If a New York school board member hands their resignation to the district superintendent, is it valid the moment the board votes to accept it?

Plain-English summary

A Seneca Falls school board member tried to resign by letter to the local superintendent of schools. The board then voted to accept the resignation. The district's attorney asked the AG whether the resignation was valid, and if so, whether it could be rescinded.

The AG said no on the threshold question, which made the rescission question unnecessary. New York gives a school district officer three valid paths to resign:

First, by resigning at a "district meeting." In Education Law usage that means a meeting of district residents called under §§ 2001, 2003 to 2008, not a meeting of the board of education. A vote of the school board does not count.

Second, by filing a written resignation with the district superintendent of the supervisory district (a county or multi-county BOCES-style office), who endorses approval and files the resignation with the district clerk. "District superintendent" in Education Law § 2111 means the district superintendent of the supervisory district, not the local superintendent of schools. Even when the right superintendent is used, the resignation only becomes effective after endorsement and filing with the district clerk.

Third, by filing with the district clerk under Public Officers Law § 31(1)(h). A school district is a "municipal corporation" under General Construction Law § 66(2), so § 31 applies. To the extent a 1959 informal opinion said otherwise, the AG superseded it.

The board member here used none of those three paths. Submission to a local superintendent plus a board vote did not equal a valid resignation under any statute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why does it matter that a "district meeting" means a meeting of residents, not a board meeting?

Section 2111 references the historical method of district business in New York, where the inhabitants of the district gathered annually or specially to vote on district matters. Resignation at one of those meetings is a public act before the electors. A board meeting, attended by the board and possibly some public members, is not the same body, and the Education Law has separate sections governing board operations.

What is a "district superintendent of a supervisory district"?

It is the chief school officer of a supervisory district that may span multiple component school districts (often associated with BOCES). The local superintendent of an individual school district is a different officer. The AG drew that distinction by reading § 2110 (penalty section), which uses the phrase "district superintendent of the supervisory district," together with § 2111. The Commissioner of Education had already reached the same reading in Matter of Arctander.

Why even keep § 2111 when Public Officers Law § 31 is available?

Both statutes coexist. Section 2111 reflects the older statutory structure (resignation tendered at a district meeting, or filed with a higher-level supervisory superintendent). Section 31 provides a simpler alternative, file with the clerk of the municipal corporation. The AG noted that the Commissioner of Education in Verity had treated § 31(1)(h) filings with the district clerk as valid. Section 31 also provides the procedure for rescission, which the Commissioner applied in Verity.

What happens if a district has its own local superintendent but no supervisory district?

The Commissioner of Education in Arctander concluded that § 2111's second method does not apply at all in that situation, because there is no district superintendent of a supervisory district to receive the resignation. The officer would have to use the district-meeting route or the Public Officers Law § 31 route.

If the resignation here was invalid, what does the board member's status remain?

The opinion concluded the board member never effectively resigned. The opinion does not address what consequences follow for board actions taken in the interim, but it implies the member would still hold the seat. Anyone in that situation should look to local counsel, the Commissioner of Education, or the Public Officers Law to fix the filing.

Background and statutory framework

Education Law § 2111 reads: "A school district officer may resign to a district meeting. Such officer shall also be deemed to have resigned if he filed a written resignation with the district superintendent of his district and such superintendent endorses thereon his approval and files the same with the district clerk."

Education Law § 2110 imposes penalties on school district officers who refuse to serve and provides for resignation to "the district superintendent of the supervisory district." The AG read this as confirming the meaning of the parallel phrase in § 2111.

Public Officers Law § 31(1)(h) lets an officer of any municipal corporation (with exceptions not relevant here) resign to the clerk of the corporation. General Construction Law § 66(2) includes school districts in the definition of "municipal corporation," so the Public Officers Law applies. Matter of Verity, 28 Ed Dept Rept 171 (1988), treated a resignation tendered to a district clerk under § 31(1)(h) as effective and applied § 31's rescission procedure.

Matter of Schwarz (64 St Dept Rept 156, 1941) and Matter of Whitelock (34 St Dept Rept, 1925) hold that a resignation filed without the second-method endorsement and clerk filing is not effective. A 1959 informal AG opinion (Op Atty Gen (Inf) 189) that suggested Public Officers Law § 31 did not apply to school district officers was superseded.

