Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Procedural matters to satisfy when filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education

Procedural matters to satisfy when filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education
Appeal of Carl Stieffenhofer from actions of Donna Pieszala, President of the Board of Education of the Newfane Central School District, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education No. 15,846

The Commissioner of Education summarized the events leading up to this appeal as follows:

On March 4, 2008, the Newfane School Board discussed nominations to a position on the Orleans-Niagara Board of Cooperative Educational Services (?BOCES?). Stieffenhofer alleges that he made a motion to nominate Anthony LaRose to the BOCES position but that his nomination did not get considered.

Stieffenhofer then alleges that there was "immediate chaos" after his nomination and that ultimately Pieszala removed herself from presiding over the meeting to make a motion from the floor to nominate board vice-president, Gretchen DeWitt, to the position. Stieffenhofer also alleges that Pieszala acted improperly by leaving her position as chairperson of the board to make a motion from the floor. The board minutes indicate that Pieazala?s motion failed "pending further information."

On March 11, 2008, the board met in executive session and discussed nominations for the BOCES position. Stieffenhofer alleges that he nominated LaRose and someone else nominated DeWitt, and that the board members were requested to cast a paper vote. After the votes were counted, it was decided that DeWitt would be the "consensus" candidate that the board would present to the public for nomination. After the executive session, a formal nomination of DeWitt was made and unanimously approved by the board at its public meeting.

The relief sought by Stieffenhofer: the Commissioner order that the Board conduct a new election for the position.

In ruling on Stieffenhofer?s appeal, the Commissioner first noted that his reply contained allegations not originally contained in his petition. The Commissioner said that the purpose of a reply is to respond to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in an answer ? it is not used to buttress allegations in the petition or to belatedly add assertions that should have been in the petition. Accordingly, the Commissioner said that although he had reviewed the reply, he did not consider those portions containing new allegations that are not responsive to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in Stieffenhofer?s answer.

Although the Commissioner dismissed Stieffenhofer?s appeal as untimely, he addressed a number of relevant procedural matters that are instructive. The Commissioner pointed out that:

1. A petition must contain ?a clear and concise statement of the petitioner?s claim showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, and shall further contain a demand for the relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled ? which statement must be sufficiently clear to advise a respondent of the nature of petitioner?s claim and of the specific act or acts complained of.?

2. Where the complaint relates to allegedly "illegal" actions taken while the Board was in ?executive session,? such matters fall ?squarely within the ambit of the Open Meetings Law [and] Public Officers Law §107 vests exclusive jurisdiction over complaints alleging violations of the Open Meetings Law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and alleged violations thereof may not be adjudicated in an appeal to the Commissioner.?

3. The failure to join as a necessary party is fatal to the petition as a party whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of a petitioner is a necessary party and must be joined as such, named as a respondent in the caption and served with a copy of the notice of petition and petition to inform the individual that he or she should respond to the petition and enter a defense.

Although the Commissioner dismissed the appeal, he did address a motion by Pieszala that he issue her a certificate of good faith pursuant to Education Law §3811(1) thereby authorizing the board to indemnify her for legal fees and expenses incurred in defending this proceeding which arose out of the exercise of her powers or performance of duties as a board member.

The Commissioner ruled that it was appropriate to issue such certification as there was nothing in the record to indicate that Piezala acted in bad faith.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume48/d15846.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 24, 2008 (boomark / email).