The Commissioner of Education recently issued of decisions concerning appeals by Plaintiffs alleging wrongdoing by certain school district officers and personnel that sought the removal of these officials from office.
Decision No. 18,286* of Decisions of the Commissioner Education concerned a Wantagh Union Free School District school board election and budget vote, together with an application for removal of a member of the school board while Decision No. 18,279** of Decisions of the Commissioner Education addressed issued raised concerning the Board of Education of the North Salem Central School District's implementation a board resolution and an application for the removal of certain school board trustees.
Decision No. 18,286
Commissioner of Education Rosa concluded "this appeal must be dismissed and the application for removal of the board member must be denied."
Wantagh UFSD held its annual budget vote and election. Plaintiff was one of five candidates on the ballot running for the school board and was not elected. This appeal and application for removal ensued.
The school district sought dismissal of the petition for improper service, failure to join necessary parties, and as untimely. Additionally, the school district contended that Plaintiff’s claims are declaratory in nature or otherwise outside the jurisdiction of an Education Law §310 appeal.
Noting that in an appeal to the Commissioner, a Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief, the Commissioner opined that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving that any of the alleged errors affected the outcome of the election, were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process, or that they demonstrated a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law.
Further, said the Commissioner, Plaintiff failed to offer evidence, such as affidavits or signed statements from district voters, to support her claim and citing Appeal of Holliday, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,947; Appeal of Dodson, et al., 54 id., Decision No. 16,764), the Commissioner said "it is well settled that mere speculation as to the existence of irregularities or the effect of irregularities provides an insufficient basis on which to annul election results."
With respect to Plaintiff seeking to have the Commissioner removed a trustee, the Commissioner noted that a school officer or member of a board of education may be removed from office "when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law", citing Education Law §306 [1].***
Decision No. 18,279
Plaintiffs appealed the alleged the North Salem Central School District failed to hire a school resource officer (“SRO”) and sought the removal from office of the president of the board and other, unspecified board members for such failure. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal.
Noting an affidavit sworn to by the board's president indicating that “[b]etween June 16, 2022 and November 2022 … there were internal discussions as to where the money would come from to fund [the] second SRO,” and the board rejected a resolution to “authorize the transfer of [funds] from [the] unassigned fund balance to the [SRO] budget code … to cover the cost of a second [SRO].”**** This appeal was the result of that action.
Plaintiffs asserted that school officials engaged in willful misconduct and neglect of duty by failing to expeditiously hire a second SRO and asks that the Commissioner:
[1] "order [the board] to “abide by the June 15” resolution"; and
[2] "remove the board president, and any other board member whose removal [the Commissioner deems] warranted, from office."
The Commissioner dismissed the appeal for the reason it had become "moot," explaining that the Commissioner "will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances."
Then considering a request submitted by the school board members, the Commissioner found that the named district board members "each ... acted in good with respect to the exercise of their powers and performance of their duties" within the meaning of Education Law §3811[1] which section, in pertinent part, makes certain costs, expenses and damages a district charge "Whenever the trustees or board of education of any school district, or any school district officers, have been or shall be instructed by a resolution adopted at a district meeting to defend any action brought against them, or to bring or defend an action or proceeding touching any district property or claim of the district, or involving its rights or interests, or to continue any such action or defense, all their costs and reasonable expenses, as well as all costs and damages adjudged against them, shall be a district charge and shall be levied by tax upon the district."
* Click HERE to access Decisions of the Commissioner No.18,286 posted on the Internet.
** Click HERE to access Decisions of the Commissioner No. 18,279.
*** To be considered willful, the action of a board member or school officer must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose.
**** Following commencement of this appeal, the board announced that it had secured a grant to fund the second SRO position. Thereafter, the board approved a resolution “to allocate [funds] to cover the cost of the second [SRO] through [the end of the 2022-2023 school year].”