Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 13,032

Appeal of WESLEY EVANS MARTIN from action of the Board of Education of the Central Islip Union Free School District, Norman A. Wagner, Sandra Townsend, Helen D. Brannon, Frederick Phillips, Mary J. Finnin, John P. Proscia, and Thomas E. Doyle, board members, relating to the rejection of a nominating petition.

Decision No. 13,032

(October 28, 1993)

Pelletreau & Pelletreau, Esqs., attorneys for respondents, Kevin A. Seaman, Esq., of counsel

SHELDON, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the rejection of his nominating petition as a candidate for the Board of Education of the Central Islip Union Free School District. The appeal must be dismissed.

At a special meeting conducted by respondent board on April 27, 1993, the board rejected petitioner's nominating petition because petitioner was not a resident of the district for one year prior to the May 25, 1993 election (Education Law '2102). Petitioner contends that he has been and remains a taxpayer and resident of the Central Islip Union Free School District. Therefore, he maintains that rejection of his nominating petition based on non-residency was arbitrary and capricious and part of a conspiracy by the individual members of the board to prevent him from having a voice in the affairs of the district.

Respondents deny petitioner's allegations and contend as an affirmative defense that petitioner lacks standing to bring this appeal because he is not a resident of the district. Since he is not a resident of the district, respondents also assert that the rejection of petitioner's nominating petition was proper.

The Commissioner has addressed the issue of petitioner's residency status in three prior appeals (Appeal of Martin, 32 Ed Dept Rep 567; Appeal of Martin, 32 id. 381; Application of Martin, 32 id. 208). I find, as the Commissioner did in those appeals, that the record supports respondents' determination that petitioner is no longer a resident of the district. Petitioner has not forwarded any significant new evidence to support his claim that he is a resident of the district. Because he is a nonresident, I find petitioner lacks standing to bring this appeal and respondents acted properly in rejecting his nominating petition.

I have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE