October

23, 2016

Community Education Council District 3
154 West 93rd Street
New York, NY 10025

Dear Members of Community Education Council District 3 ("CEC"),

We are writing in response to your letter (the "Plan") to The Honorable Carmen Farina, dated October
18, 2016, in which the CEC presented a rezoning and resiting plan to the Department of Education (the
"DOE"). Remarkably, the CEC requests that the DOE present the Plan back to the CEC for approval as
soon as possible. This goes beyond the scope of the CEC's responsibility and authority.

It is the DOE that is bestowed with the authority and responsibility to make proposals to the CEC for
review, comment and ultimate vote. Yet, as Joe Fiordaliso, President of the CEC, stated, it is the CEC's
"position that this is THE plan, and [the DOE] can either stand with us or not" and "CEC determined to
lay down the marker". Parent Group Seeks More Integration in New York's Schools, The New York
Times, October 19, 2016 (emphasis added). By the Plan, which the proponents thereof clearly intend to
be the ultimate plan voted upon in the coming weeks, the CEC (i) violated the Open Meetings Law (as
defined below), and (ii) proposed a plan that is against the best interests of District 3 and fails to satisfy
the DOE's and CEC's goals of addressing the overcrowding and diversity challenges faced by the District.

The CEC Violated the Open Meetings Law

As you are aware, the CEC's responsibilities in connection with the potential rezoning of District 3
elementary schools and the potential resiting of P.S. 452 are limited to (i) approving zoning lines, as
presented by the superintendant , and (ii) holding joint public hearings with the chancellor (or designee)
for any proposed school closing or significant change in school utilization. See
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/CEC/RolesandResponsibilities/default.htm. The CEC does not have
authority to dictate to the DOE the terms upon which it will properly consider a proposal from the DOE--
the only government agency with authority to make rezoning and/or resiting proposals--nor does it have
the authority to hijack the proposal process by telling the DOE that they can either "stand with us or
not," particularly when the District is already challenged by significant overcrowding and diversity issues,
and is expected to have an empty building to be filled for 2017 enrollment. Under these circumstances,
there is no dispute that time is of the essence for a rational and acceptable plan to be proposed and
implemented. Everyone agrees that any plan adopted must serve the best interests of District 3 by
addressing overcrowding, diversity and ensuring successful schools. However, the concern that this be
done expeditiously does not supersede the requirements that such decision-making process comply
with applicable law.

On page 4 of the Plan, the CEC purports to be guided by, among other things, transparency. The CEC,
however, failed to provide transparency in crafting the Plan and urging the DOE to present this Plan back
to its own drafters for guaranteed approval. Public Officers Law, Article 7 (the "Open Meetings Law"),
Section 103(a) requires that "every meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except
that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance
with section one hundred five of this article." The CEC's decision to prepare and propose to the DOE the
wide-ranging and important policy decision reflected in the Plan, which "an overwhelming majority of
the Council supports," was not made in an open meeting, subject to public comment and then ratified

by the mandated public roll call vote, as required by the Open Meetings Law and the Bylaws (as defined
below). There is no public record of such a vote. Thus, such vote was unlawful as it was neither
conducted at a public meeting nor pursuant to a properly conducted Executive Session, as defined in
Open Meetings Law, Section 102. And, if no vote was taken, and the decisions to formulate and propose
the Plan were made unilaterally by certain members of the CEC, such action was similarly unlawful.

In an effort to obfuscate the procedural improprieties in the decision-making process, the CEC has
characterized this significant policy-making decision as a letter. The eleven page communication,
however, is, in substance, a draft educational impact statement that reflects a decision by the CEC of
considerable magnitude regarding school moves and rezoning. Regardless of what the CEC would like to
call it, the substance of the Plan is a major policy making decision; a "letter," it is not, formatting
notwithstanding.

Pursuant to Article III, Section 6 of the Bylaws of Communication Council for District 3 Approved by the
Membership on July 28, 2004 and Amended by the Membership on January 18, 2012 (the "Bylaws"), the
CEC may hold Executive Sessions "as needed to discuss matters that by law (Open Meetings Law, Section
105) are permitted to be discussed in a confidential session closed to the public. Decisions shall be
made by the majority of the whole number of the members of the Council, shall be recorded by roll call
vote, and shall be ratified at a calendar meeting." To the extent the CEC made its determination to draft
and propose the Plan to the DOE in an Executive Session on a confidential basis, such a meeting was in
violation of the Open Meetings law as a discussion and determination regarding rezoning and/or resiting
does not fall within the approved matters for which Executive Sessions may be conducted in accordance
with Open Meetings Law, Section 105, nor did it satisfy any of the exemptions for the limitations on
conducting an Executive Session, as provided by Open Meetings Law, Section 108.

"The people's right to know the process of governmental decision-making and to review the documents
and statistics leading to determinations is basic to our society. Access to such information should not be
thwarted by shrouding it with the cloak of secrecy or confidentiality." Public Officers Law, Article 6 (the
"Freedom of Information Law"), Section 84. Consequently, the manner in which the CEC deliberated
and determined to craft the Plan and propose it to the DOE was in express violation of both the Open
Meetings Law and the CEC's own Bylaws. Such unlawful conduct undermines the integrity of the entire
process District 3 has endured on this specific rezoning/resiting issue for the last six months and will not
be tolerated.

