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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education to consider Taylor Law and Open Meetings Law issues

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education to consider Taylor Law and Open Meetings Law issues
Matter of Goldin and the Wappingers Falls CSD, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, 14043

This decision by the Commissioner of Education points out he does not have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute merely because the issue involves a school district. In this Education Law Section 310 appeal filed with the Commissioner, the issues raised concerned the terms of a collective bargaining agreement and the State?s Open Meetings Law.

After noting that Goldin?s appeal had to be dismissed for a number of procedural reasons including her failure to include all necessary parties -- the Board of Education and the Congress -- the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the grounds that he did not have the authority to resolve these issues.

Since 1988 collective bargaining agreements between the Wappingers Central School District and the Wappingers Congress of Teachers provided that the Congress? president, in order to conduct union business, ?will teach three periods per day if he/she is a secondary teacher and will act as a substitute three days per week if he/she is an elementary teacher.?

A 1995 ?side letter? signed by school superintendent John G. Marmillo and Congress president Ronald L. Warman relieved Warman of all of his teaching duties in order to allow him to conduct Congress business. The Congress was to reimburse the district in accordance with an agreed upon formula based on ?60 percent of the substitute pay rate.?

Contending that the ?side letter is an illegal document,? Dione Goldin filed an appeal with the Commissioner pursuant to Section 310 of the Education Law naming school superintendent John G. Marmillo and Congress president Ronald L. Warman as the respondents. She asked the Commissioner of Education to annul the side letter and order the Congress to reimburse the district the ?salary for the period covered under the letter? paid to its president.

This decision demonstrates that including all the ?necessary parties? is critical in prosecuting a Section 310 appeal before the Commissioner. As an example, in an appeal in which parents sought to have a school bus driver dismissed because of alleged ?abusive conduct? towards students after the district declined to do so, the Commissioner said that ?the parents? failure to name the driver as a respondent required that he dismiss their appeal? [Appeal of Lippman (Holland Central School District), Decision 14041]. The decision points out that ?a party whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of the petitioner is a necessary party and must be joined as such.?

The Commissioner pointed out that ?to the extent that [Goldin] seeks an order directing the Wappingers Congress of Teachers to reimburse the school district, union organizations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education under Education Law Section 310.?

Goldin also complained that the Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Law. The Commissioner said that alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law must be pursued in State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, rather than a Section 310 appeal.
NYPPL

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