Some critical procedural elements to be satisfied in order to provide the Commissioner jurisdiction to consider an application to remove a school board member or school district officer

Some critical procedural elements to be satisfied in order to provide the Commissioner jurisdiction to consider an application to remove a school board member or school district officer

Application for removal of the President and Member at Large of a school board. Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,594

The Commissioner never reached the merit of Petitioner's application seeking the removal of the President and member of the school board alleging that the individual was guilty of neglecting her duties, willfully violating the law on various; violating board policies concerning the conduct of board meetings and the supervision, management, and implementation of district business, including staffing, contractual matters, and legal obligations as well violating the Open Meetings Law and breaching her fiduciary duties to the school district. Finding that  Petitioner failed to satisfy certain procedural requirements, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioner's application.

Among the procedural omissions commented on by the Commissioner were the following:

1. An application must be timely filed as an appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the making of the decision or the performance of the act [or omission] complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR §275.16). The 30-day limitation period also applies to a removal application made pursuant to Education Law §306 (8 NYCRR §277.1)

2. A removal application may be timely commenced within 30 days of the petitioner’s good faith discovery of the alleged conduct even though the actual conduct occurredmore than 30 days before the application was instituted.*

3. Additional affidavits, exhibits and other supporting papers may only be submitted with the prior permission of the Commissioner, citing 8 NYCRR §276.5. The Commissioner explained that although this provision permits the submission of additional evidence, it cannot be used to add new claims against a respondent that are otherwise untimely.

4. The Commissioner will not accept materials that raise new issues and introduce new exhibits that are not relevant to the claims originally raised in the application.

5. The late filing of memoranda of law may be permitted by the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, upon written application setting forth good cause for the delay and demonstrating the necessity of such memoranda to a determination of the appeal (see 8 NYCRR §276.4[a]).

6. Section 277.1(b) of the Commissioner’s regulations requires that the notice of petition specifically advise a respondent that an application is being made for respondent’s removal from office (8 NYCRR §277.1[b]) and the failure to comply with §277.1(b) is a fatally defective and does not secure jurisdiction over the intended respondent.** The Commissioner noted that the Petitioner used the notice prescribed under §275.11(a) for an appeal brought pursuant to Education Law §310, explaining that the notice of petition that alerts a party to the fact that he or she is the subject of removal proceedings and the failure to comply with §277.1(b) necessarily results in a jurisdictional failure and requires dismissal of the application. 

7. In the event the petitioner claims that his or her petition is timely because the respondent’s conduct constitutes a continuing wrong, the continuing wrong doctrine applies when the ongoing action is itself an unlawful action, such as the unlawful the employment of an unqualified individual or certain ongoing expenditures under an austerity budget that did not comply with the law.

8. In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR §275.10)

One issue, however, was addressed relevant to this application was considered on the merits -- the Respondent’s request that the Commissioner issue a certificate of good faith pursuant to Education Law §3811(1).

The Commissioner, noting that such certification is solely for the purpose of authorizing a school board to indemnify a respondent for legal fees and expenses incurred in defending a proceeding arising out of the exercise of his or her powers or performance of duties as a board member, explained that it is appropriate to issue such certification unless it is established on the record that the requesting board member acted in bad faith.

The Commissioner granted the Respondent's request in view of the fact the application in this instance was denied on procedural grounds and there has been no finding that the Respondent acted in bad faith, indicating that he did so solely because, for the purpose of Education Law §3811(1), respondent “appears to have acted in good faith.”

* Here petitioner asserted that his delay should be excused because he “wanted to give an opportunity for Respondent to resign in light of” his  allegations. However, the petitioner must establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that there was “good cause for [the] delay.”

 

** The Commissioner noted that the applicant used the notice prescribed under §275.11(a) for an appeal brought pursuant to Education Law §310.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume53/documents/D16594.pdf

.

Litigating an alleged violation of a term in a collective bargaining agreement following the rejection of a non-binding arbitration award by party to the agreement

Litigating an alleged violation of a term in a collective bargaining agreement following the rejection of a non-binding arbitration award by party to the agreement

Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc. v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 01704, Appellate Division, Second Department

CSEA alleged that Nassau Health Care Corporation [NHCC] had violated the terms of a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] when it deemed certain employees reinstated to their former positions as "new" employees for purposes of determining their eligibility for health benefits, their seniority status, and their rate of leave accruals.*

NHCC and CSEA proceeded to nonbinding arbitration. The arbitrator issued an advisory award sustaining CSEA’s grievances. NHCC rejected the advisory award and CSEA sued, alleging breach of contract and sought declaratory relief and a court order directing NHCC to compensate the employees for expenses incurred by reason of such alleged violations. Supreme Court granted CSEA’s motion for summary judgment and NHCC appealed.

