Zehner Decision and Order
-
Upload
the-post-standard -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Zehner Decision and Order
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 1/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 PAGE 02/10
PRESENT: HON. DONALD A. GREENWOOD
Supreme Court Justice
At II. Motion Term of the Supreme
Court of the State ofNew York,
held in and for the County of
Onondaga on September 29; 2010.
STATE OF NE\V YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
In the Matter ofDAVID ZEHNER,
Petitioner,
DECISION AND ORDER
ON MOTION t:L.r.J
v.
Pursuant to Civil Practice La.w$ and Rules, Article 78
Respondents;
Index No.: 2010-4926
RJI No.: 33-10-4203
STEPHEN CIOTOLI, ESQ., OF O'Hl'....I"{A, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
Fo r Petitioner
APPEARAl'-.JCES:
THE BOARD OF EDUCATIONOF THE JORDAN
ELBRIDGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and
SUE GORTON in her capacity a.s Assistant
Superintendent of Instruction and as the purported
Interim Superintendent;
FRANK w. MILLER, ESQ.; OF THE LAW FIRM OF FRANKW.
MILLER
For Respondents
This petition is brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and alleges that the respondent,
Board of Education of the Jordan-ElbridgeCentral School District (hereinafter "the Board"),
violated the Open Meetings Law on July 21, 2010 when it appointed respondent Sue Gorton as
Interim Superintendent in Executive Session. According to the petition, the agenda published for
thatmeeting did not m.ake any reference to the topic of tt Superintendent search or the
appointJ:rient of an Interim Superintendent of school$. On July 30, 2010, the Board issued a
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 2/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-E71-1187 HOH DONALD GREENWOOD PAGE 03,/10
public informatiOti bulletin to the school community, stating that "[t]he Board has decided to
appoint as Interim Superintendent, Ms. Sue Gorton effective November 1, 2010, In order to
ensure a seamless transition, Ms. Gorton will begin working this summer on District-wide
matters withMrs. Dom.injck." Marilyn Dominick is the current Superintendent, who is
scheduled to retire onNovember 1, 2010. Thereafter on August 3j 201 OJ p e t i . t i o n e r ~ s counsel
notified the Board by letter that the appointment ofGorton was in violation of the Open Meetings
Law and that it was not properly noticed on the meeting agenda or discussed in open session. No
response was receivedand
the Board's minutesfTom
August 4,2010 and August 18,2010show
that no discussion was held at eithermeeting 'With respect to this issue.
The petitioner seeks an order of tb.is Court declaring that the Board's actions to appoint
Gorton as Interim Superintendent while in Executive Session violated the Open Meetings Law
and is therefore null and void; that there is no statutory basis for the Board's action purporting to
appoint an employee to the position of Interim Superintendent without a public vote or
discussion and that the action is therefore null and void as being ultra vires l arbitrary, capricious
and an abuse of discretion; and that the Board is to refrain fn'm any further violations of the
conditions and requirements of the Open Meetings Law and Public Officers Law. In addition,
the petitioner seeks costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
I. Stnnding
The Board argues that the petitioner lacks standing to bring this action inasmuch as he
does not fall within the zone of interest protected by the statute. See, SocietyQfPlastics Indus, v,
County ofSuffolk, 77 NY2d 761 (1991). The standing of a party to seek judicial review of a
claim or controversy is a threshold matter which must be resolved by this Court before· the merits
2
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 3/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HON DONALD GREENWOOD PAGE 04/10
of the appHcation may be considered. See. id. The Court ofAppeals has noted that the Public
Officers Law states in part that "[e]verymeeting ofa public body shaH be open to the general
public." Gordon v, Village o.fMonticello, Inc" 87 NY2d 124 (1995), quoting, Public Officers
LaH' §103. It further emphasized the Legislative preamble to the statute which states "[iJt is
essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in. an
open and pubIie manner and that the citizens of this sta.te be fully aware of and able to observe
the performance ofpublic officials." Id. This ml.lst be differentiated from cases involving
environmental harm, where the Court ofAppeals has acknowledged the imposition of standing
barriers because such litigation "can generate interminable delay and interference with crucial
government projects:' Save the Pine Bu.sh, Inc, v, Comm01'i Council o/City o/Albany, 13 NY3d
297 (2009), quoting, Society ofPlastics, supra. In the present case, the petitioner, a member of
the general public, a district 1:a.,:payer, and employee of the school district, clearly has established
that he is in the zone of interest that the Open Meetings Law is designed to protect. Moreover,
and most i m p o r t a n t l y ~ he, was in attendance at the meeting in question when the Executive
Session was called and the public. was excluded and he is a member of the citizenry aggrieved by
the alleged violation. See, Sanna v. LindenhurstBoard ofEducation, 85 AD2d 157 (2d Dept.
