I disagree with respondent's determination that the hiring of a public relations firm is an ordinary contingent expense. The cost of the proposed contract with a public relations firm is not an expenditure necessary to advise district voters concerning school matters since existing district personnel and communication mechanisms could adequately perform this function for the district. Therefore, I find that the services of the public relations firm does not constitute an ordinary contingent expense and is not permissible. Petitioners lack standing to challenge respondent's decision to fire the former high school principal. Rather, the former principal would have standing to challenge this action, as she was the person aggrieved by the board's action.
Petitioners also raise serious allegations concerning the hiring practices of respondent.
However, petitioners' assertion that the acting high school principal is also serving as a board member of the Town of Hempstead is troubling. I, therefore, urge respondent to carefully monitor this situation to insure that the acting high school principal's service on the town board doesn't undermine his ability to properly carry out his responsibilities to the school district. Petitioners also allege that an incompatibility of office exists because respondent's board president serves on the Village Board of Zoning Appeals. Concerning petitioners' assertion that respondent violated the Freedom of Information Law and the Open Meetings Law, I lack jurisdiction to decide those claims. I have reviewed the parties' remaining contentions and find them without merit.