Furthermore, should the DOE resubmit THE Plan, or a substantially similar plan, as urged by the CEC,
such action will serve to condone and exacerbate the tainted integrity of the process and the violations
of the Open Meetings Law by rendering the public hearings and vote moot, as the CEC has already
decided on the Plan and publicly communicated its approval thereof by stating on page 5 of the Plan
that, "an overwhelming majority of the Council supports this plan."

Freedom of Information Law Requests

Accordingly, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, Section 87, we hereby request that the CEC
make publicly available on the CEC's website the following information pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Law:

(1) any and all records, including, but not limited to, emails and texts, in connection with the

Plan by and among CEC members and/or each of the following:


(a) Mayor Bill DeBlasio and/or members of his staff;



(b) Chancellor Carmen Farina;


(c) Deputy Chancellor Elizabeth Rose;


(d) Ilene Altschul, District 3 Superintendant;


(e) any and all employees and/or representatives of the DOE;


(f) Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal and/or members of her staff;


(g) Manhattan Borough President, Gale Brewer and/or members of her staff;


(h) State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal and/or members of her staff;


(i) any other state or city elected official;


(j) any and all employees or representatives of any New York city or state agency;


(k) any and all District 3 elementary school principals and/or their staff;


(l) any and all District 3 elementary school parent teacher association executive board


members; and


(m) any and all District 3 Senior Leadership Team ("SLT") members;

(2) any and all drafts or prior versions of the Plan;

(3) any and all data prepared, reviewed, analyzed or relied upon in connection with the Plan;

and

(4) any and all of the CEC's governing documents, and any other policies, guidelines and

procedures, whether written or unwritten, formal or informal.

Should responses to these Freedom of Information Law requests not be provided promptly, we will
commence a proceeding under 2006 New York Code, Article 78 ("Article 78") and seek a declaratory
judgment that the CEC violated the Open Meetings Law and acted outside the scope of its authority in
proposing the Plan to the DOE in contravention of the Open Meeting Law.

Not Only Was the Plan Proposal Process Unlawful, the Plan Will Exacerbate Overcrowding and Diversity
Issues in District 3
The Plan provides for a resite of P.S. 452 combined with a rezoning of the existing P.S. 452 zone. Each of
the currently enrolled P.S. 452 families will be rezoned to either P.S. 87, which will absorb the majority
of the existing P.S. 452 zone and, to a lesser extent, P.S. 199 and other nearby schools. As the majority
of impacted P.S. 452 parents have stated at all of the public meetings, in their petition with over 1,000
signatures, and in hundreds of letters to the DOE and other key constituents, they will actively explore
alternative school options for their children and will demand seats in the newly zoned schools pursuant
to Chancellor's Regulation A-101, Article II, C. These are not empty threats as P.S. 452 has already lost at
least six families since the commencement of these discussions in May 2016 as a direct result of the
uncertainty surrounding this pending issue. And, this number excludes families who were enrolled to
start kindergarten in the fall but made other choices in light of the uncertainty of P.S. 452's continued
location at West 77th Street. Of the six families who transferred their children out of P.S. 452 as a direct
result of the uncertainty facing their school, at least two such families enrolled in P.S. 87 and at least one
such family enrolled in P.S. 199, and that was just the beginning. The transfer of currently enrolled P.S.
452 students at P.S. 87 and P.S. 199 will be in high demand, and the schools will have to accommodate
many, it not all, of the additional newly zoned families, thereby exacerbating their longstanding
overcrowding issues which the CEC is tasked with trying to resolve. In short, the Plan not only fails to
satisfy the DOE's and CEC's goals of eliminating the overcrowding issues in P.S. 87, P.S. 199 and other
District 3 schools, it exacerbates, rather than alleviates, overcrowding at these specific schools.

The Plan Fails to Provide Equity and Diversity to District 3 Elementary Schools
While the Plan purports to provide equity and diversity to District 3 elementary schools, in reality, the
Plan limits integration to only 3 three schools--P.S. 191, P.S. 199 and a resited P.S. 452. However, as
noted on page 6 of the Plan, a resited P.S. 452 would be comprised of 69% of students from the current
P.S. 199 zone. This statistic would be similar, if not exact, were a new school to be created in the M191
building. Recently, the DOE presented Scenario C which provided for the creation of a new school in the
M191 building and a modification to the existing P.S. 452 zone to promote diversity at P.S. 452 at its
current location. The Plan is not in the best interests of District 3 as it limits the opportunity to provide
increased diversity and equity to District 3. Specifically, by resiting P.S. 452, the CEC requests that the
DOE sacrifice its opportunity to implement a diversity program at P.S.452 in its current location--a
program additive to the diversity that would be achieved by the rezoning proposals for P.S. 191 (in its
resited location), P.S. 199 and a new school. This is a failure for our District.

In light of the procedural violations in deciding to formulate and propose the wide-ranging and
significant policy which is the Plan, we hereby demand (i) a prompt response to the Freedom of
Information Law Requests, and (ii) a prompt retraction of the Plan. In the event the Plan is not promptly
retracted and is ultimately presented by the DOE and favorably voted upon by the CEC, in addition to
filing a proceeding under Article 78 for a declaratory judgment, we will also file an Article 78 proceeding
seeking an injunction of the approved Plan as the CEC has acknowledged that is has already voted on the
Plan, thereby mooting the need for any public hearings or an additional vote that complies with the
Open Meetings Law. That opportunity has already been missed.

We look forward to receiving your responses to our Freedom of Information Law Requests and a prompt
remedy of this duplicitous process.

Sincerely,


The Coalition of District 3 Parents