Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
23,
2016
Community
Education
Council
District
3
154
West
93rd
Street
New
York,
NY
10025
Dear
Members
of
Community
Education
Council
District
3
("CEC"),
We
are
writing
in
response
to
your
letter
(the
"Plan")
to
The
Honorable
Carmen
Farina,
dated
October
18,
2016,
in
which
the
CEC
presented
a
rezoning
and
resiting
plan
to
the
Department
of
Education
(the
"DOE").
Remarkably,
the
CEC
requests
that
the
DOE
present
the
Plan
back
to
the
CEC
for
approval
as
soon
as
possible.
This
goes
beyond
the
scope
of
the
CEC's
responsibility
and
authority.
It
is
the
DOE
that
is
bestowed
with
the
authority
and
responsibility
to
make
proposals
to
the
CEC
for
review,
comment
and
ultimate
vote.
Yet,
as
Joe
Fiordaliso,
President
of
the
CEC,
stated,
it
is
the
CEC's
"position
that
this
is
THE
plan,
and
[the
DOE]
can
either
stand
with
us
or
not"
and
"CEC
determined
to
lay
down
the
marker".
Parent
Group
Seeks
More
Integration
in
New
York's
Schools,
The
New
York
Times,
October
19,
2016
(emphasis
added).
By
the
Plan,
which
the
proponents
thereof
clearly
intend
to
be
the
ultimate
plan
voted
upon
in
the
coming
weeks,
the
CEC
(i)
violated
the
Open
Meetings
Law
(as
defined
below),
and
(ii)
proposed
a
plan
that
is
against
the
best
interests
of
District
3
and
fails
to
satisfy
the
DOE's
and
CEC's
goals
of
addressing
the
overcrowding
and
diversity
challenges
faced
by
the
District.
The
CEC
Violated
the
Open
Meetings
Law
As
you
are
aware,
the
CEC's
responsibilities
in
connection
with
the
potential
rezoning
of
District
3
elementary
schools
and
the
potential
resiting
of
P.S.
452
are
limited
to
(i)
approving
zoning
lines,
as
presented
by
the
superintendant
,
and
(ii)
holding
joint
public
hearings
with
the
chancellor
(or
designee)
for
any
proposed
school
closing
or
significant
change
in
school
utilization.
See
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/CEC/RolesandResponsibilities/default.htm.
The
CEC
does
not
have
authority
to
dictate
to
the
DOE
the
terms
upon
which
it
will
properly
consider
a
proposal
from
the
DOE--
the
only
government
agency
with
authority
to
make
rezoning
and/or
resiting
proposals--nor
does
it
have
the
authority
to
hijack
the
proposal
process
by
telling
the
DOE
that
they
can
either
"stand
with
us
or
not,"
particularly
when
the
District
is
already
challenged
by
significant
overcrowding
and
diversity
issues,
and
is
expected
to
have
an
empty
building
to
be
filled
for
2017
enrollment.
Under
these
circumstances,
there
is
no
dispute
that
time
is
of
the
essence
for
a
rational
and
acceptable
plan
to
be
proposed
and
implemented.
Everyone
agrees
that
any
plan
adopted
must
serve
the
best
interests
of
District
3
by
addressing
overcrowding,
diversity
and
ensuring
successful
schools.
However,
the
concern
that
this
be
done
expeditiously
does
not
supersede
the
requirements
that
such
decision-making
process
comply
with
applicable
law.
On
page
4
of
the
Plan,
the
CEC
purports
to
be
guided
by,
among
other
things,
transparency.
The
CEC,
however,
failed
to
provide
transparency
in
crafting
the
Plan
and
urging
the
DOE
to
present
this
Plan
back
to
its
own
drafters
for
guaranteed
approval.
Public
Officers
Law,
Article
7
(the
"Open
Meetings
Law"),
Section
103(a)
requires
that
"every
meeting
of
a
public
body
shall
be
open
to
the
general
public,
except
that
an
executive
session
of
such
body
may
be
called
and
business
transacted
thereat
in
accordance
with
section
one
hundred
five
of
this
article."
