Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 13,454

Appeal of COUNCIL OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, by DONALD SINGER, ALAN COHEN, STANLEY EISENSTEIN and ALEXANDER NEALIS from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and Ramon Cortines, regarding hiring a chief attendance officer.

Decision No. 13,454

(July 17, 1995)

Bruce K. Bryant, Esq., Council of Supervisors and Administrators, attorney for petitioners

Paul A. Crotty, Esq., Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent, Deanna R. Waldron, Esq., of counsel

SHELDON, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal the failure of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York ("respondent") to hire a chief attendance officer. The appeal must be sustained in part.

The position of chief attendance officer was held by a Mr. Parness from 1988 until June 1992, when he was promoted to director of attendance but continued to perform the duties of chief attendance officer. On May 28, 1993, respondent solicited applications for the position of chief attendance officer. Petitioners Cohen, Eisenstein and Nealis applied for the position in 1993. In December 1993, petitioners were interviewed. In February 1994, second interviews were held. As a result of these interviews, petitioners Cohen, Eisenstein and Nealis were selected for the third level of interviews. The selection process was then halted due to budget constraints. This appeal followed.

Petitioners claim respondent failed to comply with Education Law ''2570 and 2573 by failing to fill the vacancy. Respondents contend that they now intend to fill the vacancy.

Education Law '2573(2) states:

...Appointments shall be made from appropriate eligible lists to fill all existing vacancies not later than six months from the date of the existence of such vacancy, except that the board of education may defer such appointments until the opening of school following the expiration of such six month period.

The record reflects that the position in question became vacant in June 1992. The six month grace period in which to fill the vacancy ended during the 1992-93 school year. Respondents were authorized by statute to defer the appointment until the opening of school following the expiration of the six months, which was January 1993. Accordingly, since respondents did not fill the vacancy by January 1993, I find that respondents are not in compliance with Education Law '2573.

However, because respondents assert that they intend to now fill the vacancy, the relief requested by petitioners in this appeal has been accomplished. Therefore, there is no matter in controversy with regard to the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, all substantive issues of this appeal regarding the statutory requirements for respondents to fill the vacancy are dismissed as moot (Appeal of Cauley, 34 Ed Dept Rep 125; Appeal of Collins, 32 id. 217).

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

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED IN PART.

IT IS ORDERED that respondents immediately reconvene the screening process for filling the vacancy and make an appointment to such vacancy within 60 days of this order.

END OF FILE