Appeal of GLEN COVE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GLEN COVE HIGH SCHOOL PARENT-TEACHER-STUDENT ASSOCIATION, ROBERT M. FINLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATION, K.A. DEASY SCHOOL PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATION, and the LANDING SCHOOL PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATION from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Glen Cove, regarding shared decision making.

 

 

(January 16, 2004)

 

Jaspan, Schlesinger & Hoffman, LLP, attorneys for respondent, D. James Gounelas, Esq., of counsel

 

MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the adoption of a revised shared decision making plan by the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Glen Cove ("respondent").  The appeal must be dismissed.

On March 24, 2003, respondent adopted a revised shared decision making plan.  Petitioners allege that the adoption violates "100.11 of the Commissioner"s regulations because the revisions were not discussed at a meeting of the shared decision making committee and were otherwise made without participation of teachers and parents.  Specifically, petitioners allege that respondent removed from the revised plan provisions regarding the hiring process without permitting the committee to meet and discuss this amendment in accordance with "100.11(f).

Respondent denies that it violated "100.11 or acted improperly.  Respondent also contends that the appeal must be dismissed as untimely and moot.

An appeal alleging that a district plan was modified without consultation and full participation of all required parties must be brought within 30 days of final adoption of the plan (8 NYCRR "100.11[e]; see Appeal of Leet, 42 Ed Dept Rep __, Decision No. 14,844), provided that the Commissioner may excuse an untimely appeal for good cause shown (8 NYCRR "275.16; Appeal of Lawrence Teachers' Association, 39 Ed Dept Rep 119, Decision No. 14,190).

     Petitioners commenced this appeal on July 8, 2003, more than 30 days after respondent's adoption of its revised district plan on March 24, 2003.  Petitioners request that their late appeal be excused "due to the large memberships of both associations and procedures required by our by-laws" and because the associations "needed additional time to get approval from their membership on submission of this appeal."  Petitioners commenced this appeal well over three months after respondent's adoption of the revised district plan.  In the absence of any specific facts to establish that the appeal could not have been commenced within the prescribed time period, I do not find petitioners' general statements sufficient to excuse the untimeliness of this appeal (Appeal of Lawrence Teachers' Association, supra).

     Since the appeal is dismissed as untimely, I need not address the parties' remaining contentions.

 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE

---