During the course of the investigation, George's kindergarten teacher advised the superintendent that petitioners had disclosed to her that George had not been spanked, just placed over the principal's knee. Based on that statement and a conversation with respondent Garuccio, the superintendent concluded that Garuccio had not used corporal punishment against George. Nevertheless, the superintendent placed a letter of counsel in Garuccio's file, reprimanding him for threatening students with corporal punishment and directing him to refrain from making such threats in the future. The superintendent concluded that more formal disciplinary action was unwarranted. This appeal followed.
Petitioners seek a hearing and further disciplinary action against respondent principal.
Respondents contend there is no hearing requirement and that its decision to forego further disciplinary action was reasonable. Concerning petitioners' demand for a hearing, formal disciplinary action against a tenured principal can only occur in the context of a proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law ' 3020-a. Therefore, I must address whether respondent abused its discretion in deciding not to bring ' 3020-a charges against Garuccio. In this case, there is no evidence in the record to support petitioners' allegations that the principal used corporal punishment against George. Accordingly, I conclude that respondent's decision not to pursue further disciplinary action was reasonable.