Application of JOHN DOE for the removal of Dan Wilson as superintendent of the Catskill Central School District.

Decision No. 18,521

(November 12, 2024)

            Ferrara Fiorenza PC, attorneys for respondent, Cameron B. Daniels, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner seeks the removal of Dan Wilson as superintendent (“respondent”) of the Catskill Central School District pursuant to Education Law § 306.  The application must be denied.

Petitioner is the parent of a child who attends respondent’s high school (the “student”).  On or about February 15, 2024, the student participated in a rehearsal for the school musical “Cinderella.”  According to petitioner, a school district employee offered tape to the students in a joking manner, and the student proceeded to place a piece of tape on her own mouth.  By contrast, respondent indicates that he “received a report that a school staff member had placed tape over [the] student’s mouth.”  Upon receipt thereof, respondent informed law enforcement and initiated an internal investigation.  As part of its investigation, the district’s director of human resources interviewed several students, including petitioner’s child.  According to an affidavit submitted by the human resources director, petitioner’s child twice reported that the school employee had placed tape on her mouth. 

Following this investigation, respondent determined that the incident did not involve child abuse as defined by Article 23-B of the Education Law.  This application ensued.

Petitioner argues that he and his spouse should have been contacted prior to the student’s interview and that respondent’s “concern in this situation was not for [his] child as an alleged victim, but rather to seek punishment for two staff members.”  Petitioner seeks respondent’s removal based on his alleged mishandling of the tape incident.

Respondent contends that the application must be denied for, among other procedural deficiencies, failure to include the required notice.  Respondent also seeks certification that he acted in good faith in accordance with Education Law § 3811.

The application must be denied for insufficient notice.  Section 277.1 (b) of the Commissioner’s regulations dictates the specific notice required for removal applications pursuant to Education Law § 306, which is distinct from the notice required under section 275.11 (a) for appeals pursuant to Education Law § 310.  The notice of petition secures jurisdiction over the intended respondent and alerts the respondent that he or she must appear in the removal proceeding and answer the allegations contained in the application (Application of Johnson, et al., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,055; Appeal of Hertel, 49 id. 267, Decision No. 16,021; Application of Barton, 48 id. 189, Decision No. 15,832).  Thus, a removal application that does not include the specific notice required by 8 NYCRR 277.1 (b) is fatally defective and must be denied (Application of Johnson, et al., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,055; Appeal of White and Carmand, 56 id., Decision No. 16,994; Appeal of Kelly, 45 id. 38, Decision No. 15,253).  Petitioner’s application lacks the required notice and, thus, must be denied (Appeal of Melton, 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,359; Appeal of M.B., 56 id., Decision No. 17,044).[1]

Even if the application contained the required notice, it would be denied on the merits.  The Commissioner of Education may remove a school officer or member of a board of education from office when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule, or regulation of the Board of Regents or the Commissioner (Education Law § 306 [1]; see Application of Kolbmann, 48 Ed Dept Rep 370, Decision No. 15,888; Application of Schenk, 47 id. 375, Decision No. 15,729).

Here, petitioner has not demonstrated that respondent willfully violated the Education Law or neglected his duties as a school officer.  The record reflects that respondent reasonably investigated an allegation that a staff member placed tape over a student’s mouth.  Moreover, respondent reasonably concluded that the incident did not constitute child abuse—a conclusion with which petitioner agrees.[2]  Petitioner’s claim that respondent “used [his child] as a pawn in an unethical and weak attempt to damage two staff members” is unsupported by the record.  As such, there is no basis to find that respondent willfully violated the Education Law or neglected his duties (Appeal of A.B., 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,010).

Finally, 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 application has been dismissed on procedural grounds without any findings on the merits, I hereby certify that respondent is entitled to the requested certification (e.g., Application of Karimi, 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,345; Appeal and Application of Petrocelli, 62 id., Decision No. 18,223).

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

THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.

END OF FILE