The
CEC's
decision
to
prepare
and
propose
to
the
DOE
the
wide-ranging
and
important
policy
decision
reflected
in
the
Plan,
which
"an
overwhelming
majority
of
the
Council
supports,"
was
not
made
in
an
open
meeting,
subject
to
public
comment
and
then
ratified
by
the
mandated
public
roll
call
vote,
as
required
by
the
Open
Meetings
Law
and
the
Bylaws
(as
defined
below).
There
is
no
public
record
of
such
a
vote.
Thus,
such
vote
was
unlawful
as
it
was
neither
conducted
at
a
public
meeting
nor
pursuant
to
a
properly
conducted
Executive
Session,
as
defined
in
Open
Meetings
Law,
Section
102.
And,
if
no
vote
was
taken,
and
the
decisions
to
formulate
and
propose
the
Plan
were
made
unilaterally
by
certain
members
of
the
CEC,
such
action
was
similarly
unlawful.
In
an
effort
to
obfuscate
the
procedural
improprieties
in
the
decision-making
process,
the
CEC
has
characterized
this
significant
policy-making
decision
as
a
letter.
The
eleven
page
communication,
however,
is,
in
substance,
a
draft
educational
impact
statement
that
reflects
a
decision
by
the
CEC
of
considerable
magnitude
regarding
school
moves
and
rezoning.
Regardless
of
what
the
CEC
would
like
to
call
it,
the
substance
of
the
Plan
is
a
major
policy
making
decision;
a
"letter,"
it
is
not,
formatting
notwithstanding.
Pursuant
to
Article
III,
Section
6
of
the
Bylaws
of
Communication
Council
for
District
3
Approved
by
the
Membership
on
July
28,
2004
and
Amended
by
the
Membership
on
January
18,
2012
(the
"Bylaws"),
the
CEC
may
hold
Executive
Sessions
"as
needed
to
discuss
matters
that
by
law
(Open
Meetings
Law,
Section
105)
are
permitted
to
be
discussed
in
a
confidential
session
closed
to
the
public.
Decisions
shall
be
made
by
the
majority
of
the
whole
number
of
the
members
of
the
Council,
shall
be
recorded
by
roll
call
vote,
and
shall
be
ratified
at
a
calendar
meeting."
To
the
extent
the
CEC
made
its
determination
to
draft
and
propose
the
Plan
to
the
DOE
in
an
Executive
Session
on
a
confidential
basis,
such
a
meeting
was
in
violation
of
the
Open
Meetings
law
as
a
discussion
and
determination
regarding
rezoning
and/or
resiting
does
not
fall
within
the
approved
matters
for
which
Executive
Sessions
may
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
Open
Meetings
Law,
Section
105,
nor
did
it
satisfy
any
of
the
exemptions
for
the
limitations
on
conducting
an
Executive
Session,
as
provided
by
Open
Meetings
Law,
Section
108.
"The
people's
right
to
know
the
process
of
governmental
decision-making
and
to
review
the
documents
and
statistics
leading
to
determinations
is
basic
to
our
society.
Access
to
such
information
should
not
be
thwarted
by
shrouding
it
with
the
cloak
of
secrecy
or
confidentiality."
Public
Officers
Law,
Article
6
(the
"Freedom
of
Information
Law"),
Section
84.
Consequently,
the
manner
in
which
the
CEC
deliberated
and
determined
to
craft
the
Plan
and
propose
it
to
the
DOE
was
in
express
violation
of
both
the
Open
Meetings
Law
and
the
CEC's
own
Bylaws.
Such
unlawful
conduct
undermines
the
integrity
of
the
entire
process
District
3
has
endured
on
this
specific
rezoning/resiting
issue
for
the
last
six
months
and
will
not
be
tolerated.
