Complaints Received Concerning the 2023 Elections of Community and Citywide Education Councils
By Electronic Mail
Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos
New York City Public Schools
52 Chambers St, Room 320
New York, New York 10007
Re: Complaints Received Concerning the 2023 Elections of Community and Citywide Education Councils
Dear Chancellor Aviles-Ramos,
Congratulations on your appointment as New York City Public Schools Chancellor. I wish you well in this endeavor and look forward to opportunities for the Department of Education and my office to work together on behalf of our students, teachers, and families.
I am writing today to share the results of a recent investigation by my office concerning the 2023 election of Community and Citywide Education Councils (CCECs). On June 22, 2023, NeQuan McLean, President of the Education Council Consortium (ECC) along with Shirley Aubin and Randi Garay, Co-Presidents of the Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Council (CPAC) contacted our office with concerns that the 2023 CCEC election was “not carried out with fidelity, integrity, transparency and equity.”
The Audit Bureau subsequently interviewed NeQuan McLean, Shirley Aubin, and Paullette Ha-Healy to obtain detailed information concerning their concerns and collected available documentation. The results of this process are summarized below.
We recognize that 2021 was the first time all public-school parents were able to participate in the election of CEC representatives. This was a substantial change, made even more challenging by the COVID-19 pandemic, and it seems likely that Department of Education (DOE) processes did not keep pace with what was needed for this expansion to a Citywide election involving hundreds of thousands of potential voters.
Nonetheless, the nature of these complaints underscores the urgent need for improved clarity, better and consistent complaint handling processes, and transparency. I call on DOE to address these needs as we approach a new election cycle.
Endorsements & Membership in Political Organizations
According to ECC/CPAC, the Office of Family and Community Engagement (FACE) unfairly influenced the elections. After reviewing all documentation shared with our office, the investigators conclude that FACE did not apply the Chancellor’s Regulations consistently or fairly when adjudicating candidate complaints.
ECC and CPAC allege that while DOE treated endorsements by NYC Kids PAC as political endorsements and disqualified one candidate based on her promotion of endorsements from NYC Kids PAC, it failed to treat endorsements from PLACE NYC as political and that this in turn unfairly impacted the election results. They also allege that CEC members used their positions contrary to the Chancellor’s Regulations, that FACE was motivated by bias and racism, and that FACE’s conduct constitutes electioneering.
Political Endorsements
At the heart of the allegations received by the Comptroller’s Office is the perception that candidates aligned with NYC Kids PAC were treated differently than those aligned with PLACE NYC. It does not appear that endorsements from PLACE NYC were classed by DOE as political and, as a result, endorsements by PLACE NYC and other related activities were permitted while very similar endorsements related to NYC Kids PAC resulted in DOE taking adverse action against candidates during the election. This distinction was made on the basis that NYC Kids is a Political Action Committee (PAC) and PLACE NYC is not.
However, Chancellor’s Regulation Volume D-130(I)(D)(2)(f) do not prohibit endorsements by political organizations; they prohibit candidates from accepting or soliciting “political endorsements”. What constitutes a political endorsement is not well defined by DOE. They are not defined in the Chancellor’s Regulations and the 2023 Campaigning Guidelines merely instruct candidates not to “solicit or accept endorsements from political parties and party officials, or from elected officials, including current Community or Citywide Education Council members.” Notably, the guidelines do not prohibit endorsements by PACs.
In plain English, a political endorsement is any endorsement of a candidate running for elected office; an endorsement need not be from a PAC or a registered entity with tax exempt status to be prohibited as a “political endorsement”. The investigators found that PLACE NYC behaves like a political organization, its endorsements are political in nature, and candidates used their endorsements during the 2023 campaign for political purposes.
Similarly, DOE does not clearly define what action by a candidate constitutes “soliciting or accepting” an endorsement. On May 1, 2023, more than halfway through the voting period (day 11 of a 19-day voting period), FACE sent all candidates an email stating that “acceptance [of an endorsement] includes but is not limited to liking, reposting, retweeting or in any way disseminating materials containing a prohibited endorsement, even if you do not add any text of your own.”
During the 2023 election FACE seems to have allowed online endorsements by all organizations but disqualified or otherwise cautioned candidates who posted an emoji or forwarded such endorsements on to other people using social media. Drawing such narrow lines does not comport with the prohibition in NYS State Education Law.
