Herricks School Board President Emilia Sutz released the following information to the Illustrated News early Tuesday morning stating that the judge has dismissed the case against the district regarding the move from the administration building to the Herricks Community Center.

To give a brief background of the suit Sutz said, "On Oct. l7, 2002 an Order to Show Cause was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County by William Tountas, Mrs. Jodee Grandwilliams and Mrs. Susan Heinsohn against the Board of Education of the Herricks Union Free District. In addition, on Feb. 7, 2003, an Order to Show Cause was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County by Mr. William Tountas. The law firm of Baron & Goodsell filed these actions. David Goodsell, Esq., a resident of Herricks represented the petitioners."

Sutz continued, "These actions against the board were in connection with the board's intention to relocate remaining staff and lease the administration building which at the time housed a portion of the district's administrative staff. Both legal proceedings raised similar issues. On both occasions, the petitioners claimed that the actions of the board were arbitrary, capricious or otherwise improper."

She went on, "The board submitted numerous documents to the court to show that it considered a number of issues before taking action including:

* information regarding lack of state aid

* the fact that all operating, maintenance and repair

expenses were paid entirely by the taxpayers.

* the efficiencies, revenues and maintenance savings that may

be enjoyed as a result of leasing the building.

In a continuing effort to be financially responsible, the board decided to move remaining administrative offices to the underutilized Herricks Community Center."

"The outcome is," said Sutz, "Justice Zelda Jonas, of Nassau County Supreme Court, in a decision dated June 5, 2003 ruled that 'an extensive review of the record before this court shows respondent's actions as to finding the administration building as "surplus" was not arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the petitioner does not agree with the respondent's decision and strenuously opposes respondent's actions is not relevant. Accordingly, the petitioner's application is denied and the petition is dismissed.'

Sutz said, "Unfortunately, while the board's actions have been upheld, legal costs incurred by the taxpayers to defend its decision exceeded $40,000 to date which could otherwise have been used for educational or other appropriate programs. Both the legal expenses, untold staff time was diverted from other matters to compile documents and respond to the allegations that were leveled against the board. All of this took precious resources away from our students."

Sutz concluded, "On behalf of the board, I am pleased that Justice Jonas upheld the board's actions. While I believe that honest differences of opinion are democratic and healthy, I find conduct such as that displayed by some individuals is unhealthy and unproductive, as well as expensive. I thank the community for its patience and understanding. We, on the board happily embrace closure and ask that each of us focus our energies to the betterment of public education."