A multi-year employment contract between an educator and a school board necessarily binds successor school boards

A multi-year employment contract between an educator and a school board necessarily binds successor school boards
Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, 13958, 13960

School superintendents and their deputies are usually employed pursuant to a written contract that sets out the terms and conditions of their employment. Each time a school board enters into a multi-year contract “it necessarily binds successor boards,” the Commissioner of Education ruled in two cases involving the Mount Vernon City School District in Westchester County.

On June 12, 1997 Mount Vernon City School District’s Board of Education approved resolutions extending its written employment contract with both its superintendent, William C. Prattella and its deputy superintendent, Edward J. Reilly, through June 30, 2000. On July 1, 1997, a newly elected Board adopted a resolution rescinding the former board’s resolutions of June 12.

Both Prattella and Reilly challenged the newly elected board’s action and asked the Commissioner of Education to intervene.

The district asserted that the previous board’s actions were improper and it had the right to rescind the contract extensions because it read Section 2507 of the Education Law as barring a “small city school district” from entering into a written contract with a superintendent or a deputy superintendent.

The Commissioner disagreed with the district’s interpretation of Section 2507. He cited language in Section 2507(1), which applies to superintendents and associate superintendents of small city school districts and Section 2509(3), which covers assistant school superintendents. These provisions authorize the board of a small city school district to contract with such employees for a period of one to five years, he said.

The newly elected board also argued that the action by the previous board was contrary to public policy since “New York courts have held that municipal and governmental boards are not able to bind their successors to long-term contractual provisions.

The Commissioner agreed that “there is venerable authority for the proposition that municipal and government boards should not be able to bind their successors to long-term contractual provisions.” However, he noted, courts have recognized an exception to this general proposition “where a specific statutory provision authorizes a long-term contractual arrangement,” citing Murphy v Erie County, 28 NY2d 80.

Holding that Sections 2507(1) and 2507(3) constituted such statutory provisions, the Commissioner ruled that each time a school board enters into a multi-year “it necessarily binds successor boards.” The Commissioner sustained both appeals.

The Commissioner concluded his opinions in both appeals by commenting that although he was “constrained to recognize the legality of the eleventh hour extension” of the contracts voted by the former Board, he did not endorse the wisdom of its action, “which does not inspire voter confidence in school officials.” This is an example of dicta, a statement of opinion made by a judicial or quasi-judicial official that is not required to resolve the controversy or make a determination.