Documents › Board of Education, 2026-10-01

resolution 37 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: 2026 NYSSBA Proposed Resolutions Worksheet by WPSBA (184 KB) Proposed NYSSBA Resolutions

VOTING DELEGATES’ GUIDE Proposed Bylaw Amendments & Resolutions for the 2026 Annual Business Meeting INTRODUCTION The resolutions and rationales contained within this booklet have been submitted by member boards or the NYSSBA Board of Directors for consideration during the 2026 Annual Business Meeting. These proposals do not represent official positions of NYSSBA, unless and until they are adopted by voting delegates during the 2026 Annual Business Meeting. Proposals advanced by the NYSSBA Board of Directors do not represent positions of the Board, nor should their advancement be considered endorsement by the NYSSBA Board. Proposals advanced by the Board of Directors are done so because the Board of Directors has identified an issue, generally by way of a resolutions survey sent to all members, on which they seek the membership’s input. The proposals are organized by proposed bylaw amendments, then sunsetting positions recommended for re-adoption by the Resolutions Committee, followed by new resolutions recommended by the Resolutions Committee and last by resolutions not recommended by the Resolutions Committee. Proposals in each of the four groups are listed in the order in which they were received by the NYSSBA Governmental Relations Department. No individual board, including the NYSSBA Board of Directors, can adopt a formal position statement or change the Association bylaws. Only by way of a vote of the delegates at the Annual Business Meeting can the Association adopt a formal position statement or change the bylaws. To view NYSSBA’s current position statements, please see the link below. NYSSBA 2026 Position Statements 2 TO: School Board Members and Chief School Administrators FROM: Dawn Sharrock, Resolutions Committee Chair DATE: September 22, 2026 On August 12, 2026, the Resolutions Committee met virtually to discuss the proposed bylaw amendments and resolutions that were received by the July 17, 2026, deadline. In this book, you will find details regarding the Resolutions Committee’s votes to recommend or not recommend the proposals. At the direction of our Board of Directors, the DEI Committee provided its comments on the proposals from a lens of equity. Their comments in the categories of support, oppose or no position were delivered to the Resolutions Committee in advance of their meeting. The positions of the DEI Committee have been included in this document. All endorsements, rebuttals and amendments received by the September 14 deadline are included in this book. Amendments cannot be submitted to proposed bylaw amendments. All proposals contained in this book will be considered for a vote at 4:00 pm on October 15, 2026, during the New York State School Boards Association’s Annual Business Meeting. Each NYSSBA member board is eligible to appoint one member to participate in the business meeting and vote on their behalf. Within this booklet you will find the following information: • NYSSBA Board of Directors • Resolutions Committee Members • Order of Business • Proposed Rules of Conduct • Listing of Proposed Bylaw Amendments and Resolutions • Proposed Bylaw Amendments Recommended for Adoption • Proposed Resolutions Recommended for Adoption • Proposed Resolutions Not Recommended for Adoption • Information for the Voting Delegates • Voting Delegate Instructions To be eligible for consideration during the Annual Business Meeting, amendments must be received by NYSSBA by 5:00 pm on October 13, 2026. Any amendments to a proposed resolution must be submitted using the NYSSBA Amendment Request form found HERE and emailed directly to Danielle Grasso at advocacy@nyssba.org 3 NYSSBA Board of Directors President .................................................................................................................... Christine Schnars 1st Vice President/Area 2 ....................................................................................... Rodney George 2nd Vice President/Area 8 ..................................................................................... Brian LaTourette Treasurer .................................................................................................................... Thomas J. Nespeca Immediate Past President ........................................................................................ Sandra H. Ruffo Area 1 ......................................................................................................................... David Lowrey Area 3 ......................................................................................................................... Sylvester Cleary Area 4 ......................................................................................................................... Peter Nowacki Area 5/Northeast Region Director, NSBA .......................................................... William L. Miller Area 6 ......................................................................................................................... Wayne Rogers Area 7 ......................................................................................................................... Catherine Lewis Area 9 ......................................................................................................................... John Williams Area 10 ....................................................................................................................... Sheryl Brady Area 11 ....................................................................................................................... Charmise Desiré Area 12 ....................................................................................................................... Catherine M. Romano Area 13 ....................................................................................................................... Kamar Samuels Represented by Sharon Rencher Director, Big 5 School Districts ............................................................................. Dr. Rosalba Corrado Del Vecchio Director, Caucus of Black School Board Members ............................................ Robin Bolling 4 Resolutions Committee Members School District/ Area Name Organization Name 1 Scott Johnson Sweet Home 2 Deborah Schmidt Mount Morris 3 Anita Ray Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES 4 Matthew Mancari West Genesee 5 Jennifer Jones Hamilton 6 Tori Thurston Saranac Lake 7 Naomi Hoffman Shenendehowa 8 Doris Warner Margaretville 9 Robin White Washingtonville 10 Sandi Jeanette Rockland BOCES 11 Jeanne D’Esposito Malverne 12 Dawn Sharrock (Chair) Middle Country 13 William Manekas NYCDOE Big 5 Gwendolyn Raeford Syracuse Caucus of Black School Board Members Angela White Greenburgh-North Castle Board Liaison: Christine Schnars Jamestown NYSSBA Staff Name Title Email Robert Schneider Executive Director bob.schneider@nyssba.org Brian C. Fessler Chief Advocacy Officer and Staff Liaison brian.fessler@nyssba.org Caroline L. Bobick Deputy Director of Governmental caroline.bobick@nyssba.org and External Relations John S. Daley Senior Governmental Relations Representative john.daley@nyssba.org Matt J. DeLaus Governmental Relations Counsel matt.delaus@nyssba.org Danielle E. Grasso Grassroots Advocacy Manager and danielle.grasso@nyssba.org Governmental Relations Coordinator Jay Worona NYSSBA Consultant/Parliamentarian 5 ORDER OF BUSINESS 2026 BUSINESS MEETING THE BUSINESS MEETING • President’s Welcome • Meeting Procedures and Instructions • Announcement of a Quorum • Adoption of Order of Business • Adoption of Rules of Conduct for the Business Meeting ELECTION OF OFFICERS • Announcement of Election Results – Areas 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 • President • 1st Vice President • 2nd Vice President • Treasurer CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS • Report of the Resolutions Committee o Consideration of Proposed Bylaw Amendments Recommended for Adoption o Consideration of Expiring Positions Recommended for Adoption o Consideration of Proposed Resolutions Recommended for Adoption o Consideration of Proposed Resolutions Not Recommended for Adoption OTHER BUSINESS 6 RULES OF CONDUCT FOR THE BUSINESS MEETING The following rules are recommended for adoption by the delegates. Once adopted, all delegates will know the rules by which they will be bound. Following them will make for orderly progress. 1. CREDENTIALS. Registered delegates will receive a link for the virtual business meeting prior to the start of the meeting. Delegates will use the link to log in to the meeting. The log-in information will also serve as credentials to ensure each delegate has secure and verified voting rights. 2. PARLIAMENTARIAN. There shall be an official parliamentarian to whom questions may be directed only through the chair. 3. MEETING ACCESS. All voting delegates shall be logged in to the virtual business meeting system. Voting delegates shall be permitted full access to the conversation functions including the right to speak on proposed bylaw amendments, resolutions and nominations. All non-voting members in attendance shall have viewing privileges of the meeting. Such non-voting members shall not be permitted to speak on bylaw amendments and resolutions; with the exception of the chair or chair of the Resolutions Committee. 4. NOMINATIONS. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Association’s bylaws, the chair, or his or her designee, shall announce the nominations from the Board of Directors for the offices of President, First Vice President, Second Vice President and Treasurer. As set forth in Rule No. 9, once the nominee’s consent has been secured, that individual shall have the right to address the delegates for not more than two minutes, after nominations are closed and prior to debate by the delegates. The order in which such nominees are asked to address the delegates will be determined by the drawing of lots. If there are nominations from the delegates, consistent with Article 7 of the Association’s bylaws, such vote shall be by ballot. If more than one individual is nominated for any office, the individual or individuals securing the greatest number of votes cast will be elected. If there are no such nominations from the delegates, the vote shall be by hand at the time. If the chair of the meeting is nominated for any office in which other individuals are also nominated, the chair will call upon a vice president, who has not also been nominated for such office, to chair the meeting during the time that the election for such office occurs. In the event that both vice presidents are also nominated for the same office for which the chair has been nominated, the chair will call upon another officer of the Association’s Board of Directors, who has not been nominated for such office, to chair the meeting during the time that the election for such office occurs. 5. BYLAW AMENDMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS. All bylaw amendments and resolutions will be considered in the order printed in the corresponding year’s Voting Delegates’ Guide – Proposed Bylaw Amendments and Resolutions. Resolutions recommended for adoption by the Resolutions Committee require no second (Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised). 