The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s order, finding that NHCC had not violated the CBA with respect to its conduct towards former employees who were reinstated to a full time position a year or more after being laid off without having worked part time for NHCC during this period.

The court said that the CBA was clear and unambiguous with respect to treatment of those former employees reinstated to a full time position a year or more after being laid off without having worked part time for NHCC during this period.

In contrast, the Appellate Division held that the CBA was not clear and was ambiguous with respect to those employees reinstated to a full-time position after one year or more after the interruption of their full-time employment with NHCC but less than a full year interrupted full-time service when periods of part-time employment were taken into account. Resolution of the ambiguity, said the court, is for the “trier of the fact,” remanding this issue to Supreme Court for its further consideration.

The court explained that "When a contract, read as a whole to determine its purpose and intent, plainly manifests the intent of the parties, relief may be granted by way of summary judgment.… Where, however, the contractual provision relied upon is ambiguous, the resolution of the ambiguity is for the trier of fact” to resolve.

Here, said the court, the CBA was clear and unambiguous with respect to treatment of former employees who were reinstated to a full time position a year or more after being laid off without having worked part time for NHCC during this period of their layoff. NHCC demonstrated prima facie that these employees were treated in conformity with those contractual provisions said the Appellate Division.

Thus the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court was incorrect in denying NHCC's motion for summary judgment declaring that it did not violate the CBA with respect to its treatment of employee absent from full time employment for one year or longer without having had any intervening part-time employment with NHCC.

The Appellate Division held that the CBA was not so clear and unambiguous with respect to NHCC's treatment of employees reinstated to a full-time position one year or more after being laid-off  but who had been employed by NHCC part-time during their absence following their laid-off.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly denied NHCC's motion seeking summary judgment in its favor with respect to employee having intervening part-time employment with NHCC but erred in granting CSEA's motion for summary judgment with respect to these employees. The issue was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings with respect to those individuals employed by NHCC on a part-time basis during while absent from full-time employment by NHCC for one year or longer.

* The Appellate Division distinguished between to groups of employee: one group consisted of employees absent from their full time employment for more than one year and a second group of employees consisting of employees absent from their full time employment for more than one year but who had been employed by NHCC on a part-time basis during their absence from full-time employment with NHCC.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_01704.htm
.

2014 editions of electronic books [e-books] focusing on New York State and Municipal Public Personnel Law:

2014 editions of electronic books [e-books] focusing on New York State and Municipal Public Personnel Law now available:

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 600+ page guide to penalties imposed on public employees in New York State found guilty of selected acts of misconduct. For more information, click on http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com/

General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

Factors that may serve to mitigate a disciplinary penalty upon a finding of misconduct

Factors that may serve to mitigate a disciplinary penalty upon a finding of misconduct

2014 NY Slip Op 01813, Appellate Division, First Department

2014 NY Slip Op 01814, Appellate Division, First Department

In both of these cases tenured teachers were terminated after a disciplinary arbitrator found them guilty of allegedly "engaging in what appeared to be sexually inappropriate behavior with a colleague" while on school property in an “unofficial capacity.”

Supreme Court sustained the arbitrator’s findings of misconduct but remanded the matter for a new hearing and the imposition of a lesser penalty. The Appellate Division, however, modified the Supreme Court’s decision “on the law” by [1] reinstating the findings of misconduct but vacated that part of the order directing a new hearing and [2] remanding the matter for the imposition of a lesser penalties.

Explaining that where the parties are subjected to compulsory arbitration, the arbitration award must be "in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence, and must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78." Further said the court, “[a] hearing officer's determinations of credibility, however, are largely unreviewable because the hearing officer observed the witnesses and was able to perceive the inflections, the pauses, the glances and gestures - all the nuances of speech and manner that combine to form an impression of either candor or deception."

The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court “erred in substituting its judgment” for that of the hearing officer and the arbitrator's findings of misconduct “was supported by adequate evidence.”

 

The court, however, agreed with Supreme Court that the penalty of termination of employment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of the respective employees. A result is shocking to one's sense of fairness, said the court, “if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals.” 

Another consideration in fixing an appropriate penalty: would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations.

Before the incident, the court noted, the teachers involved had made many positive contributions to the school and had an unblemished disciplinary records.

Among the circumstances that could serve in mitigating the disciplinary penalty imposed on an employee, in this instance termination, cited by the court were the following:

1. The employee’s actions were not premeditated and the employee had a spotless record for five years.

2. The employee’s behavior demonstrated a lapse in judgment in the absence of evidence that the incident was anything but a one-time mistake.

