Applications of KIMBERLY ZAMPARELLI for the removal of Jim Wise as a member of the Board of Education of the Carmel Central School District.

Decision No. 18,526

(November 25, 2024)

ROSA., Commissioner.--In two separate applications, petitioner seeks the removal of Jim Wise (“respondent”) as a trustee of the Board of Education of the Carmel Central School District.  The applications must be denied.[1]

In his capacity as a private citizen, respondent participated in an event in support of a ceasefire in Gaza.  At a board meeting on July 9, 2024, the board discussed, at length, respondent’s participation in this event, the war in Gaza, and antisemitism.  By a vote of four to two, the board passed a resolution stating that the board:

1. Emphatically disagree[d] with all remarks attributed to [respondent] that could be considered or interpreted as antisemitic;

2. Emphasize[d] that those remarks neither represent[ed] the Board’s view[,] nor were they authorized or condoned in any manner by the Board; and

3. Recommit[ted] ... itself to the task of addressing the issue of antisemitism and intolerance [by] working to foster a culture of respect, understanding, and acceptance.

These applications ensued.

Petitioner argues that respondent should be removed from the board for allegedly antisemitic comments that he made in public and at the July 2024 board meeting.  In her second application, petitioner contends that respondent must be removed for disclosing confidential information.

Respondent argues that he has a constitutional right to speak on matters of public concern.  He further asserts that any comments made during the board meeting were made to defend himself in response to the proposed resolution.

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).

In an appeal or application 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).

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that removal is warranted based on respondent’s statements in public and at the July 2024 board meeting.  There is no evidence that respondent, by demonstrating in his capacity as a private citizen, willfully disobeyed any legal obligation as a board member.  Moreover, any disruption to district operations was attributable to the board’s decision to raise this issue during a public meeting.  Board meetings are an inappropriate venue to air personal or political grievances; I remind the parties that “boards of education, when acting collectively or in their official capacity, should avoid statements and actions which may tend to politicize the educational system” (Matter of Ciaccia and Albert, 11 Ed Dept Rep 95, Decision No. 8,358).

Petitioner’s remaining grounds for removal are without merit.  First, it is well settled that a violation of a board’s bylaws or policies alone, even if proven, is an insufficient basis for the removal of a member of the board in a proceeding pursuant to Education Law § 306 (Application and Appeal of Moss, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,602; Application of Simmons, 53 id., Decision No. 16,596; Application of Malgieri, et al., 52 id., Decision No. 16,482).  Second, petitioner has failed to provide any evidence or details concerning her claim that respondent disclosed confidential information to two other trustees.  As such, she has failed to meet her burden of proof (Application of Powell, 50 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,216; Application of Wilson, 41 id. 196, Decision No. 14,663).

THE APPLICATIONS ARE DENIED.

END OF FILE