Skip to main content

Decision No. 18,620

Appeal of WILLIAM S. LOCKE from action of the Board of Education of the George Junior Republic Union Free School District regarding appointment of a board member and application for the removal of Helen Hulings as a board member.[1]

Application of JAMES LAROUNIS for the removal of Helen Hulings as a member of the Board of Education of the George Junior Republic Union Free School District.

Decision No. 18,620

(August 11, 2025)

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Kate I. Reid, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner William S. Locke challenges action of the Board of Education of the George Junior Republic Union Free School District (“respondent” or “school board”) regarding the appointment of a board member.  Both petitioner Locke and petitioner James Larounis seek the removal of board member Helen Hulings.  Because these petitions present similar issues of fact and law, they are consolidated for decision.   Petitioner Locke’s appeal must be sustained to the extent indicated; the applications must be denied.

Respondent is a special act school district, a type of union free school district formed by special act of the Legislature.  Such districts are affiliated with childcare agencies and primarily serve students with disabilities.  Since their boundaries are coterminous with the property of an affiliated agency, special act school districts typically lack residents.  As such, the agency appoints individuals to serve on the school board.[2]  The appointment procedure is usually outlined in a special act school district’s enabling legislation; however, here, there is no such clarity provided by any law.[3] 

In respondent’s district, five members are appointed by its affiliated agency, the William George Agency for Children’s Services, Inc. (the “agency”), while two members are appointed by the Commissioner of Education.  The latter requirement derives from Chapter 629 of the Laws of 2004, which sought, according to the sponsor’s memorandum, to remedy the lack of “public accountability” among special act boards of education.[4]  Petitioners are the Commissioner’s appointees on the school board.

In October 2024, board member Russell Booth resigned.  Thereafter, the agency appointed Ms. Hulings, its Executive Director, to the vacant position without involvement from the school board.[5]  As further described herein, respondent has adopted policies regarding the manner in which vacancies are filled.  These include affording each member the right to nominate candidates for the agency’s consideration.  These petitions ensued.

Petitioner Locke argues that respondent ignored its policies concerning the resignation, nomination, and election of board members following the resignation of Mr. Booth.  He seeks an order directing respondent to follow its policies.  Both petitioner Locke and petitioner Larounis seek Ms. Hulings’ removal from her position.

Respondent contends that it lacks authority to enforce its policies as the agency “has never consented” to such policies and it lacks “legal authority to limit” the agency’s “discretion and authority to appoint members” to the school board.  Respondent argues that the applications must be denied on procedural and substantive grounds.

The applications for removal must be denied on procedural grounds.  In a removal proceeding, the individual whose removal is sought must be joined as a necessary party.  Joinder requires that a party be clearly named as a respondent in the caption and served with a copy of the notice of petition and petition, informing the party to answer the application for removal (8 NYCRR 277.1 [b]; Appeal of Hadden, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,253; Appeal of Affronti, 54 id., Decision No. 16,756).  The Commissioner has consistently denied applications for removal where the petitioner failed to name the individual sought to be removed in the caption of the petition and notice of petition (Appeal of Hadden, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,253; Appeal of Affronti, 54 id., Decision No. 16,756).  Both petitioners failed to name Ms. Hulings in the caption of the appeal or serve a copy of the petition upon her. Accordingly, petitioners failed to properly join Ms. Hulings, warranting denial of the applications (Appeal of Puskuldjian and Romano, 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,090; Appeal and Application of Griffin, 60 id., Decision No. 17,942; Appeal of Livigni, 59 id., Decision No. 17,827).

Respondent additionally contends that petitioner Locke lacks standing to challenge its alleged non-compliance with board policies.  An individual may not maintain an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 unless aggrieved in the sense that he or she has suffered personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal, or property rights (Appeal of Abitbol, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,333; Appeal of Waechter, 48 id. 261, Decision No. 15,853).  Only an individual who is directly affected by an action has standing to commence an appeal therefrom (Appeal of Abitbol, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,333; Appeal of Waechter, 48 id. 261, Decision No. 15,853).