3. That, with respect to an educator, the conduct did not involve some form of romantic involvement or other inappropriate conduct with a student, but rather appeared to be consensual sexual conduct with an adult colleague that was not in and of itself either criminal or otherwise improper.

4. The absence of any indication in the record that the educator's conduct will affect his or her ability to teach or that he or she intended to inflict any damage on any student.

5. The tenured educator had an unblemished disciplinary record and consistently satisfactory performance ratings.

The Appellate Division, in remanding the matter for the imposition of lesser penalties, commented that “While it is unfortunate that the incident garnered so much attention and was exploited in the media, that in and of itself does not warrant the penalty of termination.”

N.B. James Beyer, Esq., writing in NYMUNIBLOB, has posted an article entitled Will Sex in School Decision Impact Teacher Discipline Process? in which he addresses a number of implications flowing from these ruling.

.

Mr. Beyer's article is posted on the Internet at:http://nymuniblog.com/will-sex-in-school-decision-impact-teacher-discipline-process/

The decisions are posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_01813.htm

and

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_01814.htm

.

Guidelines considered by the Commissioner of Education when adjudicating an application seeking the removal of a member of a board of education or a school officer

Guidelines considered by the Commissioner of Education when adjudicating an application seeking the removal of a member of a board of education or a school officer

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,593

In considering this application seeking the removal of certain members of the school district’s board of education, the Commissioner first recited the litigation and other procedures over a number of years in which the parties to this application were involved and noted that “the history of dissention and conflict” affecting the school district is well documented by the numerous legal actions in recent years involving the district.

In the words of the Commissioner: “The record before me illustrates all too well how conflict and an atmosphere of this nature can interfere with the board’s ability to govern the affairs of the district and can undermine the public’s confidence in its elected school board. I strongly urge respondents and the board to engage in constructive discussions – not only as a board, but also with district staff and the community – aimed at eliminating conflict and achieving the best possible governance of the school district.”

After addressing a number of procedural matters, the Commission turned to the merits of the application in which it was alleged that conflicts of interest involving certain members of the school board had surfaced in the course of a board meeting and sought the removal of the board members.

In adjudicating an application seeking to remove a member of a board of education or a school officer the Commissioner noted the following criteria:

1. A member of a board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer 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 Commissioner of Education.

2. In an application for removal of a member of a board of education or a school officer brought pursuant to Education Law §306, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which the petitioner seeks relief. *

3. Pursuant to §277.1(a) of the Commissioner’s regulations, the application “must distinctly state the willful violation of law, neglect of duty, or willful disobedience

of a decision, order or regulation of the commissioner charged against the officer....”

The petition submitted to the Commissioner seeking the removal of the board members alleged only that the named individuals violated board bylaws and policies, including §6110,**with respect to their conduct at a particular board meeting when they debated and voted upon various resolutions without publicly disclosing their alleged interests in such resolutions.

However, said the Commissioner, “it is well settled that, even if proven, violation of a board’s bylaws or policies, by itself, does not constitute sufficient grounds for removal of a member of a board of education in a proceeding pursuant to Education Law §306.”

Here it was alleged that the conflict of interest provisions of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law were violated because the board members had friendships or personal relationships with the subjects of the resolutions voted on at the board meeting. However the Commissioner held that the petitioner failed to establish facts sufficient to warrant the removal of the board member pursuant to Education Law §306 on this basis.

The Commissioner explained that the conflict of interest provisions of the General Municipal Law***define an interest as "a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit accruing to a municipal officer or employee as the result of a contract with the municipality which such officer or employee serves." Further, said the Commissioner, there is no provision in the General Municipal Law that deems a board member to have an automatic interest in a contract between a friend and the district in which the board member serves. Citing Opinion of the State Comptroller No. 83-40, the Commissioner pointed out that such an interest would arise only if a board member was to derive a direct or indirect pecuniary or material benefit from the resolution.

In contrast to alleging or establishing that any board member received a pecuniary or material benefit from their actions, the petitioner “merely alleges that they had undisclosed personal relationships relating to their votes.”

Noting that the petitioner cited no authority for the proposition that a friendship or social relationship, by itself, creates a conflict of interest, the Commissioner ruled that the petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and denied his application to remove the board members.

* See 8 NY CRR §275.10.

** §6110(3)(e) of the district’s ethics policy, which states that a member of the board shall “publicly disclose on the official record the nature and extent of any direct or indirect financial or other interest he/she has” in a resolution before the board.

*** See General Municipal Law §800[3].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume53/documents/d16593.pdf
.