Challenging the results of a school board election

In this appeal to the Commissioner of Education the Board of Education of the Monticello Central School District sought an order annulling the results its 2022 school district election to fill three "open seats" on the school board because the margin of victory for two of the three seats "was less than the total number of affidavit ballots", which valid affidavit ballots had not been included in the tally.

In the words of the Commissioner, to invalidate the results of a school district election, the petitioner, in this instance the Monticello Central School District's Board of Education, must either: "[1] establish not only that irregularities occurred but also that any irregularities actually affected the outcome of the election or were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process; or [2] demonstrate a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law."

Concluding that the School Board failed to satisfy its burden "of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which [it] seeks relief," the Commissioner dismissed the School Board's appeal.

Click the URL set out below to access the full text of the Commissioner's decision. 

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18167

  

Audits and reports issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending August 12, 2022

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the following during the week ending August 12, 2022

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the complete audit report.

BOCES and School Districts

Clinton-Essex-Warren-Washington Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES) – Employee Benefit Plan Forfeited Funds (2022M-31) BOCES officials did not ensure the administrator returned forfeited funds from the health flexible spending arrangement (FSA), dependent care assistance program (DCAP) and health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) in a timely manner. As of Dec. 31, 2021, the administrator had not returned $83,068 (97%) in forfeited funds from the FSA, DCAP and HRA for the 2014-15 through 2020-21 plan years to BOCES. As a result, all forfeited funds were not annually available for BOCES’ use. Officials were not aware of the unreturned funds until auditors notified them in January 2022. BOCES lacked adequate procedures to ensure the administrator returned all forfeited funds from the FSA, DCAP and HRA in a timely manner.

East Rochester Union Free School District – Procurement (Monroe County)  District officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with board policies and applicable statutory requirements. Of the $1.88 million in purchases tested from 25 vendors, district officials did not adequately document that they properly sought required competition for 18 purchases. The board and district officials did not develop adequate written purchasing policies and regulations and the board did not annually review the policies as required.

Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda Union Free School District – Change Orders (Erie County) The board and district officials did not properly manage project change orders. The board and district officials did not aggregate 31 change orders, totaling over $860,000 that were for the same or similar types of material or service. As a result, auditors question whether the change orders may have been split to avoid having to seek competitive bids for the additional work. Officials also did not properly approve 296 change orders totaling $3.9 million or comply with the district’s procurement policies and regulations.

Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda Union Free School District – Electronic Records and Reports (Erie County) District officials did not properly maintain electronic records (e-records) in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements. The board and district officials did not ensure that e-records were preserved in their original format, intact, in a directory or filing system to maintain the records’ integrity, as required. They also did not adopt an adequate written policy that addressed the creation, maintenance, and storage of e-records, as required. Without a secure e-record storage system in place, there is a risk that unauthorized changes or modifications could be made without detection.

Lancaster Central School District – Financial Management (Erie County) The board and district officials did not properly manage fund balance and reserve funds. The board and district officials did not implement our prior audit’s recommendations to improve their budgeting practices and transparency with taxpayers. Officials overestimated budgetary appropriations by an annual average of $13 million (13%) and appropriated, on average, $2.8 million of fund balance that was not used. Reserves were not used in accordance with adopted budgets and were overfunded in two reserves by approximately $3.3 million. These practices resulted in real property tax levies that were higher than necessary.

 

---

Track state and local government spending at Open Book New York. Under State Comptroller DiNapoli’s open data initiative, search millions of state and local government financial records, track state contracts, and find commonly requested data.

 

Standing to appeal a New York State school board's decision to abolish positions in the school district to the Commissioner of Education

After the school district's Board of Education voted to abolish a number of positions a resident [Petitioner] in the school district appealed Board's decision abolishing the position, among other things, to the Commissioner of Education, Betty A. Rosa. With respect to the abolishment of the positions at issue, Petition contended that the elimination of the positions was not in the best interests of students or taxpayers.  

Commissioner Rosa held that Petitioner’s claims concerning the abolition of the positions "must be dismissed for lack of standing." explaining an individual may not maintain an appeal pursuant to Education Law §310 unless aggrieved in the sense that he or she has suffered personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal, or property rights. In other words, the Commissioner opined that "[o]nly an individual who is directly affected by an action has standing to commence an appeal therefrom, citing Appeal of Abitbol, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,333 and Appeal of Waechter, 48 id. 261, Decision No. 15,853.

