No legal obligation to initiate disciplinary charges against an individual

To contact us Click HERE
No legal obligation to initiate disciplinary charges against an individual
Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,427
A tenured high school teacher alleged that the high school superintendentneglected her duty to ensure the integrity of the school system by failing toinitiate disciplinary charges against the principal of the high school at whichhe was serving.
The teacher alleged that he reported the school’s principal for alleged violations including failure to identify at-risk students asrequired by Title I of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20USC §6301, et seq.) and scoring irregularities on New York StateRegents mathematics examinations.
Following his reporting these alleged violations, the teacherclaimed that the principal retaliated against him by [1] placing severaldisciplinary letters in his personnel file, [2] his being ordered to undergomedical examination and [3] his removal from the school to a “temporary assignmentcenter.”*
The teacher asked the Commissioner to remove the high schoolsuperintendent and the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Educationfrom their respective positions because they failed to take disciplinary actionagainst the principal.
After considering a number of procedural issued, theCommissioner said that the teacher’s application “must be dismissed on themerits.”
The Commissioner explained that a member of the board ofeducation or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to EducationLaw §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that theboard member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect ofduty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, ruleor regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education.
The teacher alleged that the high school superintendent “neglectedher duty to ensure the integrity of the school system by failing to initiatedisciplinary charges against [the principal].” However, said the Commissioner,the teacher s failed to meet his burden of proof as he did not establish howthe superintendent’s failure to file an Education Law §3020-a charge againstthe principal, at his request, constituted a willful violation or neglect ofduty under the Education Law, requiring her removal under Education Law §306nor did the teacher show that the superintendent “was under a legal obligationto initiate Education Law §3020-a charges against [the principal].”
The Commissioner ruled that “On the record before me, I findthat [the teacher] has failed to demonstrate that [the high school superintendent]has willfully neglected her duties [and] failed to establish any basis for [thesuperintendent’s] removal” and denied the teacher’s application.
* The teacher was laterrestored to service at the school..
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume52/d16427.html