It is unreasonable to conclude that a board member has a conflict of interest in a collective bargaining agreement of his or her school district simply because that board member is a member of a similar collective bargaining unit of another school district or was once a member of a similar collective bargaining unit. I find the provision to be unlawful because it is unreasonably broad. Petitioner claims that the provision is unlawful because it adds a qualification that must be met by candidates for board membership to those provided in Education Law 2102. It does not authorize a board of education to establish a code of ethics for individuals who are not yet officers or employees of the district, including candidates for office. I am unaware of any statutory authority that would permit the board to establish this additional qualification for board membership.
Petitioner claims that requiring a super-majority vote of the board of education is unlawful.
General Construction Law 41 requires a majority of the entire board to take any official action. Accordingly, this provision, requiring a super-majority of the board of education for the removal of a member of the ethics board, is unlawful. Having found the four code of ethics provisions at issue to be unlawful, the next question to be answered is whether respondents willfully violated the law, as claimed by petitioner. I do not find this argument persuasive. It fails to consider that the provisions at issue could have a chilling effect on the behavior of board members and other covered individuals who may wish to avoid disciplinary action.