Reassignment of school principals challenged by students,resident taxpayers and employees of the school districtDecisions of theCommissioner of Education, Decision 16,431
In these appeals to the Commissioner of Education the petitioners challenged the school board'sreassignment of school principals. As two separated appeals concerning the same issue werefiled by different petitioners, the Commissioner consolidated them because they“present similar issues of fact and law.”
The petitioners in Appeal I alleged that board members actednegligently, with a wrongful purpose and not in the best interest of students,taxpayers and school staff and asked the Commissioner to overturn the board’sdecision and remove certain named board members.
The petitioners in Appeal II asked the Commissioner to orderan “immediate mediation” of the parties’ dispute in order to ensure that theboard’s action “was done properly.”
The school district asked the Commissioner to dismiss bothappeals contending that
[1] The resolution passed following all due processrequirements, in accordance with board policies and pursuant to the board’spowers under the Education Law;
[2] The board was not required to provide a rationale forthe board’s decision
[3] the transfers were not made for a wrongful purpose or inwillful violation or neglect of duty. And
[4] The transfers were in the best interest of the district.
The Commissioner first addressed a number of proceduralissues that should be noted:
1. In Appeal II the petitioners submitted four newspaperarticles to support their position. The Commissioner noted that “It is wellsettled that newspaper articles do not constitute evidence of the truth of thestatements contained therein” and that he did not consider them “for theveracity of their content.”
2. Petitioners in both Appeal I and Appeal II seek classcertification but both appeals failed to satisfy the requirements. TheCommissioner explained that while petitioners, as district residents andtaxpayers, have standing to maintain the appeals and application, to the extentthey seek class certification, they have failed to meet the requirements as anappeal may only be maintained on behalf of a class where the class is sonumerous that joinder of all members is impracticable and where all questionsof fact and law are common to all members of the class. A petitioner seekingclass certification must set forth the number of individuals he or she seeks torepresent and must show that all questions of law and fact would be common toall members of the class. In this instance, said the Commissioner, the“pleadings are entirely devoid of any allegations addressing these criteria”and class status was denied.
3. Another critical procedural requirement regarding Appeal Iwas noted by the Commissioner – joining necessary parties. A party whose rightswould be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of apetitioner is a necessary party and must be joined. However in Appeal I twoindividual’s who would be affected if petitioners prevail on the appeal arenecessary parties and petitioners’ failure to join them requires dismissal ofAppeal I.
As to Appeal II, the Commissioner stated that it sought anorder commanding “immediate mediation” between the board and the community –conducted by a designee from the State Education Department – to ensure thatthe board’s action here challenged was “done properly” in accordance with statelaw, applicable district policies and “the best interest of” the district’sstudents.”
The Commissioner pointed out that an appeal to theCommissioner is appellate in nature and does not provide for investigations.Although petitioners do not explicitly request an investigation, said the Commissioner,their request for a mediation process to determine the propriety of the board’saction in light of their complaints is, in essence, a request for aninvestigation – relief that is not available in the context of an appeal under §310of the Education Law.
The final issue addressed by the Commissioner: theapplication of the petitioners in Appeal I for the removal of school officials.
The Commissioner said that although a member of the board ofeducation or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to EducationLaw §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that theboard member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect ofduty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, ruleor regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education thepetitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the reliefrequested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeksrelief.
Based on the record before the Commissioner, theCommissioner ruled that the petitioners in Appeal I have failed to establishthat the actions of the individual respondents in voting to transfer the twoprincipals warrant their removal. Further, said the Commissioner, the allegedviolations, even if proven, would not, on the record before him, “rise to thelevel of willful violation of law and neglect of duty that would constitutesufficient grounds for the removal of the individual respondents.”
The bottom line: The Commissioner decided that on the recordbefore him, petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating thatrespondents engaged in any willful or intentional misconduct warranting theirremoval from office and dismissed the appeals and the application for theremoval of certain school officials.In light of this disposition, I need not consider theparties’ remaining contentions.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume52/d16431.html
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder