Board of Education v. Fernandez, 76 N.Y.2d 503 (1990)
A New York City public schools chancellor’s superintendent selection process does not impermissibly interfere with the statutory power of local community school boards to employ a community superintendent, provided the central board policy doesn’t eviscerate the community board’s power.
Summary
This case concerns the validity of Special Circular No. 37, issued by New York City Schools Chancellor Fernandez, which established a process for community school boards to select community superintendents. The community boards challenged the circular, arguing it infringed upon their statutory power to employ superintendents. The Court of Appeals held that the circular was valid, finding that community boards’ hiring practices must conform to city board policies, as long as those policies do not effectively eliminate the community boards’ power. The court emphasized the importance of community input in the selection process and deferred judgment on whether the chancellor’s directive power was being used to substitute his judgment for the boards’.
Facts
Chancellor Fernandez issued Special Circular No. 37 to improve the superintendent selection process. It required community boards to establish screening committees with parent representatives. The committees would recommend at least four candidates. The board had to submit comprehensive evaluations of finalists to the Chancellor, who could then issue directives. Community School District No. 29 refused to comply, planning to renew its superintendent’s contract without the Chancellor’s input. The Chancellor threatened to remove the board members. The board then sought a declaratory judgment that the circular was invalid.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the community boards, declaring the circular invalid. The Appellate Division reversed, upholding the circular’s validity. The Court of Appeals granted further review.
Issue(s)
Whether the superintendent selection process established by New York City’s public schools chancellor impermissibly interferes with the statutory power of local community school boards to employ a community superintendent.
Holding
No, because the community boards’ hiring practices must conform to the city board’s policies, as long as those policies do not effectively eliminate a community board’s enumerated power to hire a superintendent. The circular itself does not significantly intrude upon the community boards’ power to employ a superintendent.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court analyzed the history of the Decentralization Law, emphasizing that while community boards have a significant role, their powers are subject to the policies established by the city board. The court acknowledged the importance of community boards’ autonomy in selecting their own superintendents, stating, “particular vigilance must be paid to assuring sufficient autonomy by community boards in this respect.” However, the court found that the circular’s requirements, such as the inclusion of parent representatives on screening committees, were consistent with the law’s emphasis on community participation. The court noted the circular was analogous to SEQRA where agencies take a ‘hard look’ at alternatives. The Court deferred ruling on whether the chancellor’s directive power was being used to substitute his judgment for the community boards’, limiting its decision to a facial challenge of the circular. The Court stated, “If the Chancellor determines that the actions of the community school boards are flawed or deficient, in any way, he will so advise the community school board and issue appropriate directives.” The court emphasized that a policy eliminating the community board’s power would be invalid.