Governor Cuomo to propose school superintendent salary cap
Source: Office of the Governor
On February 28, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he will submit a program bill to cap the salaries of school superintendents across the state. The cap would be based upon student enrollment and if approved would save a combined $15 million.
The cap would impose salary limits as follows:
if 250 or fewer pupils, $125,000
if 251 to 750 pupils, $135,000
if 751 to 1,500 pupils, $145,000
if 1,501 to 3,000 pupils, $155,000
if 3,001to 6,500 pupils, $165,000
if 6,501 or more pupils, $175,000
The cap will apply only to school superintendents and will be applied prospectively as contracts expire. Local communities will have the ability to vote on overriding the salary cap, limited only to specific contracts. These votes will be held during normal school budget votes.
According to the Governor’s Office, currently, 223, or 33 percent of school district superintendents earn more than $175,000.
There is already a salary cap in place for BOCES district superintendents. The BOCES cap sets a single flat salary level ($166,572).
The Governor's press release is posted on the Internet at:
http://governor.ny.gov/press/salarycap
.
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
March 01, 2011
Denial of tenure – election of an alternate procedure challenging the board's decision
Denial of tenure – election of an alternate procedure challenging the board's decision
Spadone and Lackawanna CSD, Decision of the Comm. of Education, 14,337
The Commissioner of Education dismissed the appeal filed by Anne G. Spadone challenging the Lackawanna City School Board’s action denying her tenure. Spadone had also filed a contract grievance and an Article 78 protesting the board’s failure to grant her tenure.
Spadone had been appointed as a business teacher subject to a two-year probationary period.* The superintendent recommended that the school board grant Spadone tenure at the end of her probationary period.
The resolution to grant Spadone tenure was considered by the school board. The vote: three votes for tenure, two votes against tenure, one abstention. One board member was absent from the meeting. Accordingly, a majority of the board had not approved the resolution.**
The superintendent wrote a letter to Spadone advising her of the board’s action but noted that vote was advisory within the meaning of Section 3031(b) of the Education Law and that the board would take final action at its July 22 meeting. Spadone, however, fared no better at the July meeting: three board members voted to grant her tenure; three voted to deny her tenure; one board member abstained.
Spadone contended that the votes of at least four board members are necessary to take any action and that [the board] could not ‘override’ the superintendent’s recommendation with fewer than four votes. The board, on the other hand, claimed that an affirmative vote of the majority of the board was necessary to grant tenure.
Spadone also argued that (1) she had attained tenure by estoppel and (2) board failed to meet the deadlines set out in Section 3031 of the Education Law. The board contended Spadone had not been continued in service beyond her probationary period and thus did not attain tenure by estoppel. As to it satisfying the time requirements of Section 3031, the board claimed any such failure on its part was harmless error.
The Commissioner first addressed the technical issue of his jurisdiction to consider Spadone’s appeal. He concluded that he did not have jurisdiction because Spadone had commenced a grievance challenging her being denied tenure. Spadone, said the Commissioner, had elected her remedy and it would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice to have multiple tribunals making determinations concerning the same controversy.
Having said this, the Commissioner commented that even if Spadone’s appeal were not dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it would have been dismissed on the merits. Why? Because, the Commissioner explained, a board of education has broad discretion in granting or denying tenure and need not accept the recommendation of the superintendent to grant tenure.
Section 2509(2)’s clear language states that a majority vote of a school board for tenure is required to grant a probationary teacher tenure. The Commissioner said that Spadone had not advanced any compelling argument that supported her theory that a majority voting against tenure was required to deny her tenure in the district.
The Commissioner agreed with the board that considering the relevant facts in this case, its failure to fully comply with the 30-day notice requirements set out in Section 3031 was harmless error and, in any event, reinstatement is not the proper remedy for a violation of Section 3031.
* As Spadone had held tenure as a teacher prior to her appointment by Lackawanna, she was given two-year rather than a three-year probationary period in accordance with Section 2509(1) of the Education Law.
** As New York State School Board General Counsel, Jay Worona, observed, “Under New York State law, a quorum is a simple majority of [more than half] the total number of board members, not merely those present. Mr. Worona provides the following example: “If a board has five members and three are present at a meeting, all three would have to vote in favor of a resolution for it to pass, a 2 to 1 vote would not be sufficient.”
.
Spadone and Lackawanna CSD, Decision of the Comm. of Education, 14,337
The Commissioner of Education dismissed the appeal filed by Anne G. Spadone challenging the Lackawanna City School Board’s action denying her tenure. Spadone had also filed a contract grievance and an Article 78 protesting the board’s failure to grant her tenure.
Spadone had been appointed as a business teacher subject to a two-year probationary period.* The superintendent recommended that the school board grant Spadone tenure at the end of her probationary period.
The resolution to grant Spadone tenure was considered by the school board. The vote: three votes for tenure, two votes against tenure, one abstention. One board member was absent from the meeting. Accordingly, a majority of the board had not approved the resolution.**
The superintendent wrote a letter to Spadone advising her of the board’s action but noted that vote was advisory within the meaning of Section 3031(b) of the Education Law and that the board would take final action at its July 22 meeting. Spadone, however, fared no better at the July meeting: three board members voted to grant her tenure; three voted to deny her tenure; one board member abstained.
Spadone contended that the votes of at least four board members are necessary to take any action and that [the board] could not ‘override’ the superintendent’s recommendation with fewer than four votes. The board, on the other hand, claimed that an affirmative vote of the majority of the board was necessary to grant tenure.
Spadone also argued that (1) she had attained tenure by estoppel and (2) board failed to meet the deadlines set out in Section 3031 of the Education Law. The board contended Spadone had not been continued in service beyond her probationary period and thus did not attain tenure by estoppel. As to it satisfying the time requirements of Section 3031, the board claimed any such failure on its part was harmless error.
The Commissioner first addressed the technical issue of his jurisdiction to consider Spadone’s appeal. He concluded that he did not have jurisdiction because Spadone had commenced a grievance challenging her being denied tenure. Spadone, said the Commissioner, had elected her remedy and it would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice to have multiple tribunals making determinations concerning the same controversy.
Having said this, the Commissioner commented that even if Spadone’s appeal were not dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it would have been dismissed on the merits. Why? Because, the Commissioner explained, a board of education has broad discretion in granting or denying tenure and need not accept the recommendation of the superintendent to grant tenure.
Section 2509(2)’s clear language states that a majority vote of a school board for tenure is required to grant a probationary teacher tenure. The Commissioner said that Spadone had not advanced any compelling argument that supported her theory that a majority voting against tenure was required to deny her tenure in the district.
The Commissioner agreed with the board that considering the relevant facts in this case, its failure to fully comply with the 30-day notice requirements set out in Section 3031 was harmless error and, in any event, reinstatement is not the proper remedy for a violation of Section 3031.
* As Spadone had held tenure as a teacher prior to her appointment by Lackawanna, she was given two-year rather than a three-year probationary period in accordance with Section 2509(1) of the Education Law.
** As New York State School Board General Counsel, Jay Worona, observed, “Under New York State law, a quorum is a simple majority of [more than half] the total number of board members, not merely those present. Mr. Worona provides the following example: “If a board has five members and three are present at a meeting, all three would have to vote in favor of a resolution for it to pass, a 2 to 1 vote would not be sufficient.”
.
Compelling reason for absence does not excuse misconduct
Compelling reason for absence does not excuse misconduct
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.
Matter of Rivers v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D3d___(3d Dept. Oct. 7, 2010), is a tough unemployment decision. The law is settled that an employee who is terminated for misconduct is not eligible for unemployment. The law is also settled that being absent without leave is misconduct. What if it was for one day to visit your son who just returned from Iraq? That is still misconduct. As the court stated:
An unauthorized absence from work has been held to constitute misconduct, which can disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Roe [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2009]; Matter of Britter [Commissioner of [*2]Labor], 54 AD3d 461 [2008]). Inasmuch as claimant admitted that he had requested leave and been denied, however compelling his reason for the request, we are constrained to find that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Roe [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d at 1106).
Mitchell H. Rubinstein
.
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.
Matter of Rivers v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D3d___(3d Dept. Oct. 7, 2010), is a tough unemployment decision. The law is settled that an employee who is terminated for misconduct is not eligible for unemployment. The law is also settled that being absent without leave is misconduct. What if it was for one day to visit your son who just returned from Iraq? That is still misconduct. As the court stated:
An unauthorized absence from work has been held to constitute misconduct, which can disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Roe [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2009]; Matter of Britter [Commissioner of [*2]Labor], 54 AD3d 461 [2008]). Inasmuch as claimant admitted that he had requested leave and been denied, however compelling his reason for the request, we are constrained to find that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Roe [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d at 1106).
Mitchell H. Rubinstein
.
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.