I find that petitioner Locke has sufficiently alleged a legal injury.  The purpose of board policy 1210, entitled “Board Members:  Nomination and Election,” is to allow the school board to ascertain potential candidates and recommend them to the agency for appointment to the school board.  Under this policy, the school board president must “announce []” any vacancy “at a board meeting.”  Each board member is then afforded the right to nominate an individual for such a vacancy.  Following this process, Policy 1230 indicates that the board may fill the unexpired term caused by a resignation by “majority vote of the full Board.”  Petitioner Locke’s exclusion from this process sufficiently alleges a distinct injury to his rights as a board member (see Matter of Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post, 26 NY3d 301 [2015] [for purposes of standing, a petitioner “must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large”]; see generally Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 [1992]).

Turning to the merits, 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).

It is undisputed that respondent did not follow its policies, including policies 1210 and 1230, in appointing Ms. Hulings.  Respondent nevertheless contends that these policies are ineffective as the agency has plenary authority over the school board.  I disagree; respondent is a union free school district that receives State Aid to provide compulsory education to children.  As such, it must follow the rules applicable to public school districts, including Article 35 of the Education Law, the General Municipal Law, regulations of the Commissioner of Education, and its own policies.  The board acknowledges as much in board policy 1110, which identifies its district as a union free school district that “possesses those powers and duties set forth in law.”[6]

As such, petitioner Locke has demonstrated a clear legal right to his requested relief.  I will, therefore, direct respondent to follow its policies in filling the vacancy created by the resignation of former board member Russell Booth on October 8, 2024 within 90 days.  Ms. Hulings may continue to serve on the school board until that process is complete.[7]  If respondent continues to seek the appointment of Ms. Hulings or other agency leadership, it should consider whether this would be consistent with the General Municipal Law (General Municipal Law §§ 800, 801 [defining impermissible conflicts of interest]; see also § 806 [requiring each school board to adopt a code of ethics]).

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED.

THE APPLICATIONS ARE DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that, within 90 days of this decision, respondent follow its policies, including 1210 and 1230, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former board member Russell Booth on October 8, 2024. 

END OF FILE

 

[1] As indicated herein, Ms. Hulings was not named in the caption of either petition or served with a copy thereof.  Her name is reproduced in the caption of this appeal and application for clarity.

 

[2] A union free school district may have between three and nine trustees.  Within this range, the number of trustees may be modified by vote of the majority of qualified voters at the annual meeting (Education Law §§ 1702 [1], 1703).

 

[3] Respondent does not have enabling legislation.  The record contains a letter from John Jehu, who served as Director of the Division of Law for the State Education Department (“SED”), dated October 20, 1949.  This letter indicates that, upon inquiry, SED opined in 1916 that respondent was not a “proper school district” due to legal deficiencies in its establishment.  Thereafter, the Legislature passed a law, Chapter 245 of the Laws of 1918, authorizing the payment of State Aid to respondent for the year 1914.  “In view of the unusual circumstances of the organization procedure and of the obvious intent of the 1918 enactment,” Mr. Jehu wrote, “the latter has been since that time [] considered as a validation act, curing the defects in the organization of this district.”  Mr. Jehu confirmed that “State Aid … has been paid to this district every year since that time.”

 

[4] This memorandum further noted the State Education Department’s longstanding concerns about preserving “‘arms-length’ relationship[s] between the special act districts and the child care institutions ….” 

 

[5] The agency previously considered enlarging the size of the board.  Upon consultation, counsel for respondent and the State Education Department agreed that the agency could expand the size of the board due to its lack of voters and the absence of a mechanism for expansion in its enabling legislation, which, as explained in the above footnote, does not exist.

 

[6] I reject the school board’s argument that petitioner Locke is actually challenging an action of the agency.  The school board is responsible for ensuring that it adheres to its own policies and may be held responsible for failing to do so.

 

[7] Since Ms. Hulings was a valid member of respondent’s board until the date of this decision, no actions of the board in which she participated as a member are invalidated as a result of this decision (Appeal of Crawford, 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,785).