October 14, 2014

Mr. H. Carl McCall

Chairman, Board of Trustees
State University of New York
State University Plaza T-11
Albany, New York 12246
Dear Mr. McCall,
We were very disturbed to learn that the SUNY Board of Trustees voted on October 9, 2014 to
approve a change in application for Success Academy Charter School from District 2 to District 1
and District 6 without advance notification to the public. This change was based on a letter received
from Success Academy only one day before the hearing on October 8, 2014. Local communities who
face the impact of this change had no knowledge or opportunity to submit comments to the Board.
According to Board Members comments, this change is viewed as a non-material change because
it is within the borough. During discussions at the meeting about whether it was permissible to allow
the change without requiring formal re-application, Board Members agreed that this procedure had
precedent. While there may be precedent, this policy raises very serious concerns about the
transparency and openness of the SUNY charter review process.
School districts within a borough are inherently different populations different density, diversity,
language, culture, and socio-economic needs and require distinct notification and outreach efforts.
As such, District 1 and 6 must be given an opportunity to comment on proposals that affect their
communities. Using comments from the District 2 public hearing (if they were considered at all) is a
poor substitute.
Given the new state law requiring the city to accommodate charter schools within public school
spaces or to pay market rates for private space, your approval of charter applications nearly
guarantees that a charter school will be co-located in a school building of a designated district.
We have seen again and again the real and destructive effect that co-locations can have on our local
schools, and therefore, it is all the more important that local communities be notified in advance and
given full opportunity to comment when a charter school is being considered for a specific district.
We only learned about this change ourselves because a parent advocate was watching the hearing
online; when she saw the change, she notified us immediately.
This change in location comes on top of other serious concerns about process. You will remember
that the state-mandated DOE hearing originally scheduled for September 16, was not properly
noticed. At the request of our CEC for District 2, the hearing was rescheduled for September 29, due
to the fact that the District 2 community had not been properly made aware of the original hearing
date. We are further concerned because nobody from SUNY attended this hearing, and though
Success Academy representatives were there, there was no presentation at this hearing on the
application.
This seems to be general practice, and it raises the real question of whether SUNY even reviews the
comments made by the public during the mandated public hearing.
The fact that your board has now met and voted on this issue withoutany acknowledgement of the
comments made at this hearing seems an extreme and marked disregard for a transparent, democratic
process.
As representatives to School Districts 1 and 6 in Manhattan and the Chair of the City Councils
Committee on Education, we strongly protest your decision to approve this change in District as a
non-material change and ask that you require Success to re-submit this as a formal change. We also
ask that you treat all future changes in district as a formal material change.
Sincerely,

Council Member Margaret S. Chin Council Member Rosie Mendez
District 1 Manhattan District 2 Manhattan





Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez Council Member Daniel Dromm, Chair
District 10 Manhattan Committee on Education
District 25 Queens

Lisa Donlan, president, Community Education Council District 1
Shino Tanikawa, president, Community Education Council District 2
Miriam Aristy-Farer, president, Community Education Council District 6