6. PRESENTATION OF BYLAW AMENDMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS. The Resolutions Committee chair, or his or her designee, shall move resolutions recommended by the Committee and such motions shall not require a second. Bylaw amendments and resolutions not recommended by the Resolutions Committee must be moved and seconded by delegates in order to be considered. 7 7. RECOGNITION BY CHAIR. A voting delegate shall secure recognition of the chair before speaking, using the “raise hand” feature in the virtual meeting platform. The delegate shall give his or her name in full and the name of the board he or she represents. Each speaker will be granted audio and video rights when recognized. 8. DEBATE. No voting delegate shall speak in debate more than twice on the same question or nomination, with the first presentation limited to two minutes and the second limited to one minute. No voting delegate shall speak a second time on the same question or nomination until all other voting delegates have had an opportunity to speak once. Discussion on nominations for officers shall be limited to five minutes per nominee. If more than one individual is nominated for any office and accepts, each such individual nominated will be permitted to address the delegates for no more than two minutes, which shall not be subtracted from the total time allotted for discussion of nominations described above. In the event that there are two or more nominees for any office, the chair shall recognize delegates wishing to speak in support of particular nominees on a rotating basis. Discussion on a proposed amendment to the bylaws shall be limited to 15 minutes. Discussion on a proposed resolution shall be limited to 10 minutes. Debate on any amendment to a resolution shall be limited to five minutes. Such time is not to be counted in the time allotted to debate on the resolution itself. Amendments shall be considered and voted upon in the order presented. Amendments to a resolution should be voted upon prior to consideration of a second amendment. “Amendments to the amendment” should be avoided. If continuation of a debate on a proposed amendment to the bylaws or a resolution is desired, a motion may be passed by a majority vote to extend the debate for no more than five additional minutes. A separate motion is required for each such extension of debate time. If continuation of a debate on such a proposed amendment to the bylaws or a resolution is desired after the time has already been extended once, a motion may be passed by a majority vote to extend the debate time for no more than two minutes. A separate motion is required for each such extension of debate time. 9. WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS. No amendment to a resolution may be introduced unless it was appropriately submitted by 5 p.m., two business days prior to the start of the business meeting. 10. PRIVILEGE OF THE CHAIR. The chair may call upon the Parliamentarian, Association staff members and the chair of the Resolutions Committee to provide delegates with essential information regarding resolutions, bylaws and procedures. Time allotted for such requested explanations shall not be deducted from the total time allotted for discussion of the bylaw amendment, resolution or amendment. 11. RECORDING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES. The Secretary shall be responsible for recording the minutes of the Annual Business Meeting. The Board of Directors is authorized to review and approve the minutes of the Annual Business Meeting at the first regular meeting of the board subsequent to the Annual Business Meeting. 8 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 1 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) .................................. Page 12 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 2 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26)) ................................. Page 12 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 3 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26)) ................................. Page 13 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 4 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) ................................... Page 13 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 5 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) .................................... Page 14 9 PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION PROPOSED RESOLUTION 1 – SUNSETTING Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) .................................... Page 15 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2 – SUNSETTING Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) .................................... Page 15 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3 Submitted by: Riverhead and Port Jefferson School Boards (4/13/26) ................................................................. Page 16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 4 Submitted by: Riverhead and Port Jefferson School Boards (4/13/26) ................................................................. Page 16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 5 Submitted by: Riverhead and Port Jefferson School Boards (4/13/26) ................................................................. Page 16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 6 Submitted by: Voorheesville and Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego BOCES, Hancock, and Walton School Boards (5/6/26) ..................................................................................................................... Page 17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 7 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) ................................... Page 17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 8 Submitted by: Brockport School Board (6/17/26) .............................................................................................. Page 18 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 9 Submitted by: Amherst, Cassadaga Valley, Cheektowaga-Maryvale, Clymer, Eden, Kenmore-Tonawanda, Lewiston-Porter, Newfane, Olean, Sweet Home, and Wilson School Boards (06/30/26) ........................................ Page 19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 10 Submitted by: Sweet Home School Board (07/08/26) ........................................................................................ Page 19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 11 Submitted by: New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (07/08/26) ................................. Page 20 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 12 Submitted by: Onteora School Board (07/08/26) ............................................................................................... Page 20 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 13 Submitted by: Onteora School Board (07/08/26) ............................................................................................... Page 21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 14 Submitted by: Onteora School Board (07/08/26) ............................................................................................... Page 21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 15 Submitted by: Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) ................................................................................. Page 22 10 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 16 Submitted by: Port Washington School Board (07/08/26). ................................................................................. Page 22 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 17 Submitted by: Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) ................................................................................. Page 23 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 18 Submitted by: West Islip School Board (07/09/26) ............................................................................................ Page 24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 19 Submitted by: West Islip School Board (07/09/26) ............................................................................................ Page 24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 20 Submitted by: Washingtonville School Board (07/15/26) ................................................................................... Page 25 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 21 Submitted by: Massapequa School Board (07/15/26) ........................................................................................ Page 25 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 22 Submitted by: Massapequa School Board (07/15/26) ........................................................................................ Page 26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 23 Submitted by: Manhassset and Bellmore-Merrick School Boards (07/16/26) ....................................................... Page 26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 24 Submitted by: Gananda School Board (07/17/26) ............................................................................................. Page 27 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 25 Submitted by: Uniondale School Board (07/17/26) ............................................................................................ Page 27 11 PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION PROPOSED RESOLUTION 26 Submitted by: Peru School Board (6/15/26) ....................................................................................................... Page 28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 27 Submitted by: Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) ................................................................................. Page 28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 28 Submitted by: Valley Central School Board (07/09/26) .................................................................................... Page 31 12 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 1 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) The second paragraph of Article 4 shall be amended by adding the following: ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS: QUORUM Other meetings may be called by the president, with the concurrence of the Board of Directors, at such times and places as the president and said board may designate; and shall be called when requested by at least eight member boards from each of at least eight areas of the Association. Written notice of a special meeting of the Association shall be electronically mailed to each member board at least 14 days prior to date of the meeting, together with a statement of the purpose or purposes of the meeting. Such special meeting shall act only in respect of the stated purpose or purposes of the meeting and 200 official delegates shall constitute a quorum for doing business. RATIONALE The Board of Directors wants to ensure that all language in the bylaws encompasses the most up-to-date form of communication. Sending notice of a special meeting by electronic means ensures it arrives in a timely manner, giving the most notice possible to member districts of the special meeting. DEI Committee Review: No Position PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 2 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) The second paragraph of Article 5 shall be deleted. ARTICLE 5. DELEGATES AND VOTES Voting delegates who attend only the Annual Business Meeting during