Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
RateHTC school board suspends teacher
Formal disciplinary action approved in unanimous vote
By Jim Planck
HUNTER — The Hunter-Tannersville Board of Education formally suspended without pay a tenured teacher from employment Thursday following an executive session.
The resolution enacting the suspension was unanimously adopted by board members in a 5-0 vote, and stated it was the result of the district having determined that “probable cause” existed regarding charges to bring a disciplinary proceeding against the tenured teacher.
The district is prohibited by law from naming the employee.
However, HTC received notice from NYS Commissioner of Education Richard Mills in May that the administrative and teaching certificates of Phys Ed director, teacher, and coach Randy Mudge were suspended by Mills for one year following a two-and-a-half year formal SED review on a “Question of Moral Character.”
Without certification, a district is apparently unable to retain an uncertified party on payroll for a position requiring certification.
That type of review is conducted under a section of State Education Law called Part 83, so it is generally referred to as just that -- a Part 83.
It is a category of proceeding that pertains solely to the status of a person’s teaching certificates — not to one’s employment, whereas Thursday night’s resolution initiates a process for addressing a tenured employee’s employment status.
That process is conducted under an entirely different section of State Education Law found at section 3020-a, so in like manner, it is generally referred to as a 3020-a.
Thursday’s resolution essentially initiates that procedure, and the tenured teacher has 10 days from its enactment to decide one of three choices — request a hearing, request no hearing, or make no request at all.
If one is requested, then Mills utilizes the services of the American Arbitration Association and the matter goes to either a hearing officer or hearing panel.
If the request is for no hearing, then the HTC Board of Education decides by a majority vote “to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any” — basically making the board a review panel with judicial authority.
If no request is made, it yields the same result — the matter goes to the school board.
Part of enacting Thursday’s resolution also requires that the board provide the employee a statement specifying the charges, as well as specifying the maximum penalty the board will seek if the employee is found guilty after a hearing, or — alternatively — the maximum penalty the board will impose if no hearing is requested.
If it goes to a hearing, the hearing officer’s decision will then state “what penalty or other action, if any, shall be taken” by the board.
Section 3020-a also provides that when a penalty is imposed, “such penalty may be a written reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay, or dismissal.”
The hearing officer can also add remedial penalties if deemed appropriate, including “leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment, or … any other remedial or combination of remedial actions.”
If the employee is acquitted of the charges, he or she is restored to their position with full pay, including any funds withheld, and the charges are expunged from the employment record.
In addition to acquittal, if the hearing officer determines that the charges brought by the BOE “were frivolous,” then the district has to reimburse the state and the employee for court costs, including attorney fees.
Lastly, within 10 days of a hearing officer’s decision, either side — the employee or the school board — has the right to ask the state supreme court to vacate or modify the terms of the decision.
In the interim, however, the hearing officer’s decision would still stand and be required to be implemented.
To reach reporter Jim Planck, please call 518-943-2100, ext. 3324, or e-mail jplanck@thedailymail.net.
By Jim Planck
HUNTER — The Hunter-Tannersville Board of Education formally suspended without pay a tenured teacher from employment Thursday following an executive session.
The resolution enacting the suspension was unanimously adopted by board members in a 5-0 vote, and stated it was the result of the district having determined that “probable cause” existed regarding charges to bring a disciplinary proceeding against the tenured teacher.
The district is prohibited by law from naming the employee.
However, HTC received notice from NYS Commissioner of Education Richard Mills in May that the administrative and teaching certificates of Phys Ed director, teacher, and coach Randy Mudge were suspended by Mills for one year following a two-and-a-half year formal SED review on a “Question of Moral Character.”
Without certification, a district is apparently unable to retain an uncertified party on payroll for a position requiring certification.
That type of review is conducted under a section of State Education Law called Part 83, so it is generally referred to as just that -- a Part 83.
It is a category of proceeding that pertains solely to the status of a person’s teaching certificates — not to one’s employment, whereas Thursday night’s resolution initiates a process for addressing a tenured employee’s employment status.
That process is conducted under an entirely different section of State Education Law found at section 3020-a, so in like manner, it is generally referred to as a 3020-a.
Thursday’s resolution essentially initiates that procedure, and the tenured teacher has 10 days from its enactment to decide one of three choices — request a hearing, request no hearing, or make no request at all.
If one is requested, then Mills utilizes the services of the American Arbitration Association and the matter goes to either a hearing officer or hearing panel.
If the request is for no hearing, then the HTC Board of Education decides by a majority vote “to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any” — basically making the board a review panel with judicial authority.
If no request is made, it yields the same result — the matter goes to the school board.
Part of enacting Thursday’s resolution also requires that the board provide the employee a statement specifying the charges, as well as specifying the maximum penalty the board will seek if the employee is found guilty after a hearing, or — alternatively — the maximum penalty the board will impose if no hearing is requested.
If it goes to a hearing, the hearing officer’s decision will then state “what penalty or other action, if any, shall be taken” by the board.
Section 3020-a also provides that when a penalty is imposed, “such penalty may be a written reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay, or dismissal.”
The hearing officer can also add remedial penalties if deemed appropriate, including “leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment, or … any other remedial or combination of remedial actions.”
If the employee is acquitted of the charges, he or she is restored to their position with full pay, including any funds withheld, and the charges are expunged from the employment record.
In addition to acquittal, if the hearing officer determines that the charges brought by the BOE “were frivolous,” then the district has to reimburse the state and the employee for court costs, including attorney fees.
Lastly, within 10 days of a hearing officer’s decision, either side — the employee or the school board — has the right to ask the state supreme court to vacate or modify the terms of the decision.
In the interim, however, the hearing officer’s decision would still stand and be required to be implemented.
To reach reporter Jim Planck, please call 518-943-2100, ext. 3324, or e-mail jplanck@thedailymail.net.
 |
||
| Zoning changes nearly drafted |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thedailymail.net.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
green wrote on Jul 16, 2009 5:12 PM:
Im just saying ppl have been talking this in Hunter/Tannersville board meetings since like last October, right?? Lets move it here! /like Coxsackie- Who is first to wake up, smell the crisis & pay it forward here in 'Green'e County /NY "