Moreover, respondents must allege the substantive facts upon which they rely in their answer. They have not done so here. Further, while petitioner requests the removal of the principal of School 57, petitioner has failed to join that individual as a party in this appeal. Nevertheless, petitioner's application must be denied on the merits. In this case, respondents Thompson, Dougherty and Mayo maintain that they were unaware of petitioner's attempts to contact them and knew nothing about the incident in question until served with this appeal.
Petitioner offers no proof to counter respondents' assertions.
Moreover, there is no evidence that respondents bear any personal responsibility for the incident. While administrators should endeavor to be responsive to parents' concerns, respondents were under no legal obligation to respond to petitioner's telephone calls on this matter. Accordingly, their failure to do so does not give rise to a willful violation of law or neglect of duty warranting respondents' removal under Education Law ' 306. Thus, petitioner has failed to sustain her burden of establishing that respondents have acted improperly in this matter. Since petitioner has presented no proof that her daughter requires a transfer or, indeed, that she has requested such a transfer from school officials, there is no basis to grant her request.