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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Appeal challenging increasing the school superintendent?s compensation dismissed ?for failure to name a necessary party? ? the Superintendent

Appeal challenging increasing the school superintendent?s compensation dismissed ?for failure to name a necessary party? ? the Superintendent
Appeal of George R. Hubbard v Board of Education of the Greece Central School District, Decisions of the Commissioner, Decision No. 16,027

At a special board meeting on September 29, 2008, the Greece Central School Board adopted an Amendment to the superintendent?s Employment Agreement providing for increase in the superintendent?s salary to $209,399 for the 2008-2009 school year, reflecting a 3% increase in the superintendent?s compensation.

In addition, the Agreement was amended to provide that the district?s contribution to the superintendent?s health insurance premium would be 80% of the premium, a decrease from 90% and the superintendent would be responsible for the payment of the resulting10% increase in his share of his contribution for his insurance premium.

George R. Hubbard, alleging that in approving the Amendment the Board ?failed to follow Board Policy #6431 ? and failed to comply with commitments it made in response to an Audit Report issued by the Office of the New York State Comptroller.?

Hubbard asked the Commissioner to direct the Board ?to comply with the Policy and Audit and to properly adopt an amendment to the superintendent?s employment agreement.?

The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on technical grounds: the superintendent, a necessary party because his employment status and benefits could be affected, was neither named in the caption nor personally served with a copy of the notice of petition or petition. Simply stated, any party that would be affected by the Commissioner?s decision is required to be named as a necessary party in such an appeal.

However, the Commissioner elected to address the merits of Hubbard?s appeal notwithstanding this fatal defect, indicating that the policy requires the district to prepare, to the extent feasible, estimated annual costs for each portion of any new employment contract or addendum; to attach such estimates to the contract or addendum; and to make the estimated costs available to the public 10 days prior to any board discussion, if possible.

The Commissioner said that the record indicated that that documentation of the estimated costs was not attached to the Amendment nor was the actual cost of the health insurance premium, while calculable, provided. Nonetheless, said the Commissioner, ?I find that [district] substantially complied with the Policy in that the essential cost aspects of the Amendment were provided and, most important, the Amendment was discussed, approved and reported in open session.

Addressing the Audit, which focused mainly on a capital improvement project that began in 2000, Medicaid reimbursements for eligible special education students, and internal controls over information technology and personal services payments, the district agreed to present all individual employment agreements to the board of education, seek board approval of any changes that had a financial impact and reflect those changes in the minutes of the board.

The Commissioner found that the District had complied with the Audit recommendation, noting that the Amendment was presented to the board, board approval was sought, and obtained, and the vote of the Board with respect to the amendment was conducted in open session.

Accordingly, the Commissioner concluded that the district ?met its commitment to take corrective action regarding employment agreements as stated in the Audit.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 24, 2010 (boomark / email).