Although the Respondent's admitted that it failed to hold public meetings that complied with New York State's Education Law §2590-e(14) and New York State's Open Meetings Law [Public Officers Law §§100, et seq.], the Commissioner of Education ruled that the allegations that the Respondent violated New York State's Open Meetings Law must be dismissed as New York State's Open Meetings Law [Public Officers Law §107] "vests exclusive jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York", citing Appeal of Flippen, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,296 and other Decisions of the Commissioner of Education.
In the words of the Commissioner: The Commissioner of Education "has no jurisdiction to address the Open Meetings Law allegations raised in this appeal."
Addressing the Petitioners' efforts to have a member of the Respondent's Board removed from their respective positions, the Commissioner pointed out that one individual had been earlier been removed from the position by the then Chancellor for the remainder of that individual's current term of office and thus this element of the appeal "must be dismissed as moot."
With respect to merits' of the Petitioners' application, the Commissioner said 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 or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule, or regulation of the Board of Regents or the Commissioner".
Citing 8 NYCRR 275.10, the Commissioner said to be considered willful the action of the individual act or omission "must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose" and the "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".
In this instance the Commissioner concluded that the "Petitioners have failed to prove that the actions of the remaining members ... warrant removal" as one member had been earlier removed and evidence was submitted that the Respondent "is complying with the terms of the preliminary injunction". Accordingly, the Commissioner declined to award the relief requested by Petitioners, including removal of the remaining members of the Respondent's board.
The Commissioner's decision concluded by observing that this "outcome should not be interpreted as an endorsement of [the Respondent's] conduct [as it serves] families holding a variety of political, social, and religious beliefs."
Further, opined the Commissioner, "It did them a disservice by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and seeking to silencing those who disagreed. This contravened [the Respondent's] internal guidelines, which acknowledge that '[p]eople can disagree' and that '[d]ifferences in perspectives foster our learning'”, noting "Further conduct like this will be considered a neglect of duty within the meaning of Education Law §306(1)".
Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.