Continuing Legal Education courses offered pro bono by Tully Rinckey, PLLC
Source: Announcement from Tully Rinckey
Tully Rinckey, a law firm headquartered in Albany, New York, is offering a number of continuing legal education [CLE] courses that can be used to satisfy the minimum annual CLE requirements for newly admitted attorneys without any cost to the participants.
The first in the series of the monthly CLE courses being offered, Domestic Violence, will be held on September 21, 2010 in the Tully Rinckey Conference Room, 441 New Karner Road, Albany, NY. This one-hour course will be presented by Jennifer Corcoran, Esq. and starts at 6:00 p.m. Participants will earn one [1] CLE credit in the area of professional practice.
To register for the course, and for information about the other CLE courses to be offered, call Tully Rinckey [518-640-1258] or e-mail the firm at CLE@tullylegal.com.
.
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL
September 14, 2010
Early termination of a school superintendent's contract permitted
Early termination of a school superintendent's contract permitted
Peebles and Forestville CSD, Comm of Ed Decision 13845
A school board's approval of the early termination of its school superintendent's contract resulted in a board member filing a complaint concerning its action with the Commissioner of Education.
Forestville Central School District Superintendent J. Richard Rodriguez was under contract with the District through June 30, 1997. The contract allowed Rodriguez to resign prior to that date by giving the Board of Education at least 90 days written notice. The contract also permitted the Board and the Superintendent to terminate the Superintendent's employment at any time on such terms as they mutually agree upon in writing.
On June 5, 1996 Rodriguez learned that he had been appointed as superintendent by another district effective August 5, 1996. Rodriguez and Tina Duliba, the then Board President, discussed the District's waiving the 90-day notice requirement in exchange for Rodriguez's returning 31 unused vacation days and a pro-rata portion of a $10,000 performance award due him.
During an executive session held by the Board on June 19, 1996, the waiver plan was discussed and Rodriguez submitted his resignation. At its regular meeting on the same day Board member Richard L. Peebles introduced a motion to accept Rodriguez's resignation effective August 4, 1996. His motion was adopted by a unanimous vote.
On August 26, 1996 Peebles filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education challenging the Board's waiver allowing the early termination of Rodriguez's contract. Peebles contended that Duliba permitted Rodriguez to violate his employment contract by allowing him to leave 45 days early. He also charged that Rodriguez's salary had been miscalculated, resulting in a $12,500 loss to the District. Peebles asked the Commissioner to remove Duliba from the Board and to order Rodriguez to reimburse the District $12,500.
On September 4, 1996 the Board adopted a resolution ratifying its June 19 executive session agreement with Rodriguez, including his surrendering vacation days and part of his performance pay in exchange for its waiving the 90-day notice requirement.
The Board responded to Peebles' claims by arguing that it and Rodriguez had mutually agreed upon the terms of his release from the contract at the June 19 executive session and any failure to record the terms of the agreement were [sic] cured when the Board ratified the agreement with a formal resolution on September 4, 1996.
The Commissioner dismissed Peebles' appeal, finding:
1. Peebles failed to satisfy his burden of establishing the facts upon which he sought relief.
2. Evidence submitted by the Board indicated that the entire Board discussed and approved the early release date and accepted Rodriguez's offer to exchange vacation days and a pro-rata portion of his performance bonus for its approving his early release from the contract.
3. Although the business office had originally miscalculated Rodriguez's salary, the error was eventually corrected and it does not appear that the District overpaid Rodriguez .
In addition, the Commissioner said that there is simply no basis for the removal of ... Duliba since there is no evidence of a willful violation or neglect of duty under [Section 306.1 of the Education] law.
Probably this situation would have been avoided had the District memorialized the decision or agreements reached by the parties during the Board's executive session at the Board's regular meeting later that day.
.
Peebles and Forestville CSD, Comm of Ed Decision 13845
A school board's approval of the early termination of its school superintendent's contract resulted in a board member filing a complaint concerning its action with the Commissioner of Education.
Forestville Central School District Superintendent J. Richard Rodriguez was under contract with the District through June 30, 1997. The contract allowed Rodriguez to resign prior to that date by giving the Board of Education at least 90 days written notice. The contract also permitted the Board and the Superintendent to terminate the Superintendent's employment at any time on such terms as they mutually agree upon in writing.
On June 5, 1996 Rodriguez learned that he had been appointed as superintendent by another district effective August 5, 1996. Rodriguez and Tina Duliba, the then Board President, discussed the District's waiving the 90-day notice requirement in exchange for Rodriguez's returning 31 unused vacation days and a pro-rata portion of a $10,000 performance award due him.
During an executive session held by the Board on June 19, 1996, the waiver plan was discussed and Rodriguez submitted his resignation. At its regular meeting on the same day Board member Richard L. Peebles introduced a motion to accept Rodriguez's resignation effective August 4, 1996. His motion was adopted by a unanimous vote.
On August 26, 1996 Peebles filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education challenging the Board's waiver allowing the early termination of Rodriguez's contract. Peebles contended that Duliba permitted Rodriguez to violate his employment contract by allowing him to leave 45 days early. He also charged that Rodriguez's salary had been miscalculated, resulting in a $12,500 loss to the District. Peebles asked the Commissioner to remove Duliba from the Board and to order Rodriguez to reimburse the District $12,500.
On September 4, 1996 the Board adopted a resolution ratifying its June 19 executive session agreement with Rodriguez, including his surrendering vacation days and part of his performance pay in exchange for its waiving the 90-day notice requirement.
The Board responded to Peebles' claims by arguing that it and Rodriguez had mutually agreed upon the terms of his release from the contract at the June 19 executive session and any failure to record the terms of the agreement were [sic] cured when the Board ratified the agreement with a formal resolution on September 4, 1996.
The Commissioner dismissed Peebles' appeal, finding:
1. Peebles failed to satisfy his burden of establishing the facts upon which he sought relief.
2. Evidence submitted by the Board indicated that the entire Board discussed and approved the early release date and accepted Rodriguez's offer to exchange vacation days and a pro-rata portion of his performance bonus for its approving his early release from the contract.
3. Although the business office had originally miscalculated Rodriguez's salary, the error was eventually corrected and it does not appear that the District overpaid Rodriguez .
In addition, the Commissioner said that there is simply no basis for the removal of ... Duliba since there is no evidence of a willful violation or neglect of duty under [Section 306.1 of the Education] law.
Probably this situation would have been avoided had the District memorialized the decision or agreements reached by the parties during the Board's executive session at the Board's regular meeting later that day.
.
Financial Disclosure by Federal Officers
Financial Disclosure by Federal Officers
Formal Opinion of the Attorney General 98-F1
The Attorney General concludes that federal officials serving as members or directors of State public benefit corporation to monitor federal funds cannot be required to comply with New York's financial disclosure requirements [Section 73-a, Public Officers Law].
The opinion indicates that a state cannot impose qualifications on federal officials in addition to those the federal government had deemed sufficient where the federal officials are serving with the corporation as officials of the federal government rather than in their personal capacities.
.
Formal Opinion of the Attorney General 98-F1
The Attorney General concludes that federal officials serving as members or directors of State public benefit corporation to monitor federal funds cannot be required to comply with New York's financial disclosure requirements [Section 73-a, Public Officers Law].
The opinion indicates that a state cannot impose qualifications on federal officials in addition to those the federal government had deemed sufficient where the federal officials are serving with the corporation as officials of the federal government rather than in their personal capacities.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press.
Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.