By LINDA KELLETT

C-S-E News Staff

FORT PLAIN — A Nelliston resident challenging the adherence of Fort Plain School officials to school election laws has petitioned the state Education Department to investigate last month’s election here.

In his June 7 appeal, Neil A. Yerdon requested that the Commissioner of Education review candidates’ election petitions and the procedures followed by district personnel in the weeks leading up to the May 15 election in order to determine if irregularities occurred that may have affected the outcome of the election.

If so, he has asked that appropriate action be taken, including the possible unseating of top vote-getters Mary Beth Hudyncia and Jami Stevens, whom he alleges were improperly nominated.

Fort Plain District Superinten-dent Douglas Burton on Tuesday confirmed that a notice of petition had been filed with the state Eduction Department but declined to comment on the matter at this time.

Yerdon also declined to comment; however his appeal detailed his objections to the process.

In his narrative, Yerdon noted that materials mailed to district residents and presented during the district’s budget hearing identified three candidates on the election ballot: James A. Petty Jr., Louis R. Capece, and Mary Beth Hudyncia. On the heels of that hearing and the meeting that followed, Petty dropped out of the race. Within two weeks of the election and budget vote, district officials opened up the nominating process again.

Yerdon has challenged the petitions that were submitted by Hudyncia and Stevens, questioning the times during which they were filed and the signatures obtained.

He noted that both were completed in one day (April 16 and May 4, respectively), with a “majority if not all” of the signers consisting of Fort Plain School District employees.

Additionally, he claimed that both petitions were allegedly distributed internally by district staff during school hours.

Hamilton-Fulton-Montgomery BOCES Superintendent Patrick Michel on Tuesday confirmed that he had been asked by Fort Plain Superintendent Douglas Burton and school board President Todd McFee to conduct an investigation into that allegation.

“It was determined that it did occur,” said Michel.

When asked if provisions in state Education Law may have been violated by the actions of the district personnel, Michel said, “The short answer is possibly. You have a struggle between first amendment rights and school personnel politicking during school hours. It was my determination that it was inappropriate.”

In relation to the reported employee misconduct, Yerdon alleged misuse of district resources — for instance, the use of district election information in order to identify eligible voters and/or their status as paid employees — while gathering the signatures.

Drawing upon prior commissioner’s decisions, Yerdon questioned “the use of district resources to distribute materials designed to solicit favorable votes” in violation of the “constitutional prohibition against using public funds to promote a partisan position.”

He wrote: “Even indirect support such as a Superintendent, Business Manager, (who signed Exhibit E & F), Principal, or School Board President, (who signed Exhibit F), should be deemed improper and appropriate action should be taken.”

Yerdon also faulted the district for accepting Stevens’ petition prior to the filing hours allowed by a state Education Law, which stipulates that petitions shall be filed between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., “not later than the thirtieth day preceding the school meeting or election at which the candidates nominated are to be elected.”

Stevens’ petition was stamped “Received” by the district at 8:12 a.m.

A spokesperson for the state Education Department said that she could not answer any specific questions pertaining to a pending appeal before the commissioner, however a representative was able to address general questions about the school election process.

Citing “School Law,” a publication published jointly by the state School Boards Association and the state Bar Association, Education Department spokesperson Jane Briggs noted in an e-mail that the district can extend the nominating deadline if a candidate who properly filed a nominating petition withdraws, dies or becomes ineligible for office later than 15 days before the last day for the filing of petitions.

According to “School Law,” the district is “required to extend the nominating deadline by as much as 15 days; provided, however, that in no event may nominating petitions be filed later than 5 p.m. on the seventh day before the date of the election.”

That process was followed as the cut-off for petitions was 5 p.m. on May 8.

In part, Yerdon called upon the commissioner to determine whether the alleged “use of district resources for internal distribution/signatures” violates state Education Law; and he called upon the commissioner to appoint Capece and Hayes to the three-year board seats in place of Hudyncia and Stevens.

Yerdon wrote, “I, along with many taxpayers of this district, believe that the facts put forth did in fact vitiate [that is, impair the legal validity of] the electoral process and/or demonstrated a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity.”

He continued, “The FPCS district, inclusive of the District Office personnel [and] Superintendent who received, reviewed, and recorded the petitions, should not be allowed to manipulate/distribute nor receive petitions during the school day with little or no general taxpayer/FPCS representation other than to district employees who reside in the district and who were employed by the district on the dates the [petitions] were submitted ... The taxpayers of the FPCS district that are not employed by the FPCS should have the right to participate in the [p]etition process and this clearly did not occur.”

When asked what potential actions might be taken by the commissioner, Michel said three outcomes were possible: The commissioner could find no basis for the allegations and take no action; he could sanction the people involved if he felt their actions were inappropriate, or he could leave it alone; or he could overturn the election. If that were to happen, he could call for a new election or take other steps, including the unseating of the elected candidates.