Appeal of MEGAN BRENNER and TARA BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of their children, from action of the Board of Education of the Onteora Central School District regarding a district meeting and school closure.

Decision No. 18,501

(September 25, 2024)

Sarah M. Engster, Esq., attorney for petitioners

Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow & Mayle, LLP, attorneys for respondent, David H. Strong, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners challenge action by the Board of Education of the Onteora Central School District (“respondent” or “board”) in connection with a district meeting and a school closure.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Since 2019, respondent’s declining enrollment and the need to reorganize its elementary schools have been the subject of extensive debate and discussion.  Respondent commissioned a building reorganization and grade configuration survey (“reconfiguration survey”) during the 2018-2019 school year, which was completed in December 2019.  The reconfiguration survey projected declining enrollment that would necessitate a change in respondent’s grade level configuration.  Respondent discussed the reconfiguration survey at a board meeting in January 2020.

On October 25, 2022, respondent adopted a goal for the 2022-2023 school year related to its “long-term, district-wide plan” that contemplated “at least one public meeting” in which it would review the reconfiguration survey. 

On December 6, 2022 respondent formed a committee to support its long-term planning goals.  This committee met nine times between December 2022 and May 2023, typically reporting to the board thereafter.  

At three separate board meetings in March and April 2023, members of the public, including petitioner Brenner, spoke regarding grade reconfiguration during public comment sessions.  Additionally, between January and March 2023, respondent held three “World Café-style events” to engage the school community on topics including a reconfiguration plan to adapt to declining enrollment.[1]

On April 28, 2023, respondent posted the agenda for its May 2, 2023 meeting on its website.  Sometime before noon on May 2, 2023, respondent updated the agenda to include resolution 13.08.  As relevant here, that resolution directed the closure of Phoenicia Elementary School (“Phoenicia”) by the end of the 2023-2024 school year.  Members of the public, including petitioner Brenner, spoke during the May 2, 2023, meeting.  Respondent approved resolution 13.08 and this appeal ensued.  Petitioners’ request for interim relief was denied on June 8, 2023. 

Petitioners contend that respondent’s addition of resolution 13.08 on the day of the May 2, 2023 board meeting violated section 1511 of its by-laws.  For relief, petitioners seek annulment of resolution 13.08.

Respondent maintains that petitioners lack standing and deny that petitioners are entitled to any relief.

Initially, I decline to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.  An individual may not maintain an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 unless aggrieved in the sense that he or she has suffered personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal, or property rights (Appeal of Abitbol, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,333; Appeal of Waechter, 48 id. 261, Decision No. 15,853).  Only an individual who is directly affected by an action has standing to commence an appeal therefrom (Appeal of Abitbol, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,333; Appeal of Waechter, 48 id. 261, Decision No. 15,853). 

In essence, this appeal challenges respondent’s decision to close Phoenicia.  One of the petitioners is the parent of a student who would have started kindergarten in Phoenicia in the 2023-2024 school year if not for respondent’s vote to close the building.  Therefore, she is directly affected by respondent’s plan to close the school and has standing to bring this appeal (Appeal of Breslow, et al., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,080; Appeal of Patashnick and Waters, 39 id. 236, Decision No. 14,225; cf. Appeal of Buzzard, 54 id., Decision No. 16,653).

Turning to the merits, a board of education has the authority and responsibility to manage and administer the affairs of the school district, including the assignment of pupils to schools therein (Education Law §§ 1709 [3], [33]; Matter of Older v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of Mamaroneck, 27 NY2d 333 [1971]).  Decisions regarding school district reorganization and the closing of school buildings will only be set aside if they lack a rational basis (Appeal of Ad Hoc Committee to Save Kings Elementary School et al., 53 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,530; Appeal of Wong, et al., 42 id. 269, Decision No. 14,850; Appeal of Malone, et al., 39 id. 135, Decision No. 14,194).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioners have not met their burden of proving that respondent violated board policy 1511.  The challenged portion of that policy states:

Once the [board’s] agenda is set, items will not be added, unless they are of an emergency nature and authorized by the Superintendent in consultation with the Board President.  The agenda can be modified by a majority vote of the Board.

As respondent indicates, the final sentence is an exception to the general process outlined in the rule.  It is undisputed that respondent placed resolution 13.08 on the agenda on the day of its May 2, 2023 meeting.  Moreover, during the meeting, a majority of the board voted to maintain this resolution on the agenda.  Thus, I find that respondent permissibly overrode the procedure for agenda development consistent with policy 1511.[2]

Additionally, petitioners have not proven that respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in connection with the closure of Phoenicia.  The record indicates that respondent’s reconfiguration plan is intended to equalize class sizes among schools, effectively implement services for students with disabilities, and alleviate the strain of declining enrollment in the district.  As detailed above, the district held a myriad of meetings and events to explore the reconfiguration issue with the community over several years.  Having done so, respondent permissibly selected a plan that differed from the one favored by a majority of taxpayers.  While board members can and should be receptive to community concerns, they are public officers who “take [] an oath of office to uphold the law and faithfully discharge [their] duties” (Appeal of Nett and Raby, 45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315).  This includes the “fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district” (id.).  Respondent met those obligations by conducting extensive studies and engaging in community involvement to arrive at a reasonable decision.  Thus, its ultimate vote to close Phoenicia cannot be characterized as unexpected—or irrational (Appeal of Buzzard, 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,653; Appeal of Parrish, et al., 32 id. 261, Decision No. 12,825; Appeal of Mathis and Dalia, 28 id. 347, Decision No. 12,132).

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE