They contend that the less desirable schools have greater educational needs, requiring more support staff, not less. Petitioners provide analyses and expert statements in support of their position. Respondents argue that the system of formulas should be viewed as a whole. They argue that the supporting percent allocation is only one formula, that other formulas specifically recognize special needs students, and that the system of formulas meets the relative needs of the children to the maximum extent feasible. Respondent's finally argue that petitioners have not demonstrated that their actions were arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion and that the Commissioner's intervention would impinge on the control and discretion granted by statute to the board to devise the formulas.
Respondents also argue that the appeal is untimely.
I must dismiss the appeal because it is untimely. The petition is dated March 1, 1996. Petitioners argue that the 30-day time period does not apply because this is an ongoing wrong, and therefore subject to complaint at any time. Once the formulae are established and the allocations are calculated, there is no ongoing wrong. While I am dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds, I urge respondents to carefully review the district's fund allocation formulae to ensure its compliance with the Education Law in the future.