SOBOL, Commissioner.—Petitioner appeals the appointment of a Records Management Officer by the Board of Education of the Crown Point Central School District ("respondent"). Petitioner requests that I reprimand respondent, annul the appointment, and direct respondent to appoint her to the position. The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner is a resident of Mineville, New York, and was previously employed by respondent as Business Manager and Treasurer. In April 1991, respondent advertised in local newspapers for applicants for the position of Records Management Officer. Petitioner was one of ten candidates considered. By letter dated August 22, 1991, the interim superintendent of schools advised petitioner that the board had appointed another candidate to serve as Records Management Officer. Petitioner commenced this appeal by serving a notice of petition on the interim superintendent on September 18, 1991.

Petitioner contends that respondent erred in appointing someone else to the position of Records Management Officer because petitioner is better qualified for the position by virtue of her past employment with the district. Petitioner further argues that her attendance at a course conducted by the Local Government Records Bureau of the New York State Archives and Records Administration of the State Education Department is additional evidence that she is better qualified than the individual chosen by respondent.

Respondent alleges that the position of Records Management Officer is currently limited to duties amounting to one hour of work a day and that the compensation for that service is $6.00 per hour. Respondent further alleges that the individual who was appointed to serve as Records Management Officer previously served in the district as a teacher's aide and is currently working as a teaching assistant. Respondent argues that its choice makes sense because the limited scope of the job and the minimal salary available made it more practical to hire someone already employed by the district. Respondent further argues that neither "57.19 of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law nor Part 185 of the Commissioner's Regulations establish specific qualifications for the person serving as the Records Management Officer. Respondent therefore contends that its choice of an individual to serve in that position must be upheld unless it can be shown that the appointment is improper due to a violation of a specific law relating to the appointment.

While the petition contains information to support petitioner's contention that she is qualified to serve in the position of Records Management Officer, petitioner has failed to show that respondent's appointment of another individual to serve in that position violates any statute, or is otherwise improper (Appeal of Singh, 30 Ed Dept Rep 284). I, therefore, must find that the petition fails to state a claim as to which relief may be granted, and the appeal will be dismissed (Appeal of Dixon, 31 id. 175).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE

---