New York City School Boards Ass'n, Inc. v. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 25 March 1976 |
| Citation | 347 N.E.2d 568,383 N.Y.S.2d 208,39 N.Y.2d 111 |
| Parties | , 347 N.E.2d 568, 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2556, 80 Lab.Cas. P 53,946 In the Matter of the NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, and United Federation of Teachers, Intervenor-Respondent. (And Two Other Proceedings.) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Michael A. Rebell, New York City, for appellants.
W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel (Doron Gopstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
James R. Sandner, Nancy E. Siegel, David N. Stein and Jeffrey S. Karp, New York City, for intervenor-respondent.
Robert D. Stone and Lawrence W. Reich, Albany, for Ewald B. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education, amicus curiae.
Arnold Rothbaum, Ira S. Bezoza, Brooklyn, and Eugene C. Gratz, New York City, for Public Education Association and others, amici curiae.
Petitioners, New York City School Boards Association and 22 community school districts, brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding to prohibit respondent New York City Board of Education from implementing a collective bargaining agreement with intervenor United Federation of Teachers. Supreme Court, 84 Misc.2d 237, 375 N.Y.S.2d 978, dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division, 50 A.D.2d 826, 376 N.Y.S.2d 194, affirmed and petitioners appeal.
The issue is whether the central New York City Board of Education has the power, in a negotiated accommodation with the teachers' union, to lower the hours of instruction in the New York City public school system, contrary to the wishes of certain community school districts.
There should be an affirmance. Absent State regulation or restriction, the central city board of education has the power to establish, consistent with minimum educational standards, a uniform city-wide policy or standard with respect to the hours of instruction in the public schools. Confronted with the city's grave fiscal crisis and an unlawful teachers' strike, the central board acted to reduce expenditures throughout the school system by shortening the hours of instruction by two 45-minute periods per week. Because this action falls within the central board's powers to establish standards and policies, to bargain collectively with all the city teachers, and to supervise the overall city educational budget, it was not violative of the statutes providing for school district decentralization in the City of New York.
Early in September, 1975, in the midst of the city's fiscal crisis, collective bargaining between the central board and the teachers' union collapsed, and the teachers went on strike. The embattled parties, nevertheless, continued to seek compromise and on September 15 an agreement was reached which ended the unlawful strike.
A provision in a side agreement or memorandum to the collective agreement required the teachers to 'waive' two 45-minute 'preparation periods', periods during which a teacher is not actually teaching but is expected to be engaging in preparation for course teaching and professional advancement. Two additional 45-minute preparation periods were to be scheduled 'during the two periods when pupils have been dismissed in accordance with the shortened instructional day of pupils established by the Board'. It was estimated that the 'waiver' of the preparation periods would result in a significant cost saving, approximately $25 million, to the city, becuse of the reduced need to employ substitute teachers.
As is apparent from the language of the side agreement, the parties had already agreed, in return for the 'waiver' of the preparation periods, that the central board would shorten the instructional day, and thus the teachers' class load, by two 45-minute periods per week. Indeed, further provision was included in the side agreement to protect the Quid pro quo: If the board should restore one period for students, then one 'waived' preparation period must also be restored; if the board should restore two periods, then two 'waived' preparation periods must also be restored.
The ultimate general management and control of educational affairs in the State is vested in the Board of Regents and Commissioner of Education (N.Y.Const., art. V, § 4; art. XI, § 2; Education Law, §§ 207, 305; see Matter of Ocean Hill-Brownsville Governing Bd. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 23 N.Y.2d 483, 485, 297 N.Y.S.2d 568, 570, 245 N.E.2d 219, 220). Thus, it is within the power of the Board of Regents and the State Commissioner to determine the appropriate hours of instruction in the schools. Unlike the minimum number of days in the school year, which has been fixed by statute, to date no State statute or regulation prescribes a minimum number of instructional hours per week or day (see Education Law, § 1704, subd. 2). By regulations, however, effective September 1, 1976, the State Commissioner has fixed the minimum length of the school day for 'state aid purposes'.
The conflicting positions taken by the community boards and the city board with respect to the city board's power to reduce the hours of instruction arise quite naturally from the statutes defining their respective authorities. They do indeed overlap and breed conflict, but the primacy of authority as between the two sides rests in the city board.
Thus, the Education Law sections describing the city board's and the Chancellors' power in pertinent part read as follows:
Section 2552
.
'The city board except as otherwise provided herein shall have all the powers and duties the interim board of education of the city district had on the effective date of this article, and shall determine all policies of the city district.
'In addition the city board shall have power and duty to: * * *
'5. For all purposes, be the 'government' or 'public employer' of all persons appointed or assigned by the city board or the community boards.
Section 2590--i provides generally for the Chancellor and the city board to prepare the city school budget and that:
.
And comparable provisions of the statute defining the community board's powers read:
'Each community board shall have all the powers and duties, vested by law in, or duly delegated to, the local school board districts and the board of education of the city district on the effective date of this article, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article and the policies established by the city board, with respect to the control and operation of all pre-kindergarten, nursery, kindergarten, elementary, intermediate and junior high schools and programs in connection therewith in the community district. The foregoing shall not be limited by the enumeration of the following, each community board shall have the power and duty to: * * *
'2. appoint, define the duties, assign, promote and discharge all its employees and fix their compensation and terms and conditions of employment, not inconsistent with the provisions of this article or any applicable collective negotiation agreement.
'3. determine matters relating to the instruction of students * * *
Significantly, by the preamble to section 2590--e the powers of the community boards are made subject generally to the policies established by the city board.
With the applicable statutes in mind, the analysis may proceed from the general to the particular.
Subject to State regulation or restriction, boards of education in city school districts ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arena v. Kaplan
... ... United States District Court, E.D. New York. July 8, 2013 ... [952 ... Langone, Esq., Of Counsel, Garden City, NY, for the Petitioner. Nassau County District ... ...
-
Harris v. Dutchess Cnty. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.
...N.Y. Const., art. V, § 4 ; art. XI, § 2 ; Education Law, §§ 207, 305 ; Matter of New York City School Bds. Assn. v. Board of Educ., 39 N.Y.2d 111, 116, 383 N.Y.S.2d 208, 347 N.E.2d 568 [1976] ; Matter of Ocean Hill–Brownsville Governing Bd. v. Board of Educ., 23 N.Y.2d 483, 485, 297 N.Y.S.2......
-
Board of Ed., Levittown Union Free School Dist., Nassau County v. Nyquist
...Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 51, n. 108, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1306, n. 108, 36 L.Ed.2d 16; Matter of New York City School Bds. Assn. v. Board of Educ., 39 N.Y.2d 111, 119, 383 N.Y.S.2d 208, 347 N.E.2d 568.1 The thorough and painstaking review of the facts in the opinion written by Justice L. K......
-
Board of Ed. of Northport-East Northport Union Free School Dist. v. Ambach
...shared with the Commissioner of Education. Donohue, supra; New York City School Boards Association, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City School District of The City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 111, 383 N.Y.S.2d 208, 347 N.E.2d 568. Pursuant to that broad grant of power the Regents and the Comm......