Matter of Community School Board’s Election, 28 N.Y.2d 112 (1971)
r
r
When a statute mandates a public hearing on a tentative districting plan, the hearing must be based on a plan that complies with the statute’s requirements for district size; a hearing on a non-compliant plan does not satisfy the statutory obligation, and the final adopted plan must bear a reasonable resemblance to the initially proposed plan.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns the Board of Education’s failure to comply with Education Law § 2590-b when creating a districting plan for community school districts. The Board held hearings on a plan that did not meet the statutory minimum pupil requirement per district. The Court of Appeals held that because the initial plan was statutorily invalid, the hearings did not satisfy the law. The final plan adopted, being radically different from the initial invalid plan, also violated the statute because no hearing was ever held on a plan that could be adopted. Therefore, the Board was required to create a new districting plan and hold a compliant public hearing.
r
r
Facts
r
The Board of Education was required to create a districting plan for community school districts within the Borough of Manhattan. The relevant statute, Education Law § 2590-b, mandated that each district contain no less than 20,000 pupils in average daily attendance. The Board prepared and published a “Proposed Plan” that created districts not meeting this minimum pupil requirement. The Board held public hearings on this “Proposed Plan.” Subsequently, the Board adopted a significantly different districting plan, without holding additional public hearings specific to the adopted plan.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The case originated after the Board of Education adopted the final districting plan. The lower courts’ decisions regarding the validity of the election process were appealed. The Appellate Division’s decision was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the public hearings held by the Board of Education satisfied the requirements of Education Law § 2590-b when the hearings were based on a “Proposed Plan” that did not comply with the statutory minimum pupil requirement per district.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the statute requires a hearing on a plan that is, at least in its initial form, capable of being adopted under the statute’s requirements; the hearings on a non-compliant plan did not satisfy the statutory mandate, and the plan ultimately adopted must bear a reasonable resemblance to the initially proposed plan.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that the Board’s initial “Proposed Plan” was invalid because it violated Education Law § 2590-b by creating districts with fewer than 20,000 pupils. Because the public hearings were based on this invalid plan, they did not fulfill the statute’s requirement for a meaningful public hearing. The court emphasized that the statute places the responsibility on the Board to formulate a valid initial plan and hold hearings on *that* plan. The court stated, “It was the legislative design that the local community be heard on the plan under consideration, which was possible of acceptance.” Because the initially published plan was impermissible, and the final adopted plan was