The doctrine of equitable estoppel is incorporated into the principle permitting a 306 application to be commenced within 30 days of discovery of an alleged wrongdoing or misuse of funds, and does not serve to extend further the limitations period. Absent the proffer of any excuse for the delay in instituting this proceeding after receiving full explanation and documentation of the contract and payment, this claim is also dismissed as untimely. Even if they were not dismissed as untimely, the claims involving the Flatto contract and incorporation of the Foundation would be dismissed on the merits. While the record indicates this statement is inaccurate, I note that the board eventually approved the Flatto contract in August 1996, retroactive to June 19, 1996. The record also indicates that the district's attorney acted pro bono when he incorporated the Foundation, and no fees or costs of the incorporation were charged to the district.
Petitioners fail to rebut respondents' assertions with any substantiated proof.
Petitioners have not met this burden, and these claims are dismissed. Respondents also provide no proof that the board actually performed its duty to evaluate the three proposals and determined that the Cimple proposal would be in the taxpayers' best interests, as required by General Municipal Law 104-b, prior to execution of the contract. In addition, although respondents assert that the board was aware of Dr. Sherman's negotiations with Cimple, they provide as purported proof of such knowledge only one set of minutes dated two months prior to execution of the Cimple contract, which contain a recommendation to award the contract to another party, and admit that the district's attorney did not review the contract prior to execution. Respondents further provide no explanation of or justification for the very large advance payment prior to any performance of the contract. I am encouraged by Dr. Kolk's acknowledgement that the board has subsequently reviewed its procedures to ensure that in the future the district's attorney reviews contract documents before execution, that such large payments are not made before services are provided, that specific board approval is obtained for contracts involving a large amount of money, and that the district is not subjected to avoidable financial risk such as occurred with the Cimple contract.