Appeals of GLORIA SPRADLIN from action of the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District regarding a proposition.

Decision No. 18,561

(May 5, 2025)

Guercio & Guercio LLP., attorneys for respondent, Matthew J. Mehnert, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--In two separate appeals, petitioner challenges determinations of the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District (“respondent” or “school board”) that two proposed propositions were not within the power of voters.  Because the appeals present common questions of fact and law, they are consolidated for decision (8 NYCRR 275.18).  The appeals must be dismissed.

Respondent leases space within one of its elementary schools to the Island Trees Public Library (“library”) to operate a library therein.[1]  The current lease runs from July 2021 to June 2031.  In July 2023, the school board sued the library for failing to make payments required under the lease.

On or about March 18, 2024, petitioner requested that the school board approve two voter propositions.  The first would extend the term of the lease between the school board and library to 50 years (“lease proposition”) while the second would discontinue the lawsuit the school board brought against the library (“litigation proposition”).  At a special meeting on April 10, 2024, respondent declined to place these propositions on the ballot.  These appeals ensued.

Petitioner argues that sections 255 and 260 of the Education Law impliedly afford voters the authority to vote on the lease and litigation.  For relief, petitioner seeks determinations that the propositions are within the power of the district’s voters and orders placing them on the ballot.

Respondent contends that petitioner’s arguments are without merit.

Education Law § 2035 (2) provides, as relevant here, that “any proposition may be rejected by [a] … board of education if the purpose of the proposition is not within the power of the voters …” (see Appeal of Johnson, 44 Ed Dept Rep 382, Decision No. 15,206; Appeal of Lawson, 36 id. 450, Decision No. 13,774; Appeals of Cappa, 36 id. 278, Decision No. 13,724). 

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 they seek 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). 

The school board reasonably declined to adopt the lease and litigation propositions.  With respect to the lease proposition, boards of education possess statutory power to lease unused real property for 10 or less years (Education Law § 403-a).[2]  “[B]ecause the Legislature has given the board this authority, it [would be] inappropriate to put a proposition before the voters that would override or limit [such] authority” (Appeal of Munch, 47 Ed Dept Rep 199, Decision No. 15,667; see also Appeal of Johnson, 44 Ed Dept Rep 382, Decision No. 15,206; Appeal of Rosenberg, 31 id. 398, Decision No. 12,680).  While petitioner argues that the Commissioner ordered a school board to “place the question of the conveyance of [a]... building to the board of library trustees before the voters” in Matter of the Board of the Library Trustees of the North-Merrick Public Library,[3] that appeal involved “unique circumstances” not applicable here (Appeal of the Board of Trustees of the Peninsula Public Library, 27 Ed Dept Rep 299, Decision No. 11,953).  Thus, I find that the school board appropriately declined to present the lease proposition to voters.[4]

Petitioner’s remaining arguments concerning the lease proposition are unpersuasive.  Education Law § 255, which concerns the “[e]stablishment of a public library,” is inapplicable.  And a provision in the lease agreement indicating that a “tentative lease agreement” for longer than 10 years must be approved by voters merely restates the requirements of Education Law § 403-a (see Education Law § 403-a [5] [a “board of education … [is] hereby authorized to enter into a lease agreement … for a period in excess of ten years subject, however, to voter approval by referendum”).

I further find that respondent appropriately rejected the litigation proposition.  A school board is responsible for the “superintendence, management and control” of its district and possesses “all the powers reasonably necessary to exercise powers granted [it] expressly or by implication” (Education Law § 1709 [13], [33]).  This includes the ability to initiate or discontinue litigation (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Roosevelt Union Free School Dist. v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 282 AD2d 166, 171-72 [3d Dept 2001]).  As such, voters lack authority to dictate the course of litigation to which a school district is a party—and respondent was justified in rejecting a proposition indicating the same.

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

THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.

END OF FILE