The attorney advised the board that, other than a proviso that the expenses be reasonable, there was no limitation on the reimbursement. This appeal ensued. Following the board's resolution, respondent Ennis obtained outside counsel. Therefore, she argues that any monies paid to him above this amount were unauthorized and must be returned. Petitioner also asserts that respondent MacGregor should be removed as president and member of the board of education for authorizing a payment to respondent Ennis and for seeking ratification for this payment by the board when this payment was not contemplated by the contract.
Respondents raise several defenses.
First, they argue that petitioner lacks standing to bring this appeal. Further, respondents contend that I lack jurisdiction to review the matter as it stems from an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law. Finally, respondent MacGregor asserts that since he acted on advice of counsel, his actions do not constitute a wilful violation of law under Education Law ' 306. Respondent Ennis also seeks a certificate of good faith pursuant to Education Law ' 3811, to enable the board to authorize the reimbursement of his legal expenses connected with this proceeding. Petitioner fails to allege that she is a resident of the district, and without any evidence of her residence, I find that she lacks standing to bring this appeal.