1982). As a I'lVvwl attendee of the meeting in question, the petitioner is an aggrieved party and
has standing to challenge the school Board's activities. See, id.1 Inasmuch as the petitioner has
standing to challenge the Board's actions, the merits ofthe petition may be considered,
I Moreover, where a court's decision to deny standing would effectively insulate the
government's action from judicial review, a court has discretion to find that standing exists. See, Rudde.r
1!, Pataki, 93 NY2d 273 (J 999), citing, Borys:!:twski v. Brydges, 37 NY2d 361 (1975),
3
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 4/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HOH DOt'-lALD GREEHlJ.,iOOD PAGE 05/10
II. The Motion to Adjourn to Executive Session
The Open Meetings Law "was intended as its very name suggests - to open the decision
making process of elected officials to the pu.blic while at the same time protecting the ability of
the govet1mlent to carry out its responsibilities." Gordon v. Village ofMonticello" Inc., 87 NY2d
124 (1995); see also, Pu.blic Officers Law §100 et seq. The Legislature stated in its preamble to
the statute that "[i]t is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public
business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of the state be fully
aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials." ld, quoiiltg, Public qfficers
Lm",,' §1DO. The provisions of the law are to be liberally construed in accordance with the
statute's purposes. See, Matter ofOrange County Publications v, Council olCity ofNewburgh,
45 NY2d 947 (1978).
Pursuant to the Education Law, meetings of the board of education must be open to the
public, but boards may hold Executive Sessions atwhich sessions only the members of such
boards or the persons invited shall be present; See, Education LffiV §1708(3). The procedure and
substance of those sessions is subject to the limitations of the Open Meetings Law. See, Previdi
v. Hirsh, 138 Misc.2d 436 (1998), citing, Public Officers Law §§ 100 to 111. In fact, pursuant to
the Open Meetings Law, a public bodymay conduct an Executive Session only for certain
limited purposes and the enumerated instances for convening an Executive Sessi6n represent
exceptions to the general rule of openness; these topics are circumscribed by statute and must
therefore be narrowly scrutinized. See. Public Officers Lmv §105(l); see also. Daily Gazette Co,)
Inc. v, Town Board, Town ofCobbleskill, 111 Misc.2d 303 ([ 981). Eight purposes arc
enumerated in the statute. See, id. As this Court has previOUlsly noted, the thmst of the, Open
4
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 5/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-E,71-1187 HOH DOHALD GREEHWOOD PAGE 05/1[1
Meetings Law is "the performance of pUblic business in an Clpen and public manner with the
public able to attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of
public pOlicy." See, Brander v. Town ofWarren Board, 18 Mise.3d 477 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ~ quoting, .Matter
qfSciolino v. Ryan, 81 AD2d 475 ( 4 1 ~ Dept. 1981). This Court therefore i,$ required to
\'scrutinize the propriety of executive s e s ~ i o n s lest, the ...mandate be thwarted by thinly veiled
references to the areas delineated thereunder." Itt, citing, Gcrnaft Asphalt Products, Inc. l'. Town
o . r S a r d i n i a ~ 208 AD2d 139 (4 th Dept. 1995).
The Board violated the OpenMeetings Law in several ways. First, the Board failed to
give a sufficient reason for adjourning to Executive Session. The minutes from the July 21, 2010
Board meeting indicate that the Board adjourned to Executive Session for four of the eight
enum.erated purposes, as copied verbatim from the statute. See, Public Officers Law §105. No
further information was provided. However, this is insufficient. Vv'bile any motion to go into
Executive Session must identify the general area to be considered, it is insufficient to "'merely
regurgitate the statutory language...this boiler plate recitation does not complywith the intent of
the statute." Daily Gazette, supra. Instead, to validly convene an Executive Session for
discussion, the public entity must identify with particularity the topic to be d i s c u s s e d ~ since only
through such identification will the purposes of the Open Me:etings Law be realized. See, id.
Therefore, the Board was required to be more specific in its resolution and its faihtre to db so
constituted a violation ofthe OpenMeetings Law.
5
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 6/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HON DOI-iALD GREENl.<JOOD PAGE 07/10
III. Discussion in Executive Session
The Board also violated the law by discussing the issue of the Superintendent search in
Executive Session. Board President Mary Alley, in her affidavit, acknowledges "discussing and
addressing the issue of a searc.h for a new Superintendent" Alley ajjl.davit, Paragraph 6. There
is no exception for this type of discussion in the Open Meetings Law to take place in Executive
Session. This is preci:;;e1.y the type of issue that is required to be discussed in an open meeting, It
is a policy discussion by the Board, which is not a legal matter for Executive Session. The
qualities and qualifications that the Board is seeking in a Superintendent, as well as the process
which it intends to utilize, are matters for public observation in a publjc meeting. The ability to
adjourn to Executive Session is a statutory exemption l i m i t e d ~ on the facts of this ease, to
discussing the prospective appointment of a particular individual. It is a separate step that the
Board may consider i£it truly needs to address confidential matters about that individual and is
not to be used as an. all-encompassing exemption. The appointment process must not occur
behind closed doors. Therefore, by discu.ssing the search for a new Superintendent in Ex.ecuti.ve
Session the Board violated the Open Meetings Law.
