Both the appeal and the application are dismissed. It is undisputed that Mr. Bianco is neither qualified nor certified to teach. Petitioner asserts that respondents should be removed, pursuant to Education Law ' 306, for appointing as director of security an individual who is neither qualified nor certified to teach. Petitioner further alleges that respondents violated the Civil Service Law in appointing Mary Young to fill the position of deputy clerk, because it was not offered as a competitive position. In her second appeal, petitioner sought a stay of the board's resolution to retain counsel to defend respondents on the basis that the expenditure was improperly authorized prior to a decision on her first appeal.
Respondents raise numerous defenses.
They assert that the application should be denied due to improper service, nonjoinder of necessary parties, failure to state a cause of action and because it is untimely. As to the merits, respondents argue that because the director of security position did not involve any teaching responsibilities, the failure to appoint a qualified or certified teacher to fill the position did not constitute a violation of the Education Law. Regarding the deputy clerk position, they claim they did not violate the Civil Service Law in making the appointment. Additionally, respondents contend that, under the circumstances, a certificate of good faith should be issued to indemnify them. Respondents Prattella and Wrubel both provide affidavits that they were served by petitioner.