Citations

• Education Law §§ 1980, 2001, 2003-2008, 2110, 2111, 2112: school district officer offices and district meetings.
• General Construction Law § 66(2): school district is a "municipal corporation."
• Public Officers Law § 31(1)(h): officers of a municipal corporation may resign to the clerk.
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 95-4: board of education members are public officers.
• Matter of Arctander, 2 Ed Dept Rept 313 (1962): § 2111 does not apply when there is no supervisory-district superintendent.
• Matter of Schwarz, 64 St Dept Rept 156 (1941) and Matter of Whitelock, 34 St Dept Rept (1925): resignation invalid without endorsement and clerk filing.
• Matter of Verity, 28 Ed Dept Rept 171 (1988): § 31(1)(h) governs resignation rescission for school board members.
• Matter of Rubin, 109 Misc 2d 113 (Sup Ct Queens Co 1981): Public Officers Law governs resignations when § 2111 does not apply.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_97-1_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

EDUCATION LAW §§ 1980, 2001, 2003-2008, 2111, 2112; GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION LAW § 66(2); PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 31.
A school district officer may resign to a district meeting
of residents or by filing a written resignation with the district
superintendent of his supervisory district who must endorse his
approval and file the resignation with the district clerk.
Alternatively, the officer may resign under Public Officers Law
§ 31.
January 30, 1997
Laura M. Purcell, Esq.
Seneca Falls Central
School District
The Granite Building
130 East Main Street
Rochester, NY 14604

Informal Opinion
No. 97-1

Dear Ms. Purcell:
You have asked several questions regarding the proper
procedure by which members of boards of education can resign
their positions. You advise that a member of the board of
education submitted a letter of resignation to the local school
superintendent. The board of education voted to accept the
resignation. You ask whether the resignation was made properly
and, if it was, whether it can be rescinded.
Education Law § 2111 states:
A school district officer may resign to
a district meeting. Such officer shall also
be deemed to have resigned if he filed a
written resignation with the district
superintendent of his district and such
superintendent endorses thereon his approval
and files the same with the district clerk.
We conclude that the board member1 did not meet the
requirements for an effective resignation under the first option
of section 2111. "District meeting" as used in the Education Law
refers not to a meeting of the board of education, but to a
meeting of the inhabitants of a district to transact district
business. See, e.g., Education Law § 2001 providing for the
first meeting of a district, §§ 2003-2008 providing for annual
and special district meetings, and § 2011 which states that when
1

We note that members of a board of education are public
officers in that their duties involve an exercise of the
sovereign power. See, e.g., Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 95-4.

2
a district meeting is duly called, it shall be the duty of all
inhabitants qualified to vote to assemble at the appointed time
and place. Accordingly, acceptance of the board member's
resignation by the board of education does not meet the
requirements of section 2111.
In our view, the board member also failed to make a valid
resignation under the second method set forth in section 2111
because the statutory reference to "district superintendent of
his district" means the district superintendent of the
supervisory district, and not the local superintendent. In
Matter of Arctander, 2 Ed Dept Rept 313 (1962), the Commissioner
of Education concluded that section 2111 did not apply when a
school district had its own local superintendent of schools but
was not a member of a supervisory district, so that there was no
district superintendent of a supervisory district to receive a
resignation. Thus, the Commissioner construed the statutory
language in issue to refer only to the superintendent of the
supervisory district.
Also, section 2110 establishes penalties for school district
officers who refuse to serve and provides that such officers may
avoid the penalties by resigning. In that section, provision is
made for officers to resign to "the district superintendent of
the supervisory district" in which the officers reside. It is
unlikely that the Legislature intended to designate two different
individuals with power to accept resignations by the same
officers in two consecutive sections of the Education Law.
In any event the filing of a written resignation with the
superintendent of the supervisory district must be followed by
compliance with the remaining statutory steps to effectuate a
resignation. See, Matter of Schwarz, 64 St Dept Rept 156 (1941)
(resignation not effective when not endorsed or filed with clerk)
and Matter of Whitelock, 34 St Dept Rept (1925) (resignation not
effective when endorsed but not filed with clerk).
Public Officers Law § 31, which specifies the person or body
to whom various public officers may tender a resignation,
provides an alternative procedure by which a school board member
may resign. That section provides that an officer of any
municipal corporation, with certain exceptions not relevant here,
may resign to the clerk of the corporation. Id., § 31(1)(h).
"Municipal corporation" is defined in General Construction Law
§ 66(2) to include a school district. Thus, by its own terms,
the Public Officers Law applies to resignations by school
district officers. To the extent that 1959 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 189
indicates to the contrary, it is superseded.
In Matter of Verity, 28 Ed Dept Rept 171 (1988), the
Commissioner of Education concluded that the provisions of the
Public Officers Law govern a board member's attempt to rescind

3
her resignation. In so holding, the Commissioner concluded that
the member's resignation was properly tendered to the district
clerk in accord with Public Officers Law § 31(1)(h) because
school board members are "public officers" and school districts
are municipal corporations.2
Therefore Public Officers Law § 31 provides an alternative
means of resignation. You have not indicated, however, that the
school board member complied with its provisions.
We conclude, then, that the board member never made a valid
resignation. Accordingly, discussion of rescission procedures is
unnecessary.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General

2

See, Matter of Arctander, 2 Ed Dept Rept 313 (1962) and
Matter of Rubin, 109 Misc 2d 113 (Sup Ct Queens Co 1981) where it
was decided that the Public Officers Law governs resignations
when section 2111, by its terms, does not apply.