Further, said Dr. Rosa, "Petitioner lacks standing to assert the rights of the employees whose positions were abolished" and merely residing within a school district does not, in and of itself, confer standing to challenge a board of education’s actions concerning its employees.

Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

 

School board's discontinuing probationary employee's services based on the school superintendent's recommendation appealed

In Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, the Court of Appeals ruled that the services of a probationary teacher may be discontinued at any time during the probationary period unless the teacher shows that a board terminated service "for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, in violation of a statutory proscription, or in bad faith."

In this appeal to Commissioner of Education, Commissioner Betty A. Rosa considered the application of Education Law §3031 with respect to the school superintendent's response to a probationary teacher’s [Probationer] request that the superintendent provide written reasons for her or his recommendation to the School Board that her services be discontinued.  In the words of Dr. Rosa, §3031 is “a procedural device to force the superintendent to lay bare the reasons for his [or her] recommendation so that [a] probationer [can] ascertain whether any were constitutionally or statutorily impermissible.”

Citing Rathbone v Board of Educ. of HamiltonCent. School Dist., 47 AD2d 172, [3d Dept 1975], affd 41 NY2d 825, Commissioner Rosa noted that "[t]he superintendent’s reasons must be sufficiently specific so that the teacher can submit “a reasonable and logical reply” thereto. In this instance, said Dr. Rosa, the superintendent recommended Probationer’s termination based on her (1) use of “controversial materials”; (2) “[f]ailure to utilize [the] approved curriculum”; and (3) “promot[ing] misinformation” but failed to provide any dates or specific details. This, opined Commissioner Rosa, deprived the Probationer of her ability to argue that her conduct was protected by the United States or New York Constitutions, explaining "[i]t is well settled that a board of education may not dismiss or refuse to grant tenure to an employee in retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms or statute."*

The Commissioner remanded the matter to the superintendent for further proceedings, noting the procedure for doing so was described by the Appellate Division in Rathbone, [supra] at page 178, where the court instructed Rathbone's superintendent to "resubmit [the] statement of reasons for [the] recommendation of dismissal." Further, said the Rathbone court, "[i]f these reasons are subsequently demonstrated to be unlawful, or if they are not accepted by the Board of Education, [Rathbone] will then be entitled to her benefits from the date of the unlawful dismissal" but if adequate reasons are given "which in the superintendent’s view would have justified [Rathbone's] dismissal ... and the board, after [Rathbone] has had the opportunity to respond, chooses to accept the recommendation, [Rathbone] should not receive back pay or benefits …."

*The Commissioner declined to consider the more specific reasons for Probationer’s discontinuance that the superintendent articulated for the first time after Probationer's appeal to the Commissioner, explaining that time to provide the Probationer with these reasons "was at the local level and permitting the superintendent to proceed in this matter would effectively abrogate the protections of Education Law §3031."

Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

Parol evidence may not be used in challenging a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face

When parties set forth their agreement in a clear, complete document, the writing should be "enforced according to its terms," and "[e]vidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing" said the Court of Appeals in W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157.

The relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between Plaintiff's union [CSEA] and the County provided "[a]ny employee who retires on or after 1/1/08 and who is eligible for retiree health insurance benefits, and who opts out of such retiree health insurance due to other coverage, shall receive a cash payout equivalent to fifty (50%) percent of the value of Individual Coverage for the plan with the most active employee enrollees."

Prior to his retirement the Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 action had opted out of the County's health insurance benefits as he had other coverage and upon his retirement applied for the appropriate "cash payout equivalent".

The County denied Plaintiff's request for the payout equivalent contending that the Plaintiff was not eligible for retiree health insurance benefits because the NYSHIP Manual for Participating Agencies [NYSHIP] "provided that only an employee enrolled in the NYSHIP program or another employer-sponsored health plan at the time of retirement was eligible to continue coverage in retirement." The County argued that because the Plaintiff had opted out of the County's health insurance benefits prior to his retirement, he was not entitled to the payout for opting out of retiree health insurance benefits pursuant to the CBA.

Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and County appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's ruling explaining that "[t]he fundamental, neutral precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties' intent and the best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing". Further, said the court, a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms", citing Kolbe v Tibbetts, 22 NY3d 344 and other decisions.

Plaintiff, said the Appellate Division, had "established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, a copy of the relevant pages of the CBA" and the County failed to raise a triable issue of fact by submitting a copy of materials set out in the NYSHIP manual.

Click HEREto access Appellate Division decision posted on the Internet.