Furthermore,
should
the
DOE
resubmit
THE
Plan,
or
a
substantially
similar
plan,
as
urged
by
the
CEC,
such
action
will
serve
to
condone
and
exacerbate
the
tainted
integrity
of
the
process
and
the
violations
of
the
Open
Meetings
Law
by
rendering
the
public
hearings
and
vote
moot,
as
the
CEC
has
already
decided
on
the
Plan
and
publicly
communicated
its
approval
thereof
by
stating
on
page
5
of
the
Plan
that,
"an
overwhelming
majority
of
the
Council
supports
this
plan."
Freedom
of
Information
Law
Requests
Accordingly,
pursuant
to
the
Freedom
of
Information
Law,
Section
87,
we
hereby
request
that
the
CEC
make
publicly
available
on
the
CEC's
website
the
following
information
pursuant
to
the
Freedom
of
Information
Law:
(1)
any
and
all
records,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
emails
and
texts,
in
connection
with
the
Plan
by
and
among
CEC
members
and/or
each
of
the
following:
(a)
Mayor
Bill
DeBlasio
and/or
members
of
his
staff;
(b)
Chancellor
Carmen
Farina;
(c)
Deputy
Chancellor
Elizabeth
Rose;
(d)
Ilene
Altschul,
District
3
Superintendant;
(e)
any
and
all
employees
and/or
representatives
of
the
DOE;
(f)
Councilwoman
Helen
Rosenthal
and/or
members
of
her
staff;
(g)
Manhattan
Borough
President,
Gale
Brewer
and/or
members
of
her
staff;
(h)
State
Assemblywoman
Linda
Rosenthal
and/or
members
of
her
staff;
(i)
any
other
state
or
city
elected
official;
(j)
any
and
all
employees
or
representatives
of
any
New
York
city
or
state
agency;
(k)
any
and
all
District
3
elementary
school
principals
and/or
their
staff;
(l)
any
and
all
District
3
elementary
school
parent
teacher
association
executive
board
members;
and
(m)
any
and
all
District
3
Senior
Leadership
Team
("SLT")
members;
(2)
any
and
all
drafts
or
prior
versions
of
the
Plan;
(3)
any
and
all
data
prepared,
reviewed,
analyzed
or
relied
upon
in
connection
with
the
Plan;
and
(4)
any
and
all
of
the
CEC's
governing
documents,
and
any
other
policies,
guidelines
and
procedures,
whether
written
or
unwritten,
formal
or
informal.
Should
responses
to
these
Freedom
of
Information
Law
requests
not
be
provided
promptly,
we
will
commence
a
proceeding
under
2006
New
York
Code,
Article
78
("Article
78")
and
seek
a
declaratory
judgment
that
the
CEC
violated
the
Open
Meetings
Law
and
acted
outside
the
scope
of
its
authority
in
proposing
the
Plan
to
the
DOE
in
contravention
of
the
Open
Meeting
Law.
Not
Only
Was
the
Plan
Proposal
Process
Unlawful,
the
Plan
Will
Exacerbate
Overcrowding
and
Diversity
Issues
in
District
3
The
Plan
provides
for
a
resite
of
P.S.
452
combined
with
a
rezoning
of
the
existing
P.S.
452
zone.
Each
of
the
currently
enrolled
P.S.
452
families
will
be
rezoned
to
either
P.S.
87,
which
will
absorb
the
majority
of
the
existing
P.S.
452
zone
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
P.S.
199
and
other
nearby
schools.
As
the
majority
of
impacted
P.S.
452
parents
have
stated
at
all
of
the
public
meetings,
in
their
petition
with
over
1,000
signatures,
and
in
hundreds
of
letters
to
the
DOE
and
other
key
constituents,
they
will
actively
explore
alternative
school
options
for
their
children
and
will
demand
seats
in
the
newly
zoned
schools
pursuant
to
Chancellor's
Regulation
A-101,
Article
II,
C.
These
are
not
empty
threats
as
P.S.
452
has
already
lost
at
least
six
families
since
the
commencement
of
these
discussions
in
May
2016
as
a
direct
result
of
the
uncertainty
surrounding
this
pending
issue.
And,
this
number
excludes
families
who
were
enrolled
to
start
kindergarten
in
the
fall
but
made
other
choices
in
light
of
the
uncertainty
of
P.S.
452's
continued
location
at
West
77th
Street.
Of
the
six
families
who
transferred
their
children
out
of
P.S.
452
as
a
direct
result
of
the
uncertainty
facing
their
school,
at
least
two
such
families
enrolled
in
P.S.
87
and
at
least
one
such
family
enrolled
in
P.S.
199,
and
that
was
just
the
beginning.
The
transfer
of
currently
enrolled
P.S.
452
students
at
P.S.
87
and
P.S.
199
will
be
in
high
demand,
and
the
schools
will
have
to
accommodate
many,
it
not
all,
of
the
additional
newly
zoned
families,
thereby
exacerbating
their
longstanding
overcrowding
issues
which
the
CEC
is
tasked
with
trying
to
resolve.
In
short,
the
Plan
not
only
fails
to
satisfy
the
DOE's
and
CEC's
goals
of
eliminating
the
overcrowding
issues
in
P.S.
87,
P.S.
199
and
other
District
3
schools,
it
exacerbates,
rather
than
alleviates,
overcrowding
at
these
specific
schools.
The
Plan
Fails
to
Provide
Equity
and
Diversity
to
District
3
Elementary
Schools
While
the
Plan
purports
to
provide
equity
and
diversity
to
District
3
elementary
schools,
in
reality,
the
Plan
limits
integration
to
only
3
three
schools--P.S.
191,
P.S.
199
and
a
resited
P.S.
452.
However,
as
noted
on
page
6
of
the
Plan,
a
resited
P.S.
452
would
be
comprised
of
69%
of
students
from
the
current
P.S.
199
zone.
This
statistic
would
be
similar,
if
not
exact,
were
a
new
school
to
be
created
in
the
M191
building.
Recently,
the
DOE
presented
Scenario
C
which
provided
for
the
creation
of
a
new
school
in
the
M191
building
and
a
modification
to
the
existing
P.S.
452
zone
to
promote
diversity
at
P.S.
452
at
its
current
location.
The
Plan
is
not
in
the
best
interests
of
District
3
as
it
limits
the
opportunity
to
provide
increased
diversity
and
equity
to
District
3.
Specifically,
by
resiting
P.S.
452,
the
CEC
requests
that
the
DOE
sacrifice
its
opportunity
to
implement
a
diversity
program
at
P.S.452
in
its
current
location--a
program
additive
to
the
diversity
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
rezoning
proposals
for
P.S.
191
(in
its
resited
location),
P.S.
199
and
a
new
school.
This
is
a
failure
for
our
District.
In
light
of
the
procedural
violations
in
deciding
to
formulate
and
propose
the
wide-ranging
and
significant
policy
which
is
the
Plan,
we
hereby
demand
(i)
a
prompt
response
to
the
Freedom
of
Information
Law
Requests,
and
(ii)
a
prompt
retraction
of
the
Plan.
In
the
event
the
Plan
is
not
promptly
retracted
and
is
ultimately
presented
by
the
DOE
and
favorably
voted
upon
by
the
CEC,
in
addition
to
filing
a
proceeding
under
Article
78
for
a
declaratory
judgment,
we
will
also
file
an
Article
78
proceeding
seeking
an
injunction
of
the
approved
Plan
as
the
CEC
has
acknowledged
that
is
has
already
voted
on
the
Plan,
thereby
mooting
the
need
for
any
public
hearings
or
an
additional
vote
that
complies
with
the
Open
Meetings
Law.
That
opportunity
has
already
been
missed.
We
look
forward
to
receiving
your
responses
to
our
Freedom
of
Information
Law
Requests
and
a
prompt
remedy
of
this
duplicitous
process.
Sincerely,
The
Coalition
of
District
3
Parents