Karam v. Utica City Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 24 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Index No. EFCA2022-002866 |
| Citation | 2023 NY Slip Op 50407 (U) |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bruce J. Karam, Petitioner, v. Utica City School District; and BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE UTICA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP by Christopher A. Priore Esq., and Benjamin Mehic, Esq., for Respondents
Utica City School District and Board of Education of the Utica City School District
In this combined Article 78 and declaratory judgment action Petitioner Bruce Karam, superintendent of Respondent Utica City School District, challenges Respondent Utica City School District Board of Education's October 18, 2022 resolution placing him on administrative leave pending an investigation into complaints of pervasive discriminatory behavior. Karam contends that the resolution should be judicially annulled because it violates both the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law §§ 100-111) and his employment contract (NYSCEF Doc. 1). The District and the Board move to dismiss the Petition (
I.
Karam is the Utica City School District's current superintendent, serving under an employment contract that expires on January 31, 2027 (NYSCEF Doc. 6). On October 18 2022, by a majority vote, the Board of Education placed Karam on paid administrative leave and retained an outside law firm to investigate two formal complaints submitted by senior district employees. The complaints allege that Karam created a hostile work environment in the District by, among other things, discriminating against individuals based upon their race, ethnicity, and sexual preference. The four members of the seven-member Board who voted to place Karam on leave (President Joseph Hobika, Jr., and members Danielle N. Padula, Tennille Knoop and James Paul) were originally named as Respondents in this action. Likewise, Brian Nolan, the District's acting superintendent, was also named as a Respondent (NYSCEF Doc. 1).
The circumstances surrounding the investigation into Karam's workplace behavior began on September 29, 2022, when a formal complaint was filed by the District's Chief Operations Officer (NYSCEF Doc. 44). After receiving a copy of the COO's complaint, Board President Hobika contacted the Labor Relations & Policy Office of the Madison-Oneida Board of Cooperative Education Service ("BOCES"), which advised him - as did the Board's general counsel - that an independent workplace investigation was warranted (NYSCEF Docs. 45, 46). On October 6, 2022, the Board met in executive session, discussed the COO's accusations against Karam, and deliberated as to how to properly respond, including the possibility of suspending Karam and commencing an investigation (NYSCEF Docs. 1, 37).
Shortly after that meeting, the Board was informed that an earlier discrimination complaint had also been filed against Karam in September by the District's Chief Financial Officer. That complaint similarly claimed that Karam was creating a hostile work environment by, among other things, making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments (NYSCEF Doc. 50). Copies of both complaints were provided to Karam (NYSCEF Doc. 51), and in an email of October 17, 2022, a special Board meeting was called for October 18, 2022 to address "contracts," "personnel," and "litigation" (NYSCEF Docs. 1, 37, 52). In advance of the October 18 special meeting, Hobika consulted with Dr. Patricia Kilburn, Superintendent of the Oneida-Herkimer-Madison BOCES, who told him that she would assist the Board in finding a competent individual to serve as acting superintendent in the event that Karam was placed on leave. Dr. Kilburn also recommended that the Board promptly appoint independent outside legal counsel to assist with its investigation (NYSCEF Doc. 37). She then contacted Nolan, a former administrator in the Syracuse City School District who was working as an Independent Monitor in the New York State Education Department, and inquired if he would be available to serve as the District's acting superintendent, if needed (NYSCEF Doc. 37).
Shortly after roll call at the special Board meeting on October 18, 2022, Hobika made a motion to appoint the law firm of Ferrara Fiorenza, PC, as special counsel. That motion was then discussed in the Board's first executive session of the meeting (NYSCEF Docs. 37, 53). After exiting executive session, the Board, in a four-to-three public vote, appointed the firm as its investigative counsel (NYSCEF Doc. 1). A second executive session was then entered into, which Hobika stated was for the purposes of "personnel matters, contracts and litigation" (NYSCEF Docs. 1, 53). After the Board exited the second executive session, Board member Donald Dawes left the public meeting, and the remaining members of the Board adopted a second resolution - this time by a four-to-two public vote - "to place an employee who was discussed by the Board of Education in executive session on paid administrative leave pending the completion of an independent investigation" (NYSCEF Docs. 1, 5, 53). This resolution was followed immediately by a third resolution, which also passed by a four-to-two vote, appointing Nolan as acting superintendent (NYSCEF Doc. 1). After Nolan's appointment, the special meeting was adjourned (Id.).
