|
| |
In the ad announcing the annual meeting, the school district clerk
accurately stated that the law that controls propositions to be voted upon is Education
law 2008. Part 2 of the law is the section that applies to the grassroots propositions
that were submitted to be voted upon on May 21 2013.
Now the Board of Education is pretending that they can ignore the
law. They have refused to put the proposal up for a vote. According to a newspaper
account, our superintendent was so hell bent on pushing for a merger without a vote so he
was quoted as saying that the school board voted against putting the propositions on the
ballot "Because they would violate New York State law on voting for school
mergers".
First, the superintendent should start reading the legal notices
that the district clerk puts out. In those notices the controlling law for petitions is
accurately identified as the before mentioned Education Law 2008.
SO WHAT DOES THE LAW STATE AND WHAT DID THE SCHOOL BOARD DO?
Part 2. is the section that applies to our case.
THE LAW
IMPACT OF THE
LAW ON THE GRASSROOTS PETITION
| 2. Upon the filing with the trustee or board of education of a petition
requesting such officers to call a special meeting, which petition shall state the purpose
thereof and shall be signed by twenty-five qualified voters or five percent of the
number of voters who voted in the previous annual election of the members of the board of
education trustees, said number to be determined by the number of persons recorded on the
poll list as having voted at such election, whichever shall be greater, such
trustee or board of education shall proceed to call such meeting by giving notice thereof
within twenty days thereafter unless it shall appear |
The proposition had the required amount of signatories and met all
requirements of the law. The bold text clearly shows that the petition MUST be put up
for a vote. A notice must be given within 20 days. That time ran out on May 9'th so now
the school board is risking a lawsuit that you as taxpayer have to pay for! |
| a) that the purpose for which such meeting is sought to be called is not
within the power of the voters of the district, or |
The voters in S-VE have of course the same rights than voters in other
districts that have voted on similar issues. |
| (b) that such purpose is illegal |
No illegalities were proposed. |
| (c) that a bond note resolution has been adopted and such petition is not
filed within the power of the voters of the district, or |
Does not apply. |
| (d) that other valid reason exists for refusing to call such meeting when
appealed to the commissioner of education shall be deemed by him to be sufficient cause
for such refusal. |
Taking away the right to vote on a important issue that will for all
future increase travel time, |
| |
|
Back to first page
|
