Labor & Employment Law

Removing members of a school board from office

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Removing members of a school board from office
Matter of Scott A. Stepien and Edward Lilly and Board of Education of the Lewiston-Porter Central School, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 15,732

Alleging that School Board member Stepien and Lilly failed to comply with the mandates of Education Law §2102-a requiring that a board member elected or appointed for a term beginning on or after July 1, 2005, ?within the first year of his or her term, complete a minimum of six hours of training on the financial oversight, accountability, and fiduciary responsibilities of a school board member,? other school board members initiated administrative action to remove them from their positions. Following an administrative hearing conducted by a hearing officer pursuant to Education Law §1709(18),* the board voted to remove Lilly and Stepien from the board by a vote of 4-2. Lilly and Stepien appealed this determination to the Commissioner of Education, seeking an order reinstating them to their former positions.

In this comprehensive opinion, [for the full text go to: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume47/d15732.htm ] the Commissioner of Education analyses the procedural steps involved and the ?due process? implications in such an action, as well as addressing a number of technical elements to be considered in resolving this appeal.

Ultimately the Commissioner ruled that Stepien and Lilly were to be reinstated to their positions as members of the Board of Education of the Lewiston-Porter Central School District and that their appointed replacements, Bonnie Gifford and Robert Weller, were to be removed from the board, such action to take ?effective immediately.?

On another point, the Commissioner, noting that these appeals did not involve a request to remove the school attorney from his position, observed that had such been the case a school attorney is not an officer of the district and is therefore not subject to removal from office by the Commissioner of Education, citing Application of Rojek and Spadone, 24 Ed Dept Rep 434, Decision No. 11,453 and Application of Sterling, 23 Ed Dept. Rep. 294, Decision No. 11,223)

* The Commissioner commented that ?While that statute does not specifically authorize the use of a hearing officer, neither does it specifically prohibit the use of a hearing officer.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 14, 2008 (boomark / email).