Appeal of OREN BAROUCH, on behalf of his children, from action of the Board of Education of the Suffern Central School District regarding a school closing. 

Appeal of JOSEPH GRAVAGNA, on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of the Suffern Central School District regarding a school closing.  

Decision No. 18,530

(December 9, 2024)

Keane & Beane P.C., attorneys for respondent, Suzanne E. Volpe, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--In two separate appeals, petitioners challenge the determination of the Board of Education of the Suffern Central School District (“respondent” or “board”) to close Viola Elementary School (“Viola”) and reorganize the grades served in its elementary schools.  Because the appeals present common questions of fact and law, they are consolidated for decision (8 NYCRR 275.18).  The appeals must be dismissed.

At the time these appeals were filed, respondent operated seven school buildings:  a high school, a middle school, and five elementary schools.  In 2022, respondent commissioned a strategic enrollment and attendance transformation analysis to analyze the district’s declining enrollment.  This analysis, submitted to respondent in early 2023, revealed an overall 12 percent decline in enrollment with a 30 percent decline in kindergarten enrollment since 2014.  

In spring 2023, respondent met with a 75-person outreach group consisting of community members, staff, students, and parents to assess these findings.  Respondent also held three community forums in August 2023 to solicit community input about the possible restructuring of respondent’s five elementary schools.

On August 22, 2023, the superintendent presented the administration’s recommendations and potential restructuring plans to the board.  The possibilities included: (1) maintaining the status quo;[1] (2) closing one elementary school building and keeping the current K-5 grade configuration; or (3) closing one elementary school and modifying the grades served at the remaining schools.[2]  After the superintendent reviewed data and met with potentially impacted communities, the superintendent recommended the third option.  On October 24, 2023, respondent held a public hearing concerning this recommendation.

On November 7, 2023, respondent voted 6 to 1 to close Viola and reorganize the grades at its four remaining elementary schools.  These appeals ensued.  Petitioners’ requests for interim relief were denied on January 5, 2024.

Petitioners allege that respondent’s reorganization plan is arbitrary and capricious.  They further assert, among other contentions, that three members of the board could not permissibly vote due to conflicts of interest.  For relief, they seek an order precluding respondent from closing Viola or reorganizing its schools.

Respondent maintains that its decision was rational and denies that any board members had conflicts of interest that prevented them from voting on the reorganization plan.

The appeals must be dismissed as moot.  The Commissioner will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances (Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 id. 532, Decision No. 15,940; Appeal of M.M., 48 id. 527, Decision No. 15,937; see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).  Where the Commissioner can no longer award a petitioner meaningful relief on their claims, no live controversy remains and the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of R.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,394; Appeal of N.C., 40 id. 445, Decision No. 14,522). 

The closure of Viola and the grade reorganization took effect on July 1, 2024.  Thus, there is no longer a live controversy and the appeals must be dismissed as moot (Appeal of Hamblin, et al., 48 Ed Dept Rep 421, Decision No. 15,902; Appeal of Squeri, 46 id. 352, Decision No. 15,530; Appeal of Hanson, 39 id. 788, Decision No. 14,381).

Even if the appeals were not moot, they would be dismissed on the merits.  A board of education has the authority and responsibility to manage and administer the affairs of the school district, including the assignment of pupils to schools therein (Education Law § 1709 (3), (33); Matter of Older, et al. v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of Mamaroneck, 27 NY2d 333 [1971]).  Decisions regarding school district reorganization and the closing of school buildings will only be set aside if they lack a rational basis (Appeal of Ad Hoc Committee to Save Kings Elementary School et al., 53 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,530; Appeal of Wong, et al., 42 id. 269, Decision No. 14,850; Appeal of Malone, et al., 39 id. 135, Decision No. 14,194).

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).

Petitioners have not met their burden of proving that respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously.  As detailed above, the district conducted a study as to how it could best address its declining enrollment and held multiple public meetings in connection therewith.  After doing so, respondent selected and approved a reconfiguration plan calculated to equalize resources among elementary schools, effectively implement services for students with disabilities, and address its declining enrollment.[3]  Thus, respondent’s ultimate vote to close Viola and reconfigure its grades cannot be characterized as irrational (Appeal of Pulizzi, et al., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,249; Appeal of Buzzard, 56 id., Decision No. 16,653; Appeal of Jiava, 55 id., Decision No. 16,817).

Petitioners have also failed to prove that three of respondent’s board members possessed a conflict of interest.  Petitioners argue that these members had conflicts of interest because they serve on other public boards.  In assessing an essentially identical fact pattern, the Office of the Attorney General concluded that there was no incompatibility of interest between service on a school board and village board (1981 Atty Gen [Inf Ops] 114).  Petitioners provide no evidence that any of these board members were biased or would receive a tangible benefit for closing Viola.  In any event, even assuming that the three members at issue were prohibited from voting due to a conflict of interest, their votes would not have impacted respondent’s vote in this matter.

I have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.

END OF FILE