Applications of KAREN WONTROBSKI-RICCIARDI and STACEY MURPHY for the removal of Matthew Gribbin as a member of the Board of Education of the Smithtown Central School District.

Decision No. 18,516

(November 4,2024)

Silverman & Associates, attorneys for respondent, Stan Sharovskiy, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--In two separate applications, petitioners, members of the Board of Education of the Smithtown Central School District (the “board”), seek the removal of their colleague, Matthew Gribbin (“respondent”).  Because they concern common questions of law and fact, the applications are consolidated for decision (8 NYCRR 275.18).  The applications must be denied.

These applications concern remarks made by respondent at a public meeting on January 23, 2024.  On February 1, 2024, respondent hired an attorney to investigate whether respondent disclosed confidential information from executive session.  On April 22, 2024, the attorney concluded that respondent “reiterated comments that were discussed in … executive Board meetings,” but did not decide whether the underlying information was confidential.  Specifically, at the January 23 meeting, respondent restated a position he previously articulated in executive session “about the benefits of [physical education] teachers coaching” and “stated in effect that” a fellow board member had changed her position.  “In referring to ‘her position,’” the attorney explained, respondent “was referring to what [the board member] had stated at one point in executive session.”  These applications ensued.

Petitioners argue that respondent disclosed confidential information at the January 23, 2024 public board meeting and, as such, should be removed from the board.

Respondent contends that the applications should be denied as untimely.  Respondent further argues that petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proving that removal is warranted.

The applications must be denied as untimely.  An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 275.16; Appeal of Saxena, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,239; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  The 30-day timeframe also applies to a removal application pursuant to Education Law § 306 (8 NYCRR 277.1; Application of Kelty, 48 Ed Dept Rep 476, Decision No. 15,921; Appeal of Budich, 48 id. 383, Decision No. 15,892).  The Commissioner has held that a removal application is timely when commenced within 30 days of the petitioner’s good faith discovery of the challenged conduct, even if the actual conduct occurred more than 30 days prior (Application of Nett and Raby, 45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315; Application of Bean, 42 id. 171, Decision No. 14,810). 

As members of the board, petitioners were privy to previous executive sessions in which board members discussed physical education teachers serving as coaches.  Thus, petitioners had actual knowledge of respondent’s alleged disclosure of confidential information at the public board meeting on January 23, 2024.  These applications were served on June 25, 2024, far more than 30 days thereafter.  While the attorney’s April 2024 report provided additional information and insights, it did not toll the 30-day time limitation (Application to reopen Appeal of J.C., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,512 [30-day “time limitation is not tolled until petitioners obtain a satisfactory explanation for the actions about which they complain”]).  Accordingly, the applications must be denied as untimely (Application of T.L., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,474; Application of S.D., 60 id., Decision No. 18,009).[1]

Respondent requests a certificate of good faith pursuant to Education Law § 3811 (1).  Such certification is solely for the purpose of authorizing a board of education to indemnify a respondent for costs incurred in defending against a proceeding arising out of the exercise of the respondent’s powers or the performance of the respondent’s duties as a board member or other official listed in section 3811 (1).  The Commissioner will issue such certification unless the record establishes that the requesting respondent acted in bad faith (Application of McCray, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,240; Application of Valentin, 56 id., Decision No. 17,014; Application of Paladino, 53 id., Decision No. 16,594).  Since the applications have been dismissed on procedural grounds without any findings on the merits, I hereby certify that respondent is entitled to the requested certification (see e.g. Application of Karimi, 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,345; Appeal and Application of Petrocelli, 62 id., Decision No. 18,223).

THE APPLICATIONS ARE DENIED.

END OF FILE