Board of Education’s decision concerning the discontinuing of the services of the school superintendent sustained by the Commissioner of Education

To contact us Click HERE

Board of Education’s decision concerning the discontinuingof the services of the school superintendent sustained by the Commissioner of EducationDecision of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No.16,352
The contract of employment between the school board andits superintendent included a provision entitled “Termination” wherein itprovided that the employment relationship between the superintendent and theboard could be terminated for any of the following reasons:
1. Disability of the superintendent;
2. Written resignation of the superintendent;
3. Termination upon agreement; or
4. Discharge for cause.
When the board and the superintendent entered into anagreement entitled “Separation Agreement, Release and Waiver” providing for apayment of $89,500 in full satisfaction of the district’s financial obligationsto the superintendent and the superintendent’s agreement to resign from theposition and forfeit all claims against the District, an individual filed an appeal withthe Commissioner of Education challenging the execution of such an agreement.
Essentially the appeal argued that the superintendent shouldbe terminated for cause without compensation, alleging various acts ofmisconduct on the part of the Superintendent. 
In addition, the appeal allegedthat the Board “wilfully neglected its duty and misused district funds byoffering to buy out the superintendent’s employment contract and by failing toinvestigate [the petitioner's] allegations and take corrective action.” The redress requested: theCommissioner should remove members of the Board from their positions and appointa new board to serve until a special election is held and appoint or overseethe process to appoint a new superintendent.
After noting a number of procedural omissions requiringdismissal of certain allegations advanced by the individual, the Commissionerturned to turn to the merits of the remaining claims.
Citing Education Law §§1709(13) and (33), and 1804(1), theCommissioner said that a board of education has broad powers “concerning the superintendence,management, and control of a central school district.” In addition, notedthe Commissioner, “a board of education has the authority to enter into anemployment contract with a superintendent including provisions regardingtermination, citing Education Law §§1711 and 1804[1]. 
Finding that in this instance the Board had entered intoan employment agreement with the Superintendent that contained several options with respect to termination, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal commenting that “I will notsubstitute my judgment for that of a board of education unless it isdemonstrated that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, abused itsdiscretion or failed to comply with applicable law.”
In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has theburden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and theburden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief. 
TheCommissioner decided that “On the record before me, petitioner has failed tomeet her burden,” explaining that “The terms of the contract specificallypermit termination by mutual agreement, and [the Board’s] answer indicates that[the Board] carefully considered the issues, including weighing the costs ofdischarge for cause versus a negotiated agreement.”
Although the Commissioner noted that the petitioner disagreed with the Board’s decisionnot to dismiss the superintendent for cause, the Commissioner said that “shehas submitted no reply to refute the board’s statements that it reviewed itsoptions and determined that a separation agreement was more responsible than aprotracted dismissal for cause” and dismissed the appeal."
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume51/d16352.html