ELAINE PRICKETT,
                  Grievant,

v.                                                Docket No. 00-30-280

MONONGALIA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
                  Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

      Grievant, Elaine Prickett, employed by the Monongalia County Board of Education (MCBOE) as a bus operator, filed a level one grievance on May 26, 2000, in which she alleged, “job not filled in adequate time. Job was posted [but] not filled (still being occupied by substitute). Became a run March 6, 2000 - (B.I.C. Run), code violation.” Grievant requested reimbursement for lost wages. The grievance was granted at level one, but was appealed because the School Bus Supervisor lacked authority to grant the requested relief. The grievance was granted following a level two hearing, yet Grievant advanced the matter to level four on August 25, 2000, stating that “[t]he decision I am not appealing, it is part of the hearing examiners belief that I would like to have a ruling on. . . .” MCBOE, represented by Harry M. Rubenstein, Esq., filed a Motion to Dismiss; however, Grievant, who appeared pro se, did not respond, and an evidentiary hearing was conducted on October 26, 2000. The matter became mature at the conclusion of the hearing when both parties declined the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
      The essential facts of this matter are undisputed and may be set forth as follows.
Findings of Fact
      1.      Grievant is regularly employed by MCBOE as a bus operator, and holds a seniority date of March 18, 1991.
      2.      An extra-duty assignment for the B.I.C. program was posted from March 27through April 7, 2000. The employment date was stated to be “as soon as possible.”
      3.      A number of bus operators, including Grievant, bid on the position which was held by a substitute bus operator for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year.
      4.      Grievant was awarded the position, with appropriate back pay, at level two of the grievance process.
Discussion
      As this grievance does not involve a disciplinary matter, Grievant has the burden of proving each element of her grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. Procedural Rules of the W. Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd. 156 C.S.R. 1 §4.19 (1996); Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-23-174 (Apr. 30, 1997); Hanshaw v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ. Docket No. 33-88-130 (Aug. 19, 1988). See W. Va. Code §18-29-6.
      At hearing, Grievant argued that hearing evaluator, Dr. Louis Hlad, stated an erroneous belief in the level two decision which needed to be corrected. That portion of the decision in question states:
      During Ms. Prickett['s] testimony, she argued by referring to Monongalia County File: policy GDJ, which states in part that “All bus drivers shall be eligible for extracurricular trips on a rotation basis. The rotation shall be established on a seniority basis . . . .” It is this hearing examiner's belief this policy does not deal with extra duty contracts; extra duty contracts are awarded on the basis of seniority and not on rotation. If an employee can accommodate more than one extra duty contract, it is permitted on the basis of seniority and not on rotation.

      Grievant argues that Dr. Hlad's belief is incorrect because Policy GDJ provides that “[a]ll service personnel in the same 'class title' working at the same duty station shall beprovided with equal opportunities for extra assignments and/or compensation on a rotating basis.” She supports her position by citing the W. Va. Code §18A-4-8b provision that “[a]n employee with the greatest length of service time in a particular category of employment shall be given priority in accepting extra duty assignments, followed by other fellow employees on a rotating basis according to the length of their service time until all such employees have had an opportunity to perform similar assignments. The cycle then shall be repeated . . . .” Grievant seeks a ruling stating that MCBOE's practice of allowing the more senior bus operators to hold multiple extra-duty assignments prior to providing all bus operators the opportunity to accept such an assignment is contrary to law.
      MCBOE asserts that Grievant prevailed at level two, and was awarded back pay for the 1999-2000 school year, as well as assignment to the run for the 2000-2001 school year, if it does not conflict with her regular schedule. Based upon these holdings, MCBOE notes that Grievant specifically states that she is not appealing the level two decision, and argues that the additional relief Grievant seeks at level four is in the form of a declaratory ruling.
      Grievant clearly states that she is not appealing the decision issued at level two which granted her the relief requested. In fact, she appears to be litigating a new claim based upon the language in a decision rather than a grievable event. She continues to disagree with her employer's method of assigning extra duty runs, and wants confirmation that she is correct. Grievant's request that MCBOE be instructed to award extra duty assignments using a different procedure is a request for an advisory opinion, and this Grievance Board does not issue advisory opinions. Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Dooley v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No.94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991). Of course, Grievant or any other bus operator who is denied a future assignment may revisit this issue in an effort to obtain relief.

Conclusion of Law
      This Grievance Board does not issue advisory opinions. Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000); Dooley v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991).
      Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
Any party may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County and such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision. W.Va. Code §18-29-7. Neither the West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board nor any of its Administrative Law Judges is a party to such appeal and should not be so named. However, the appealing party is required by W. Va. Code §29A-5-4(b) to serve a copy of the appeal petition upon the Grievance Board. The appealing party must also provide the Board with the civil action number so that the record can be prepared and properly transmitted to the appropriate circuit court.
Date: November 16, 2000 __________________________________
SUE KELLER
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE