His request was denied. This appeal ensued. Petitioner asserts that respondent Superintendent Colistra directed the school attorney to send him the letter at issue to harass and intimidate him. Petitioner seeks Superintendent Colistra's rehabilitation. Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim in violation of the Commissioner's regulations ' 275.10.
Respondents further contend that the petition fails to contain a cognizable demand for relief.
While it is unclear from the pleadings, it appears that petitioner is challenging the superintendent's directive to the school attorney to send petitioner a letter, the purpose of which he claims was to harass and intimidate him. Petitioner provides no evidence to support his claim that respondent Colistra's motive in having the school district attorney send petitioner the letter was to harass and intimidate him. Since October 1991, petitioner has filed nine appeals before me, eight of which were dismissed. Since petitioner's pursuits, for the most part, are baseless and serve only to slow down a system designed to offer a forum for individuals who seek redress, petitioner is urged to seriously consider whether his claims have merit before he initiates another appeal. To do otherwise is not only costly and unnecessarily time consuming, it inevitably creates delays in the decision-making process for others with meritorious claims.