However, respondent Gersen asserts that district staff is willing to volunteer time and energy to accomplish the mission of the Committee. Additionally, respondents state that the project is well within the superintendent's authority. I must first address several procedural matters. Respondents contend that petitioners' reply is not responsive to respondents' affirmative defenses and contains additional materials and arguments not contained in the petition. Therefore, I will not consider those portions of petitioners' reply containing new allegations and material not responsive to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in the answer.
Respondents assert that the superintendent has such authority.
Nevertheless, subsequent actions of the board have rendered that issue moot. Accordingly, there is no need to determine the superintendent's authority under the various board policies submitted with petitioners' reply. To the extent petitioners challenge the superintendent's authority on this issue, that portion of the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Education Law 2023 provides that, in the absence of voter approval of a budget, a board of education may levy taxes and expend moneys only for teacher salaries and ordinary contingent expenses. Petitioners argue that significant funds will be expended by the use of personnel, equipment, supplies and facilities used for the project.