Appeal of DENISE TERCYNSKI from action of the Board of Education of the East Williston Union Free School District, Danielle Gately as superintendent and Cristina Cortes as district clerk regarding an election.

Decision No. 18,517

(November 4, 2024)

Guercio & Guercio, LLP, attorneys for respondent, John P. Sheahan, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from action of the Board of Education of the East Williston Union Free School District (“board”), superintendent Danielle Gately and district clerk Cristina Cortes (collectively, “respondents”) regarding the conduct of the district’s May 21, 2024 school board election and budget vote. The appeal must be dismissed.

On May 21, 2024, the district held its annual school board election and budget vote.  As relevant to this appeal, the district clerk instructed all poll watchers to leave during the closing of the ballot scanners and printing of the results tape.  Petitioner’s poll watcher protested but eventually complied.  The votes were tallied thereafter, which revealed that petitioner was unsuccessful in her bid for a seat on the board.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner alleges that respondents improperly excluded poll watchers and candidates during the canvassing of votes.  Petitioner requests a determination that respondents violated the Education and Election Law.  She also seeks “guidance for compliance” with said laws for use in future elections.

Respondents deny petitioner’s contentions and allege that petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The appeal must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  A petition must contain “a clear and concise statement of the petitioner’s claim showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, and shall further contain a demand for the relief to which the petitioner deems himself/herself entitled” (8 NYCRR 275.10).  Such statement must be “sufficiently clear” to advise the respondent of the nature of the petitioner’s claim and of the specific act or acts of which the petitioner complains (id.).  Where the petitioner is not represented by counsel, the Commissioner will interpret this regulation liberally, absent prejudice to the opposing party (Appeal of D.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,244; Appeal of Stieffenhofer, 48 id. 231, Decision No. 15,846).  Nevertheless, where a petition fails to state a comprehensible claim or fails to identify the specific remedy sought, the appeal must be dismissed (see Appeal of C.P., 55 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,784; Appeal of Stepien, 48 id. 487, Decision No. 15,926). 

Petitioner does not contend that respondents’ actions affected the outcome of the election.  Her requests for relief—a determination that respondents violated the law and guidance regarding the circumstances presented herein—are declaratory in nature.  It is well established that the Commissioner does not issue advisory opinions or declaratory rulings in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 (Appeal of He, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,299; Appeal of Leake, 57 id., Decision No. 17,235; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 id. 411, Decision No. 15,899).  Because petitioner fails to state a claim for relief that may be granted, the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of Egan, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,213; Appeal of Moss, 60 id., Decision No. 17,986; see also Appeal of C.P., 55 id., Decision No. 16,784; Appeal of Stepien, 48 id. 487, Decision No. 15,926).

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE