July 27, 2022

Challenging the removal, and the subsequent denial of an application for reinstatement, of a member of a school board

In this ruling Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa consolidated two separate appeals brought by a former member of a school board [Petitioner] in which similar issues of law and fact were involved. 

The first appeal concerned Petitioner's efforts seeking a stay her removal from the board pursuant to Education Law §1709(18) while the second appeal concerned Petitioner's seeking reinstatement to the board following her removal from the school board after being found guilty of two charges filed against her.*

With respect to Petitioner's efforts to "stay her removal from the board," Petitioner sought to have "the removal hearing heard by the Commissioner rather than the board" or, in the alternative, that the Commissioner's issuing an order directing the recusal of the school board president. Petitioner's requests were both denied and following an administrative hearing, the Petitioner was removed from her position on the board.

Regarding Petitioner's challenging her removal from the board and her seeking reinstatement in the instant consolidated proceeding, after addressing two procedural matters, the Commissioner considered  the merits of Petitioner's appeal. In so doing, the Commissioner noted that "in an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief."

With respect to the charges of “official misconduct” served on Petitioner, the Commissioner determined  that the two allegations of such misconduct met the standard for official misconduct set out in Education Law §1709(18). Such misconduct, said the Commissioner, constituted "wrongdoing committed in [Petitioner's] capacity as a school officer," which the Commissioner characterized as "quintessential" official misconduct.

The Commissioner found that the record supported the school board’s determination that Petitioner engaged in official misconduct, noting that board members “have a fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district” and Petitioner's actions in this instance "violated this duty."

Further, noted the Commissioner, official misconduct within the meaning of Education Law §1709(18) "is not dependent upon a violation of statute or district policy," citing 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,116 and other Decisions of the Commissioner of Education.

*  The penalties imposed: The board [a] admonished Petitioner for the misconduct alleged in Charge One, improperly disclosing confidential information, and [b] determined that the misconduct alleged in Charge Two, official misconduct, warranted her removal.

Click HERE to access the text of the Commissioner's decision.