In December 1991 and February 1992, the two teachers were deposed in a federal court proceeding on matters relating to the 1988 examination. These appeals ensued. Petitioner challenges respondent Colistra's failure to act on his request to discipline the two teachers for grading irregularities in 1988 and for allegedly lying under oath, and for the superintendent's refusal to respond to his questions regarding these teachers. Petitioner seeks no disciplinary action against the two teachers but requests an order declaring that the superintendent performed his job improperly by not filing 3020-a charges against the teachers. Petitioner asks that any delay in filing the petition be excused because he had hoped to resolve these matters informally and had waited to file the appeals until after he received a response from the State Education Department to his FOIL request.
Respondents raise several affirmative defenses.
First, they argue that petitioner fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Respondents also claim that the appeals are premature as to the board of education, because they do not seek review of the board's final action. Finally, respondents assert that although petitioner claims that respondent Colistra did not respond to his questions, he simply failed to give petitioner the answer he wanted. The appeals must be dismissed as against the board of education as premature. Petitioner apparently seeks review of the actions of the board of education regarding the superintendent's failure to initiate disciplinary action against two teachers.