IV. Appointment ofRespondent Gorton
This Court must next determine whether the Board violated the Open Meetings Law by
appointing respondent Gorton as Interim Superintendent. The Board has submitted affidavits
from Superintendent Dominick; School Board President Alley; and Gorton herself, all denying
that a fonnal appointment was made. Respondents argue that the petition is therefore, premature.
This Court d.isagrees. The act of discussing and coming to a consensus in Executive Session; but
not passing a formal resolution, docs not shield the Board from a violation of the law. The Open
6
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 7/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-11:::7 HCiN DONALD GREENl.<JmD PAGE 08/10
Meetings Law was designed to assure the public's right to be informed and it is the entire
decision making process which the Legislature intended to affect by the statute, not c:rn]y formal
acts of voting or formal executions of documents. See, Orange County Publications.. supra. The
aforemention.ed affidavits were prepared only for this litigation and attempt to recast the facts.
The Board, through the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ~ the duly appointed agent pursuant to its QvVO rules,2
issued a public infonnation bulletin on its official website advising the public that .1t had
appointed Gorton as Inte:dm Superintendent. The Board now argues that this was merely a
mistake that the publicity "got ahead of ' the formal action. However, it was on.ly during the
course of this litigation that the Board has recanted the statement and it has taken no action
d,irecdy or through its Superintendent to correct the p u r p o r t c ~ d appointment3 The process has
now been tainted and suggests to the public that there will be no deliberation or discussion.
because the outcome has already been determined, with the public vote being a mere formality.4
Inasmuch as the Board members participated in a privatemeeting with a quorum of Board
members p r e s e n t ~ where topics for discussion and eventual decision are su,ch as would othen-vise
arise at a regular meeting occurred, the Board has violated the Open Meetings Law. See, id.
V. Remedies
Pursuant to the Public Officers Law, the petitionermay seek a declaratory judgment and
injunctive reliefwith respect to the alleged violations. See, Public Officers Law §l07. This
2 See, Jordan-Elbridge Central School D i . ~ t r i 6 t BO(l1"dPolicy §4320 "Superintmdent-Board of
Education Relations)'
3 The Board met on tvvo subsequent occasions and the option of a special meeting was alsoavaHabl¢ to it.
4 As of the date of this Decision, the Board has posted on its w e b s i t ~ that " [ t J h ~ Board of
Education will be appointing Susan Gorton ...as Interim Superintendent while we conduct our search."
7
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 8/9
10/01/2010 13:24 315-571-1187 HOH DOHALD G R E E H ~ J O O D
Court is empowered, in its discretion, upon good cause ShO'l,Vll, to declare any action or part
thereof taken in violation of the OpenMeetings Law to be void in whole or in part. See, id.
Given the unique circumstances of this case and the good C ~ L u s e shm.\rn, this Court, in its
discretion. hereby declares void any act of the Board which purported to name respondent Gorton
as Interim Superintendent.
With respect to the petitioner's request for attorney's f e e ~ not every violation of the Open
Meetings Law aut01:natically triggers its enforcement sanctions; an award of attorney's fees
should not be granted by courts to the prevailing party simply as a matter of course. See, id. This
Court agrees with the petitioner that he should have not have been required to go to court to
enforce the law and that he is now further aggrieved by incurring attorney's fees. While the
Board has violated the OpenMeetings f,..,aw in this case, the appellate courts have set a high bar
for the recovery of attorney's fees and the petitioner has failed to establish in the record before
this Court "a persistent pattern of deliberate violations" of the Open Meetings Law, Reese v.
Daines, 62 AD3d 1254 (4th
Dept. 2009), quoting, Matter o f G o e s t s c h i u , ~ v. EoardofEduc, Of
Greenburgh Eleven Union Free District, 244 AD2d 552 (2d Dept. 1997). Nor does the record.
establish "obvious prejudice" to the petitioner as a result of the Board's ,cintentional and deceitful
cond.uct." See, Gordon, supra.
NO"'"", therefore. for the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED AND DECLARED, that upon good caL'tse shov.rn, that any purported action
by the Board that appointed respondent Sue Gorton as Interim Superintendent violated the Open
Meetings Law and is therefore void, and it is further
8
8/8/2019 Zehner Decision and Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zehner-decision-and-order 9/9
10/01/2010 13:24 ::n5-E,71-1187 HON DONALD GREENl'JOOD PAGE 10/10
ORDERED, that the petitioner's request for costs and reasonable attomey's fees
pursuant to Public Officers Law §107(2) is denied.
Dated: October 1,2010
S;rracuse. New York
D··· ALD A. GREENWOOD
Supreme Court .Justice
9
/JI