Respondent contends that petitioner's assertions relating to the modification of his duties are untimely. Petitioner further argues that the contract upon which petitioner relies was illegal at its inception and is, therefore, null and void. Respondent finally claims that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to review violations of the Open Meetings Law. Before addressing the merits, I will address the procedural issues raised. The record in this case reflects that respondent modified petitioner's job functions on November 17, 1994.
Petitioner offers no excuse for the delay.
Accordingly, those claims relating to the diminution of petitioner's job functions are dismissed as untimely. Further, I am without jurisdiction to address petitioner's claims regarding respondent's purported violations of the Open Meetings Law. It has been repeatedly held that alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law must be pursued in a judicial proceeding in State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules or in a judicial action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Accordingly, all alleged Open Meetings Law violations are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The remaining question is whether petitioner was dismissed in violation of his contract.