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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

The State Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal involving the non-renewal of the charter of a Charter School

The State Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal involving the non-renewal of the charter of a Charter School
Appeal of Ross Global Academy Charter School regarding the nonrenewal of its charter. Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,194

The New York City Chancellor of Education, as a charter entity pursuant to Education Law §2851(3)(a), entered into a proposed charter agreement with Ross Global Academy Charter School [RGACS] for the operation of a charter school for five years. The proposed charter agreement was submitted to the New York State Board of Regents, which approved and issued it in January 2006.

In 2010, RGACS submitted an application to the Chancellor for the renewal of its charter for an additional five years, but was advised by the Chancellor?s staff in December 2010 that its charter would not be renewed by the Chancellor beyond the end of the 2010-2011 school year.

RGACS appealed, contending that the Chancellor and his staff [1] failed to follow appropriate policies and procedures in making the nonrenewal decision; [2] that it was treated differently than other allegedly ?similarly situated? charter school; and [3] that its charter should be renewed.

The Commissioner dismissed RGACS? appeal ?for lack of jurisdiction.? The Commissioner said that Education Law §2852(6) provides that, ?[n]otwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,? the denial of an application for a charter school by a charter entity ?is final and shall not be reviewable in any court or by any administrative body.?

The Commissioner explained that as the appeal submitted by RGACS is an administrative proceeding that challenges the denial of an application for a charter school, he lacks jurisdiction to consider it ?Because the legislature has proscribed administrative review?.?

The Commissioner rejected RGACS? argument that Education Law §2852(6) is not applicable because it applies only to the denial of an initial charter application and not, as here, to an application for the renewal of an existing charter school, noting that ?Education Law §2851(4) provides, in pertinent part, that ?[c]harters may be renewed, upon application, for a term of up to five years in accordance with the provisions of this article for the issuance of such charters pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred fifty-two of this article?

As to RGACS? claim that the Regents was the ultimate authority with respect to ruling on its application for renewal, the Commissioner said that ?it is the charter entity (in this case, the Chancellor) that has the ultimate authority to deny an application for a charter school?s renewal.?* The Commissioner said that the Board of Regents "does not have the ability" to reject or veto a ?recommendation? of another charter entity or modify a proposed charter submitted by such entity, citing Bd. of Educ. of the Roosevelt UFSD., et al. v. Bd. of Trustees of the State University of New York, et al., 282 AD2d 166).

* The Commissioner noted that although the Chancellor?s staff prepared a report and submitted it to the Board of Regents in this matter with a ?recommendation? that RGACS? charter not be renewed beyond the 2010-2011 school year, this submission was not required by law and is without consequence to the chartering process.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16194.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 01, 2011 (boomark / email).