Appeal of W.W. from action of the Board of Education and the Superintendent of the Copenhagen Central School District regarding access to school property.

Decision No. 18,570

(June 16, 2025)

Office of Inter-Municipal Legal Services, Jefferson Lewis Board of Cooperative Educational Services, attorneys for respondent, George R. Shaffer III, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.-Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the Copenhagen Central School District (“respondent” or the “board”) to place conditions upon his access to school property.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner was previously employed by an organization that offered afterschool childcare in respondent’s schools (“childcare provider”).  In November 2024, petitioner participated in an afterschool activity where students, despite instruction from their teacher, failed to put away gym equipment.  On the following day, a fourth grade class was required to run a few laps as a “consequence.”  Sometime thereafter, petitioner “confronted” the superintendent about this issue.  The superintendent indicates that petitioner “was very disrespectful … and raised his voice” during the conversation.  Based on this interaction, the superintendent requested that the childcare provider not send petitioner back to the district.

The record reflects that petitioner is the founder of a nonprofit organization that provides youth peer support and engagement activities (the “organization”).  In or around November 2024, petitioner obtained permission from a district employee to attend the middle and high school lunch periods to “help get the word out there to … [students] about [the organization’s] services and answer any questions they may have.”

On January 13, 2025, the superintendent learned that petitioner was on school grounds.  The superintendent and the district’s School Resource Officer (SRO) located petitioner near the cafeteria.  The parties offer divergent descriptions of the ensuing events.  Petitioner asserts that the superintendent and SRO “informed [him] that [he] had to leave the premises immediately.”  Petitioner indicates that he “complied” with these instructions without “engag[ing] in threatening or physical behavior.”  By contrast, respondent indicates that petitioner informed the superintendent and SRO that he had a right to be on “public property” and that they would “have to arrest” him.  After some time, petitioner agreed to leave the cafeteria and come to the SRO’s office.  Once therein, petitioner refused to leave.  The parties agree that the SRO, who is also a local law enforcement official, charged petitioner with a trespass violation and escorted him from district property.

In a letter to petitioner dated January 15, 2025, the superintendent “prohibited [petitioner] from entering upon any Copenhagen Central School District property without express prior written consent from the office of the Superintendent.”  He further indicated that, at petitioner’s request, this condition could be reviewed “on an annual basis.”  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner argues that the condition placed upon his access to district property is arbitrary and capricious.  Petitioner objects to the superintendent’s use of the verb “arrested” to describe the circumstances under which he was charged with trespassing.  Petitioner also contends that the superintendent improperly retaliated against him for raising an issue concerning student safety in November 2024.  For relief, petitioner seeks a declaration that he was not arrested; a declaration that he has the right to access district property for “lawful purposes” and “without undue restrictions”; and removal of the superintendent.

Respondent contends that the appeal must be dismissed for improper notarization.  On the merits, respondent argues that it reasonably restricted petitioner’s access to district property given his “disrespectful” and “disruptive” conduct.

Local school boards “exercise ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property generally” (Matter of Lloyd v Grella, 83 NY2d 537, 547 [1994], rearg denied 83 NY2d 1001 [1994]). School boards may impose reasonable restrictions on individuals’ access thereto (compare Appeal of Anonymous, 48 Ed Dept Rep 503, Decision No. 15,931 [reasonable restrictions upheld] and Appeal of Anonymous, 44 id. 260, Decision No. 15,167 [same] with Appeal of Anonymous, 48 id. 266, Decision No. 15,855 [“total ban” for indefinite period of time annulled]).

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).

Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to his requested relief.  As indicated above, respondent limited petitioner’s access to property following two unprofessional interactions with school officials.  While petitioner argues that he behaved appropriately in January 2025,[1] petitioner admits that he and the superintendent both “raised [their] voices.”  Petitioner’s sibling was also present during the January 2025 interaction; she indicates that “[a]s [petitioner] and the superintendent argued[,] both of their voices began to raise.”

Respondent has submitted affidavits from five witnesses, including the superintendent and SRO, who recount their observations from January 13, 2025.  These witnesses offer observations including the following:

• A custodian asserts that petitioner “immediately began arguing” with the superintendent, “act[ing] like he was better than anyone else … and no one was going to tell him what to do”;
• A food service worker recalls petitioner’s tone as “abrasive and negative”; she indicates that petitioner “refus[ed] to leave” the cafeteria area and told the superintendent “[y]ou can’t tell me to leave—you’re not the boss”;
• A school nurse asserts that petitioner told the superintendent “you can’t tell me that I can’t be here.” 

Weighing the evidence submitted by the parties, I find respondent’s affidavits more persuasive in capturing the tone and tenor of petitioner’s interactions with the superintendent.

While petitioner generally suggests that his conduct was justified, respondent objected to his unprofessional and aggressive tone, not his ability to voice concerns.  I acknowledge petitioner’s frustration that the superintendent did not know, or acknowledge, that petitioner had obtained approval to appear at the school on January 13, 2025.[2]  But neither that nor petitioner’s interest in “document[ing]” the conduct of the superintendent and SRO excused his obstinacy—which occurred during the school day and, for a time, in the presence of students. 

Based on these incidents, respondent reasonably determined that petitioner must obtain prior approval before accessing school property.  There is no evidence in the record that that petitioner has made such a request to respondent.  As such, there is no basis to presume that such a request would be unreasonably denied.  Moreover, respondent indicates that this condition can be reviewed “on an annual basis.”  This provides petitioner with an opportunity to demonstrate that he has abided by the directive and understands the importance of comporting himself appropriately in interactions with school staff.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or do not warrant relief.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE