Initially addressing a procedural matter -- the School Board's seeking to have the Commissioner dismiss Petitioner's appeal "for lack of standing", the Commissioner observed "Only an individual who is directly affected by an action has standing to commence an appeal therefrom". Finding that Petitioner was directly affected by the School Board's plan to close the particular school in question, ruled that Petitioner had standing to submit the instant appeal to the Commissioner of Education and declined to dismiss it.
Turning to the merits of Petitioner's appeal, the Commissioner noted a board of education has the authority and responsibility to manage and administer the affairs of the school district, including the assignment of pupils to schools therein, citing Matter of Older v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of Mamaroneck, 27 NY2d 333, and a school board's decision or decisions concerning school district reorganization and the closing of school facilities "will only be set aside if they lack a rational basis".
Further, said the Commissioner, "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," citing NYCRR
275.10 and Decisions of the Commissioner of Education Numbers 17,337; 15,936; and
15,884.
The Commissioner found that Petitioners failed
to met their burden of proving that the School Board had violated board
policy nor did Petitions prove that the School Board "acted arbitrarily or
capriciously" in connection with the closure of the school building in question,
noting the record indicated the School Board's:
1. Reconfiguration of the school district was
intended to equalize class sizes among schools;
2. Effective implement services for students
with disabilities;
3. Alleviated the strain of declining
enrollment in the district; and
4. Conducted a "myriad of meetings and events to
explore the reconfiguration issue with the community over several years."
Although the School Board "permissibly
selected a plan that differed from the one favored by a majority of taxpayers",
and "[school] board members can and should be receptive to community concerns," the Commissioner opined that they are public officers who “take [] an oath of office to uphold the law and
faithfully discharge [their] duties”.
In the words of the Commissioner, the members
of the School Board "met those obligations by conducting extensive studies
and engaging in community involvement to arrive at a reasonable decision.
Thus, its ultimate vote to close [the school at issue] cannot be characterized
as unexpected — or irrational."
Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner posted on the Internet.