II.
On December 9, 2022, Karam commenced the instant special proceeding against the District, the Board, the four Board members who had voted in favor of the resolution placing him on administrative leave - Hobika, Padula, Knoop and Paul - and Nolan (NYSCEF Doc. 1). As a combined Article 78 proceeding and CPLR 3001 declaratory judgment action, Karam's Petition alleges that the resolutions adopted at the October 18, 2022, meeting violated the Open Meetings Law because the special meeting was improperly noticed, the subject of the executive sessions was not sufficiently stated on the record, and a quorum of members had possibly met privately in advance. Karam also alleges that the Respondents breached the terms of his employment contract because he had not been given a hearing prior to being placed on administrative leave (NYSCEF Doc. 1).
Karam's Notice of Petition and Petition were served at the next scheduled Board meeting, held on December 13, 2022, after which the Board made a brief statement regarding the lawsuit on the record and then entered into an executive session "to discuss the employment history of a particular person and discuss pending litigation filed against the District and Board of Education members" (NYSCFE Docs. 37, 54). Upon exiting executive session, the Board passed a series of resolutions expressly ratifying each of the three resolutions that it had passed at the October 18, 2022, special meeting, all by a vote of four-to-three (NYSCEF Docs. 37, 54).
Two weeks later, on January 4, 2023, Karam commenced a separate civil rights action against the District and the Board, as well as Hobika, Padula, Knoop, Paul and Nolan individually, in the Northern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and due process violations (NYSCEF Doc. 61; Case No. 6:23-cv-20). That action remains pending.
In the present proceeding, prior to the scheduled return of Karam's Petition, the individual Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (Motions No. 2 through 6), and the District and Board filed the instant motion to dismiss based upon objections in point of law pursuant to CPLR 3219 and 7804 (Motion No. 5). The motions were argued on March 10, 2023, at which time Karam - through his counsel - consented to discontinue all of his claims against the individual Respondents (NYSCEF Docs. 106-110). The Court reserved decision on the District and Board's motion to dismiss.
III.
The Article 78 component of Karam's Petition seeks the annulment of the three operative resolutions adopted on October 18, 2022, based upon alleged material violations of Article 7 of New York's Public Officers Law (Sections 100 through 111), commonly known as the Open Meetings Law (NYSCEF Doc. 1). "The Open Meetings Law, passed in 1976 after the crisis of confidence in American politics occasioned by Watergate, was intended - as its very name suggests - to open the decision-making process of elected officials to the public while at the same time protecting the ability of the government to carry out its responsibilities" (Gordon v Village of Monticello, 87 N.Y.2d 124, 125 [1995]). This dual mandate balances public bodies' need to discuss sensitive issues in private, while simultaneously prohibiting them "from debating and deciding in private matters that they are required to debate and decide in public, i.e., 'deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy'" (Zehner v Board of Educ. of Jordan-Elbridge Cent. School Dist., 91 A.D.3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2012]).
To carry out the policy's purposes effectively, Public Officers Law § 103(a) provides that "[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with" Public Officers Law § 105. Section 105, in turn, sets out eight specific topics - the only topics - that may be discussed by a public body during an executive session, including "matters involving public safety, proposed, pending or current litigation, collective bargaining, and matters concerning the appointment or employment status of a particular person" (Zehner, 91 A.D.3d at 1349-1350). Further, "[a] public body may conduct an executive session only upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered" (Sanna v Lindenhurst...
To continue reading
Request your trial