Appeal of NANCY HOLLIDAY from action of the Board of Education of the Wyandanch Union Free School District, Jessica Reed as District Clerk, and Shirley Baker, Helisse Palmore, Felice A. Holder and Shameka Brown as trustees regarding an election.

Decision No. 18,533

(December 16, 2024)

Guercio & Guercio, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Patricia A. Unz, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from action of the Board of Education of the Wyandanch Union Free School District (“respondent” or “board”) regarding the conduct of the district’s May 2024 school board election and budget vote.  She names the board’s district clerk and several of its trustees, including Felice A. Holder (“respondent Holder”) in connection therewith.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Prior to the events described herein, petitioner served as a trustee on the board.  On May 21, 2024, respondent conducted its annual budget vote.  Three trustee seats, including that held by respondent, were up for election.[1]  Following the tallying of votes, respondent Holder was awarded the seat formerly held by petitioner.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on July 8, 2024.

Petitioner alleges that the board failed to ensure that respondent Holder was a district resident. Petitioner seeks reinstatement to her position on the board. 

Respondent contends that the appeal must be dismissed for improper service.  On the merits, respondent argues that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent Holder was ineligible to serve as a trustee.

Education Law § 2102, applicable to union free school district such as respondent, requires that potential trustees reside within “the school district ... for at least one year prior to the election.”  For purposes of election to public office, Election Law § 1-104 defines “residence” as “that place where a person maintains a fixed permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return” (see Appeal of Crawford, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,731; Appeal of Roy, 31 id. 497, Decision No. 12,713).

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).

In support of her contention that respondent Holder is not a district resident, petitioner submits:  (1) an informational packet for potential trustees distributed by the district; (2) a list of signatures submitted by respondent Holder in support of her candidacy[2]; (3) a June 2023 list of active voters in the district; (4) internet search results concerning respondent Holder; and (5) a 2015 document concerning a worker’s compensation claim filed by respondent Holder while she was employed by the district.

This evidence does not establish that respondent Holder resides outside of the district.  The fact that respondent Holder was not registered to vote in the district, while relevant, is not dispositive of her residency (compare Appeal of the Bd. of Educ. of the East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. and Wortham, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,456 [registration to vote outside of a district more probative of residency than utility bills]).  With respect to the internet search results, such “generic search results in and of themselves have little persuasive value” (Appeal of Crawford, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,731).  Finally, since petitioner was only required to prove her residency within the district for at least one year prior to the election, a worker’s compensation claim from 2015 has little persuasive value (id.).[3]

Petitioner’s argument that respondent does not engage in “thorough ... vetting [of] legal residences of applicants who seek school board trustee” positions is without merit.  Petitioner’s proof consists solely of the evidence concerning respondent Holder discussed above.  The district clerk further indicates that respondent Holder’s nominating petition contained all required information, including an attestation that she resided within the district.  The district clerk additionally states that no one challenged the candidacy of respondent Holder prior to the election. 

Finally, petitioner alleges that respondent Holder was found to reside outside of the district when she was deemed ineligible to vote in the 2023 Wyandanch Public Library election.[4]  Respondent denies this contention, which petitioner has otherwise failed to prove.

In light of this contention, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions, including respondent’s procedural defense.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE