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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Section 3020-a disciplinary charges filed against Liverpool CSD administrator dismissed by arbitrator

Section 3020-a disciplinary charges filed against Liverpool CSD administrator dismissed by arbitrator
Source: Press Release School Administrators Association Of New York State, March 4, 2009

The disciplinary charges filed against Liverpool Director of Computer Education and Services Bonnie Ladd have been dismissed in their entirety prior to a single witness testifying.

Hearing Officer Stuart M. Pohl dismissed the charges because of the school district?s failure to notify Ms. Ladd of its proposed penalties in the even she were found guilty of the charges filed against her.

According to state law and the Commissioner of Education?s regulation, a board of education charging a tenured educator with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 3020-a must, after voting on probable cause relating to the charges, take further action in recommending a penalty against a tenured administrator.* The penalty proposed by the school district must be served on the tenured educator at the time the charges are served to comply with the educator?s constitutional and statutory due process rights to notice.

SAANY said that ?In this case, the Liverpool Board of Education took no action in regard to penalty and Ms. Ladd never received notice of the board?s recommended penalties.? Hearing Officer Pohl provided the district with one last opportunity to offer evidence of its compliance with the law to avoid dismissal based on this jurisdictional defect. The district?s papers failed to refute the fact that the board had not recommended a penalty with or without a hearing and that Ms. Ladd was given no notice of any proposed penalty. According to SAANY:

?After two years, the district has spent over three quarter of a million dollars in trying to discipline Ms. Ladd and another administrator for blowing the whistle on financial improprieties occurring within the school district. The hearing officer?s decision today further illustrates the ineptitude of certain district officials in retaliating against Ms. Ladd and another administrator.?

Ms. Ladd and another administrator have sued the school district alleging ?whistle blower retaliation.? The case is currently pending in the United States District Court of the Northern District of New York according to Arthur Scheuermann, General Counsel for School Administrators Association of New York State who represents Ms. Ladd and the other administrator.

* Education Law Section 3020-a.2, in pertinent part, provides upon the school board?s majority vote to file disciplinary charges against an individual subject to this provision, ?a written statement specifying the charges in detail, the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and outlining the employee's rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused...."

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 09, 2009 (boomark / email).