Petitioners in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education alleged the Board of Education failed to hire a school resource officer [SRO] and seek the removal from the board its president and other, unspecified
board members [Board]. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and denied the application.
Petitioners asserted that the Board engaged in willful misconduct and
neglect of duty by failing to expeditiously hire a second SRO and requested the
Commissioner "remove the board president, and any other board member whose
removal [the Commissioner] deems warranted, from office."
According to an affidavit submitted by the board president, “[b]etween June 16, 2022 and November 2022 …
there were internal discussions as to where the money would come from to fund
[a] second SRO.” On November
16, 2022, 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].”
Following commencement of this
appeal, the board announced that it had secured a grant to fund the second SRO
position and thereafter approved a resolution “to allocate [funds] to cover
the cost of the second [SRO] through [the end of the 2022-2023 school
year].”
The Board contended that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing, as
moot, and for failure to join necessary parties. The Board also contended the
appeal should be dismissed on the merits in that the Board acted in good faith with respect to the employment of a second SRO.
The Commissioner dismissed the appeal as 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."
Further, the Commissioner noted that a Commissioner of Education "may
remove a school officer or member of a board of education 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." The Commissioner then explained
that to be considered willful, "the action of a board member or school
officer must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose."
The Commission opined that the record indicated that "the board did not
immediately hire a second SRO in June 2022 due to the need to identify a
funding stream for the position," and that the board president explained
that “the [Board] determined that it would not be prudent to draw from [its]
[u]nassigned [f]und [b]alance to pay for a contract that was not contemplated
at the time the budget was prepared … the district’s budget is tight and does
not allow for significant unbudgeted expenditures.”
Finding that Petitioners "have not proven that the
board president engaged in any willful violation of the Education Law" the Commissioner held that "their application for his removal must therefore be denied."
Click HERE to access the decision of the
Commissioner in this appeal posted on the Internet.
In addition, the Commissioner of Education
recently issued four decisions addressing actions by Boards of Education
involving residency and homelessness issues.
Click on the text in color set out below to access these decisions posted
on the Internet.
Decision No.
18,290
Decision No.
18,291
Decision No.
18,292
Decision No.
18,293