Decision No. 13,052

(November 24, 1993)

Behrens, Loew & Cullen, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, William M. Cullen, Esq., of

counsel

SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the rejection of her nominating petitions for the annual election of trustees held on May 5, 1993 in the Franklin Square Union Free School District. The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner submitted nominating petitions to the Board of Education of the Franklin Square Union Free School District ("respondent") for the office of trustee to be elected at the annual meeting on May 5, 1993. By letter dated April 5, 1993, respondent rejected petitioner's nominating petitions, stating that petitioner was disqualified from candidacy until June 1993 because respondent board had removed her from office in June 1992. This appeal ensued.

Petitioner alleges that her candidacy for respondent board was appropriate and requests that her name be restored to the ballot for the May 5, 1993 election. Petitioner also alleges that respondent has libeled her and requests that it place a corrective advertisement in a local newspaper. Petitioner also seeks the costs of this appeal. Respondent contends that since petitioner was removed from office on June 16, 1992, she was disqualified for election at the May 5, 1993 annual meeting.

The appeal must be dismissed. Contrary to petitioner's contention that her name should have been placed on the ballot, respondent correctly rejected petitioner's nominating petitions since she was ineligible for office under Education Law '2103(2). Pursuant to that statute, a person who is removed from office is ineligible for appointment or election to any district office for one year from the date of removal. Petitioner was removed from office on June 16, 1992, and is, therefore, ineligible for office until June 16, 1993. Since respondent's election occurred before that date, petitioner's nominating petitions were properly rejected.

Petitioner's argument that she was not removed from office but rather vacated it in November 1991 is simply not supported by the record. Petitioner was removed from office by respondent in June 1992 based on a hearing officer's finding that she was not a resident of the district and actually resided in Florida. Petitioner argues that based on the hearing officer's finding, she reestablished residency in the district one year later, in November 1992, and was, therefore, eligible to run as trustee for respondent board. However, petitioner did not vacate her office but rather was removed from office by respondent in June 1992 and she is therefore ineligible for office until June 1993.

Petitioner has a long-standing dispute with respondent which has been previously brought before me (Appeal of Friedman, 32 Ed Dept Rep 601; Appeal of Friedman, 32 id. 447). She continues to allege that her removal from respondent board of education was improper and reargues that issue in the present appeal. Having previously decided that issue, I decline to review the matter again.

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE

---