## Facts

- A Syracuse City School District tenured teacher faced disciplinary charges for insubordination, incompetence, and conduct unbecoming a teacher under New York Education Law § 3020-a.
- A three-member § 3020-a hearing panel (one member selected by the teacher, one by the board, and a neutral chair selected by those members) found the teacher guilty on 2 of 13 specifications and recommended a $300 fine.
- The board appealed to the Commissioner of Education, asserting the neutral chair failed to disclose a substantial relationship that created at least an appearance of partiality.
- The teacher’s counsel appeared as general counsel for New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) pursuant to an agreement between the teacher’s union and NYSUT.
- The neutral chair was also employed by NYSUT as a permanent arbitrator for NYSUT’s internal employee contract disputes; the relationship was not disclosed.
- The Commissioner annulled the panel determination, finding the undisclosed relationship substantial and requiring disclosure, and directed selection of a new chair and redetermination of the charges.
- The teacher brought an Article 78 proceeding; the trial court annulled the Commissioner’s determination.
- The Appellate Division reversed and upheld the Commissioner’s action; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner’s statutory authority to review § 3020-a hearing panel determinations includes power to annul a panel decision based on bias or partiality of the panel chair arising from an undisclosed substantial relationship.
2. Whether, after annulling a tainted determination, the Commissioner may direct corrective procedures to ensure a new, unbiased adjudication and a redetermination of the charges.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment.
- The Commissioner’s authority to review § 3020-a determinations includes the right to annul a panel decision on the ground of bias or partiality of the panel chair.
- The Commissioner acted within his supervisory and review authority in vacating the panel’s determination due to the undisclosed substantial relationship and in ordering further proceedings before an unbiased decisionmaker.

## Legal Principles

- The Commissioner’s review authority under Education Law § 3020-a(5), read with § 310, includes power to annul a hearing panel decision for bias or partiality of the panel chair.
- A substantial, undisclosed relationship between a neutral adjudicator and an organization closely connected to a party’s representation can justify vacatur to protect the fairness and perceived fairness of the proceeding.
- In Article 78 review of the Commissioner’s determination, judicial scrutiny is limited; the inquiry centers on whether the determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals sustained the Commissioner’s annulment of a § 3020-a panel determination where the neutral chair failed to disclose a substantial relationship creating an appearance of partiality, confirming the Commissioner’s statutory power to vacate tainted determinations and require a redetermination before an unbiased adjudicator.


Matter of Conley v. Ambach, 61 N.Y.2d 685 (N.Y. 1984)