Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Regionalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Center Moriches board puts Article 78 and counsel retention on agenda to challenge NYSED regionalization emergency rule
Summary
The Center Moriches Union Free School District board placed resolutions on its agenda to seek Article 78 review of a New York State Education Department emergency regionalization rule and to retain counsel, capping the district's share of legal costs at $15,000 amid debate over loss of local control and unclear implementation details.
The Center Moriches Union Free School District Board of Education placed two resolutions on its agenda during a recent meeting: one to authorize Article 78 proceedings against the New York State Education Department, the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Regents, and another to retain the law firm Regano to represent the district, with a proposed $15,000 cap on the district's share of legal costs.
A board member said the emergency regionalization rule published Sept. 25 "would remove all local control of school districts," arguing the rule was issued under emergency procedures without adequate data collection or public comment. "We have established a $15,000 cap to our spending," the same board member added, explaining the cap was intended to limit the district's financial exposure while joining other districts in a coordinated legal challenge.
Board discussion focused on two central concerns: the rule's use of emergency regulatory authority and its practical effects on local governance. The board member who introduced the agenda items described the department's plan as dividing the state (excluding the Big Five cities) into 37 supervisory districts overseen by district superintendents and BOCES liaisons, and said the plan would require each supervisory district to produce a regionalization plan and interim progress reports on forms prescribed by the commissioner.
Supporters of pursuing legal action pointed to procedural issues under the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), saying the emergency approach curtailed the usual notice-and-comment process and could bind districts before meaningful public input. Opponents within the meeting cautioned about spending district funds on litigation without certainty of outcome; one participant said the firm proposed for retention lacked a track record in education law as presented to the board.
A different participant cited the state's public messaging in defense of the plan: "The state said no district will be forced to do anything that is not agreed to," the participant said, summarizing a state webinar. Board members said that assurance did not resolve their trust concerns about future implementation or whether regional plans could eventually lead to consolidation or shared staffing beyond voluntary arrangements.
The meeting also included discussion of administrative staffing and guidance responsibilities in the district: the chairperson described splitting duties previously handled by a single administrator across multiple principals and assistant principals to address workload concerns and maintain student-facing services.
The resolutions were placed on the agenda for a vote, but no formal vote or motion outcome is recorded in the transcript. The board capped its proposed contribution to the potential lawsuit at $15,000 and discussed retaining outside counsel to represent the district in Article 78 proceedings. Next procedural steps and any vote on the resolutions were not captured in the provided transcript.
