In her reply, petitioner also claims that respondent was improperly granted an extension by telephone to file an answer. Respondent asserts that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction because petitioner neither challenges nor is aggrieved by any action or decision by respondent. Preliminarily, I find both that petitioner has standing to bring this appeal and that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain it. I find that a school board's refusal to bring disciplinary charges against a district employee falls within the broad scope of the Commissioner's review authority under Education Law 310. However, the appeal must be dismissed for failure to join necessary parties.
Petitioner requests the initiation of disciplinary charges against eleven district employees.
The petition must also be dismissed on the merits. Petitioner is essentially seeking disciplinary action against a number of district employees. However, it is the board of education that has authority to take disciplinary action against a school district employee. There is no evidence in the record that respondent acted unreasonably or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion in refusing to discipline the employees in question. Finally, although granting respondent an extension by telephone to file an answer was technically improper, this procedural irregularity is not a basis for granting petitioner relief on the merits to which she is not otherwise entitled.