Petitioner Colone offered proposed changes to the plan regarding teacher selection. Petitioner union and petitioner Colone did not attend the meeting. Respondent adopted the revised plan with the endorsement of all constituent groups except the teachers. This appeal ensued. Petitioners allege that respondent has failed to conduct its biennial review in accordance with the Commissioner's regulations because it did not include teacher representatives on the district's central committee.
Petitioners seek an order annulling the amendments to the original plan.
Petitioners also seek an order requiring respondent to submit revisions to a properly comprised committee pursuant to the regulations. Respondent contends that its revised plan was adopted in accordance with the regulations and the provisions of the original plan. Respondent also contends that petitioners were invited to participate and collaborate in the development of the revised district plan. The amended plan or a recertification of the previous plan, together with a statement of the plan's success in achieving its objectives, shall be filed with the district superintendent where applicable, and submitted to the commissioner for approval no later than February 1st of each year in which such biennial review takes place, commencing with February 1, 1996. The record indicates that respondent originally adopted a plan with a properly composed district planning committee.