual
role completely compromised independence of professional judgment and should never
have acted in both capacities during that meeting; therefore should have been
disqualified as the HEBISD counsel during the subsequent Hearing. Instead without any
training Mr. Burkhalter relied upon HEBISD counsel, Ms. Matthews that absolutely had
reason to represent her own misconduct. Ms. Matthews had sufficient personal
reasons to deflect items she could and would benefit from. An untrained Mr. Burkhalter
with absolute impropriety then egregiously relied upon Ms. Matthews
misrepresentations. Mr. Burkhalter and Ms. Matthews relied upon each other for their
own personal rationality. [SEE EXHIBIT W].3

Additionally, the State Office of Administrative Hearings Code of Conduct

required that Mr. Burkhalter recuse himself from our son’s hearing due to the many
personal and professional conflicts and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. TEA Code 89.1170 for Impartial Hearing Officers required
the same as did the Supreme Court of Texas in the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

3
https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2016/11/texas-listening-sessions/ - EXHIBIT W Comments come from the
Department of Education Texas Listening Sessions Regarding Ms. Nona Matthews conduct.
20
SOAH Code of Conduct also required Mr. Burkhalter “perform judicial duties without
bias or prejudice.”

In our son’s hearing against Mr. Burkhalter’s alma-mater, the

Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District, Mr. Burkhalter violated the following:

1). Violated the Texas Education Agency and State Office of Administrative
Hearings Inter-Agency Contract - multiple times.

2). Mr.Burkhalter violated the State Office of Administrative Code of Conduct -

multiple violations that he felt the Canons of that Code of Conduct did not apply to him
and only applied to others.

3). Mr. Burkhalter violated the IDEA Federal Requirements Code: 34 Code of
Federal Regulations (IDEA), §300.511(c)

4). Without training, Mr. Burkhalter had no knowledge of Appendix A, an

Appendix for the 1999 U.S. Department of Education Regulations issued
pursuant to IDEA 97. http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/iep.law.appendixa.htm Section
300.344 #29.

5). Mr. Burkhalter allowed the continual violation of the Texas Education Code
37.009 requiring a valid discipline hearing by intentionally and biasly allowing this
procedural violation to be wrongfully maintained after listening to the MDR audio
recording. This intentional breach gave HEBISD counsel, Ms. Nona Matthews the ability
to manipulate a false narrative throughout the appeal.

6). Mr. Burkhalter ignored a legally binding Settlement Agreement to allow our
son an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) be granted and appallingly allowed
and admitted a very subjective and equally harmful psychological report by his
biased description of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD of the LSSP school employee

21
(Licensed Specialist in School Psychology) as being an expert in our son’s MDR
meeting. None of the MDR meeting committee members knew our son more than three
months and many only met with him on a few occasions. Mr. Burkhalter’s description of
experts in no way properly fit the description of the MDR committee members.

7). Mr. Burkhalter biasly placed disparaging remarks in his decision regarding the
family’s educational advocate while negating to do the same of the HEBISD counsel’s,
Ms. Nona Matthews own misconduct in the MDR meeting. Then Mr. Burkhalter
summarily after listening to the adversarial MDR recording wrote that the very
contentious MDR meeting was done in good faith by the school district. The meeting
was completely adversarial with very little meaningful communication between the
school employees and the family. Had he been trained, Mr. Burkhalter would have
known that it was “well advised to be sure that the (MDR) process is done “carefully and
thoroughly.” These words come directly from the House-Senate Conference Committee
that gave final approval to the language of the law. Equally it is required that attorneys
and advocates not take control of the meeting.4 Mr. Burkhalter’s biases and lack of
required training rendered him incapable of doing his job well and fairly.

8). Mr. Burkhalter violated TEA’s Commissioner's Rules Concerning Special

Education Services that enforces the Texas Administrative Code RULE §89.1170
for Impartial Hearing Officers

9). Mr. Burkhalter was knowingly chosen to preside over our son’s hearing by
the Texas Education Agency and was allowed to preside over our son’s hearing against
Mr. Burkhalter’s alma-mater Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD in breach of the inter-agency
contract and with many personal and professional conflicts of interest including the
naming of his friend and classmate, Darla George Clark in our son’s complaint.

4
Advocate Debra Liva was there representing the family as the mother and child were not in attendance.
The false charges were based on intentional hearsay and obstruction of justice was a thoroughly
devastating time for us. The father and grandfather were in attendance and equally distraught.
22
 10). Mr. Burkhalter’s flagrant actions and Impropriety are a betrayal of public trust
after years of students and families contacting legislators to move the Texas Education
Agency Hearings from TEA to the State Office of Administrative Hearings to avoid
exactly what Mr. Burkhalter has done as the first SOAH IDEA Hearing Officer to protect
the children’s rights and to avoid any impropriety.

Mr. Hunter Burkhalter’s contumacious refusal to adhere to the clear commands of

the State Office of Administrative Hearings Code of Conduct, the inter-agency contract
between TEA and SOAH, Federal requirements for IDEA Hearing Officers, clear ethical
standards and any conduct that tends to obstruct the proper administration of justice
must be met with the same temerity with which the contempt was committed. It is the
duty of the State Office of Administrative Hearings Agency to assert its authority and to
relieve Mr. Burkhalter of his services with SOAH accordingly.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Lesli Ginn took a stand to require the
Administrative Law Judges to adhere to standards of their office; specifically SOAH’s
Code of Conduct. Otherwise to do anything other would undermine the public’s
confidence in the State Office of Administrative Hearings as Mr. Burkhalter did to the
community of Texas public school disabled children and their families. It was absolutely
dishonorable for Mr. Burkhalter to preside over our son’s case with the lack of required
training. Additionally, Mr. Hunter Burkhalter violated the Code of Conduct multiple times
in our son’s hearing alone. An Administrative Law Judge must adhere to rules, Codes of
Conduct and the laws they judge. To expect our children to adhere to standards that
those that preside over our state agency hearings cannot do themselves is an
abomination to the position of Authority that they hold.

We can appreciate the very difficult decision Chief Administrative Law Judge
Lesli Ginn took to relieve Mr. Hunter Burkhalter of his duties as an Administrative Law
Judge. I am certain the decision did not come lightly. I am also certain that Mr.
Burkhalter will find a resolution to this pivotal time in his life and will recover successfully

23
in a new position elsewhere. It is our strongest desire to see that the State Office of
Administrative Hearings avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and
uphold the integrity of the office and position of power that the agency holds for the
State of Texas.

Yours Truly,

Charles and Kristie Cripps

Cc: State Office of Administrative Hearings, Chief Administrative Law Judge Lesli Ginn,
Senator Kirk Watson, Senator Guzman, Senator Birdwell, Senator Barnett, Senator
Buckingham, Senator Bell, Senator Schwertner, Senator Graham and Kelsey Erickson

● This Letter and Exhibits are Authorized for Public Disclosure - **AS OF August
15, 2018 - We Authorize this Complaint on Hunter Burkhalter be Disclosed to the
Public, Charles and Kristie Cripps**
● Additional documents and the MDR recording can be made available upon
request.

Thank you for your time.

24
25