NYS Education Law section 2590(c)(8)(d) requires DOE to promulgate “policies prohibiting political endorsements of …. nominees”. This required the Chancellors’ Regulations to include a broader prohibition against political endorsements, including those by such organizations as PLACE NYC, which set out to influence, and in fact did, influence the elections for a political purpose.
Candidates Deborah Alexander, Alysa O’Shea, and Danyela Egorov
It is alleged that all three candidates were PLACE NYC officers and Community Education Council (CEC) members at the time of the election, and that all three endorsed candidates aligned with PLACE NYC.
Because PLACE NYC’s activities are political in nature, candidates who accepted their endorsements violated the prohibition against “accepting” political endorsements under Chancellor’s Regulations Volume D-130(I)(D)(2)(f).
Moreover, as CEC members, they violated Volume D-130(I)(D)(1)(a), because endorsing candidates is an overt attempt to affect the results of an election. The rule relevantly prohibits CEC members from “us[ing] their position[s] or title[s] for the purpose of …. affecting the result of an election”.
The boundaries of what is and is not permitted have been arbitrarily drawn, raising concerns about the regulations and the way they were interpreted by FACE. The leadership of organizations seeking to influence the outcomes of elections ― such as by selecting candidates to endorse ― includes many who hold CEC positions. Serving as leadership in an organization that endorses slates of candidates and participating in decisions about which candidates that organization endorses, also contravenes the rule against CEC members using their positions to affect the results of the election.
CEC Membership
We also received a complaint in relation to Vito LaBella,[1] a CEC Member who added a hyperlink to PLACE NYC’s endorsements while retweeting an individual post. The screenshot was obtained and reviewed. It clearly shows LaBella’s Twitter retweet and account which highlights his status as a CEC Member.
DOE determined that this was not prohibited because his endorsement of the PLACE NYC candidates did not mention which CEC he belonged to or the timeframe during which he served. However, the language of D-130(I)(D)(1)(a) includes a broad prohibition against CEC members using their positions to affect the outcome of the election, and including an account highlighting his status as a CEC member is sufficient to trigger that prohibition.
Improper Use of Resources
A complainant reported to DOE that candidate Kevin Zhao utilized DOE resources to campaign. Specifically, the complainant alleged that he utilized access he had as a CEC member because Kevin Zhao had created and moderated a Facebook page (District20Parents) for the District 20 CEC, and that he solicited members by using the District 20 CEC distribution list.
It is unclear if the “District20Parents” page or group would fall under the rule in the Chancellor’s Regulations preventing a candidate from using “contact information or distribution lists obtained from a [DOE] employee or by virtue of a prior parent leadership role within the [DOE]”, but by representing that the Facebook page belonged to or was affiliated with District 20 CEC, Mr. Zhao violated the rule prohibiting CEC members from using their positions to affect election outcomes (cited above) and Chancellor’s Regulation D-210 which prohibits Council Members from using social media accounts “to which they have access through their position as a Council Member…to endorse an individual candidate or slate of candidates.”
It is not clear whether FACE investigated and adjudicated this complaint. If FACE did not, it raises concerns that FACE only investigated some, but not all, complaints. If it did investigate, the results of any investigation should have been reported to the complainant and the public.
Community stakeholders and candidates should be assured that all complaints are treated in the same manner, decided on rationale and consistent principles, and publicly reported, to ensure that a fair and transparent process is adhered to.
Seating of Candidates
ECC/CPAC made two allegations that DOE did not seat District 75 candidates properly. CECs include 10 elected, voting members who are parents. Nine members must be parents of children in pre-K through 8th grade, attending a district school or a pre-K program offered by a district school. The tenth elected voting member of each CEC must be a parent of a student attending a District 75 school or program located in the CEC’s district. Candidates may run in as many districts as they are eligible. [2]. Runoffs are conducted if no candidates for a District 75 Seat receives votes.[3]
A District 6 CEC candidate, Jordanne Nesbeth, was improperly listed on the ballot in 2 places – as a D75 candidate and on another line, without the designation. The candidate was a D75 candidate and should have been listed only once, as such. She received 0 votes under the line listing her as a D75 candidate and 3 votes in the line without the designation. DOE triggered a runoff. The candidate was eventually seated as the D75 representative in District 6, but she should not have appeared on 2 separate lines, and no runoff election should have been triggered. This points to disfunction and poor oversight of the balloting processes.
In District 20, Paullette Healy ran unopposed in District 20 but was not seated as the D75 candidate. She was instead seated in the Citywide Council for D75. Paullette Healy ran simultaneously for the D75 seat on the District 20 CEC and for a seat on the Citywide Council for District 75.
A review of the published election results shows the candidate ran unopposed in District 20 and received 28 votes. The same candidate received 12 votes for the Citywide Council for D75. The candidate was seated in seat 7 for the Citywide Council for D75 purportedly based on the candidate’s order of preference. Paullette contends this was not the order of preference she submitted to DOE and that she would have preferred being seated in the D75 seat on the District 20 CEC. This matter could have been resolved had the candidate’s preferred seat been a matter of public record.
ECC and CPAC allege that numerous D75 candidates were initially placed on the ballot in districts in which they were not running. Candidates notified DOE prior to the start of voting but in one instance the error was not rectified until one week after the two-week voting period had started. This is problematic as fair and transparent elections require certainty in the slate of candidates, and a clear balloting process, well in advance of the start of the election period.
Non-Participation by Bronx High Schools
ECC/CPAC alleges that only 9 out of 153 Bronx High Schools participated in the voting of Bronx representatives for the Citywide Council for High Schools. In addition, they allege that requests to DOE to conduct outreach and informational sessions were not fulfilled for some schools. Further, ECC/CPAC states that funding for the election cycle in 2023 was greatly diminished as compared to the previous cycle in 2021, and that this impacted certain communities within the Bronx more than others, resulting in low voter participation.
Information concerning outreach activities, spending on such activities, and the participation rates of various districts is not made publicly available. DOE should be able to publicly demonstrate that outreach was effective and fairly supported by all available resources and should assess and publish participation rates by district at the close of the election cycle. These should also inform future outreach plans.
Other Concerns
Several additional concerns were raised by stakeholders in this process, including perceptions that certain candidates were improperly disqualified, that elections decided by fractions of votes should have triggered a recount or a run-off election, questions about what is or is not DOE property for purposes of campaigning, and questions related to FACE’s discretionary decision to waive certain rules without consultation.
These cumulatively underscore the urgent need for greater clarity in the Chancellor’s Rules, and transparency of process.
Recommendations
- The Chancellor’s Rules should be amended to:
- Include a set of criteria based on the endorsers’ activities to be used by FACE to assess whether an endorsement is a “political endorsement” rather than on tax or incorporation status;
- Clearly define what constitutes “acceptance or solicitation” of a political endorsement;
- Define what activities constitute prohibited efforts by CEC members to affect election outcomes;
- Define conduct that constitutes “campaigning”;
- Define DOE property (in relation to the prohibition against campaigning on DOE property); and
- Define conduct that is not permitted with clearly defined consequences for such conduct.
- DOE should provide to candidates explanatory guidance for the Chancellor’s Rules, stating in plain language what is/is not permitted conduct, with illustrative examples.
- DOE should establish a written complaint handling process that:
- Requires complaints to be submitted in writing, tracked and publicly reported;
- Defines the steps that FACE will take to adjudicate every complaint it receives;
- Requires FACE to issue published written determination of each complaint, clearly stating the steps taken as well as the rules and facts relied on to make the determination; and
- Provides a right of appeal to an independent third party, outside of FACE.
- FACE should develop and publish an outreach plan for each district. The plan should be published several months prior to the start of voting, should state budget and other resources allocated, by district, and should be finalized and ready for implementation no later than 3 months prior to the start of voting. FACE should compile and publish a report detailing actions taken under the plan, by district, and should compile and publish participation rates by district no later than 3 months after each election has been completed.
I look forward to hearing further from you as the election approaches.
Sincerely,
Brad Lander
[1] Vito LaBella’s term as a CEC member ended June 30, 2023.
[2] D-140 § III. D. (Process for the Nomination and Selection of Members of the Community Education Councils, Including Filling Vacancies), Regulation of the Chancellor.
[3] D-140 § V. D. (Process for the Nomination and Selection of Members of the Community Education Councils, Including Filling Vacancies), Regulation of the Chancellor.