the Association’s Annual Convention shall not be required to pay the applicable convention registration fee. RATIONALE The Association has decoupled the annual business meeting from convention so paragraph two of Article Five is no longer necessary. DEI Committee Review: No Position [Back to Listing] 13 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 3 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) The second paragraph of Article 6 shall be amended by adding the following: ARTICLE 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Any New York State board of education member, who is serving as a director or officer of the National School Boards Association or the Consortium of State School Boards Association shall be a non-voting member of the board of directors of this Association. RATIONALE The Board of Directors joined the Consortium of State School Boards Association (COSSBA) in 2025. The proposed change allows any member of a New York State school board who serves as a director or officer of COSSBA to be a non-voting member of the board of directors. This provides equal opportunity for members of both national organizations to have a non-voting seat on the board. DEI Committee Review: No Position PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 4 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) The fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 7 shall be amended by deleting the requirement that officers be elected by a show of hands and adding the following: ARTICLE 7. OFFICERS The first vice president’s duties shall be to assist and assume the responsibilities of the president in the absence, incapacitation or unwillingness of the president to serve as well as in accordance with Board polices as adopted by the Board of Directors. The second vice president’s duties shall be determined by the president and in accordance with Board policies as adopted by the Board of Directors. Upon announcement at the Annual Meeting of the nominations for the offices of president, two the first and second vice presidents and treasurer of the Association, a call for nominations from the floor shall be made by the president. If there are no such nominations, the vote shall be by an showing of hands electronic ballot. If there are nominations from the floor, the vote shall be by electronic ballot. Upon election, the president and treasurer, consistent with Article 6, shall continue to serve as members of NYSSBA’s Board of Directors, but shall cease to serve as either area director, or director for the Conference of Big 5 School Districts or the New York State Caucus of Black School Board Members, effective December 31. The vacancy of area director shall be filled in accordance with Article 8, Directors and their Duties, within 90 days of the election of the president and treasurer. RATIONALE The Board of Directors wishes to clarify the language of Article 7 to note that the vote is for one first vice president and one second vice president, not two people for each position. The language is also amended to reflect the practice that the election of officers occurs through an electronic ballot. Additionally, the article is amended to provide that if the director representing the New York State Caucus of Black School Board Members (“the Caucus”) is elected president or treasurer, that member shall cease to serve the director for the Caucus, just as it is for other members of the board who are elected to either of those offices. DEI Committee Review: No Position [Back to Listing] 14 PROPOSED BYLAW AMENDMENT 5 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) Article 14 shall be amended by deleting the requirement for a printed report and adding the following: ARTICLE 14. FINANCIAL REPORT The financial records of the Association for the fiscal year ending December 31 shall be audited immediately by an independent auditor and a complete report published by NYSSBA during the first half of the following year. A report on the Association’s financial condition shall be furnished to the membership annually by the treasurer. RATIONALE The preparation of a printed report is outdated and represents an unnecessary expense. The treasurer prepares an annual video message for the membership that summarizes the findings of the independent audit. A link to the audit report will be included in the video message for members who would like to read the full report. DEI Committee Review: No Position [Back to Listing] 15 PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION All resolutions with an asterisk * indicate a 2021 sunsetting resolution being considered for renewal. PROPOSED RESOLUTION 1* Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) *RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association support proposals that would generate new state revenues with the dedicated purpose of funding education. RATIONALE State funding remains one of the primary pillars supporting public education in New York, yet school districts continue to face increasing fiscal pressures driven by rising operational costs, evolving student needs, and limitations on local revenue generation. While existing revenue streams, such as traditional state aid via the state operating fund budget and lottery/gaming funds, provide important support, there are pressures to identify new state revenue streams that are dedicated to support school districts. As expectations for educational outcomes grow, so does the need for sustainable and reliable funding sources. Generating new state revenues specifically dedicated to education would provide districts with greater financial stability and predictability. This approach also helps reduce overreliance on local property taxes, promoting greater equity across districts with varying fiscal capacity. By supporting proposals that generate new, dedicated state revenues for education, NYSSBA affirms its commitment to ensuring that all students have access to the resources necessary for a sound basic education. Strengthening and diversifying funding streams will better position the state to meet the needs of school districts and the students they serve. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2* Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) *RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association support changes to streamline the teacher certification process for teachers from out of state and those with previous teaching experience RATIONALE School districts across New York State continue to experience challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified educators, particularly in high-need subject areas and regions. Barriers within the teacher certification process, especially for out-of- state candidates and individuals with prior teaching experience, can delay or discourage otherwise qualified educators from entering the workforce. At a time when districts are seeking to expand and diversify their educator pipeline, unnecessary administrative hurdles can exacerbate staffing shortages. In recent years, the New York State Education Department has taken steps to address some of these barriers. Nearly a decade ago, NYSED expanded reciprocity pathways to make it easier for out of state certified teachers to qualify for New York certification and has participated in interstate agreements through organizations such as the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification to support license mobility. In 2022, the Regents adopted regulations to no longer require teaching candidates – including out of state candidates – to pass the edTPA performance assessment in order to earn a New York State teaching certificate. While these efforts have helped reduce some entry barriers, challenges remain particularly for experienced educators navigating additional testing, coursework, or administrative requirements indicating that further streamlining is still needed. While these efforts have helped reduce some barriers, districts continue to face staffing shortages, particularly in high-need areas. Allowing experienced educators to transition more easily into New York classrooms can help districts fill critical vacancies more quickly, reduce reliance on long-term substitutes, maintain continuity of instruction for students, and reduce the costly demand for a too-limited supply of educators. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 3 Submitted by the Riverhead and Port Jefferson School Boards (4/13/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall support legislation that mandates all charter school trustees and school administrators shall reside in New York State and be held to the same financial and ethical standards as public school counterparts. RATIONALE Charter school expenditures and operations are not overseen by an elected school board that is accountable to impacted communities. To prevent financial and ethical misconduct, charter school trustees and administrators must be held to the same standards and practices. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 4 Submitted by the Riverhead and Port Jefferson School Boards (4/13/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall support legislation that would revise the Annual Operating Expense (AOE) formula for charter schools in New York State by excluding BOCES expenses from the formula. RATIONALE Charter school tuition is calculated based on the prior year's tuition and the growth factor is the average percent increase of the three prior years of total general fund expenditures. Charter school tuition varies, sometimes significantly, according to school district in which the student resides. Consequently, school districts are subsidizing neighboring school districts for charter school operations through the current, imbalanced tuition formula put forth by New York State. Payments already leaving the district for BOCES tuition or other charter school tuition should not be recounted in the base that determines how much is paid to charter schools. Charter schools divert critically needed funds from public schools while weakening the ability of school districts to meet the needs of students. DEI Committee Review: No Position PROPOSED RESOLUTION 5 Submitted by the Riverhead and Port Jefferson School Boards (4/13/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall support legislation that requires charter schools to be subject to the same auditing procedures and transparency as public schools in New York State. RATIONALE Charter schools are funded with public funds through taxation yet are not held to the same standards and expectations of transparency as New York State public schools. Charter school budgets, expenditures, and operations are not overseen by a Board of Education elected by the communities they serve. The current formula used by New York State to fund charter schools diverts funds from local public schools with little accountability or oversight. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 6 Submitted by the Voorheesville, Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego BOCES, Hancock, and Walton School Boards (5/6/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall support legislation and regulations that alleviate the significant pressures placed on school districts and BOCES by the rising cost of health insurance and advocate for such measures that increase flexibility and funding. RATIONALE New York health insurance premiums are among the highest in the nation. Providing quality, comprehensive health insurance to school district employees is an indispensable factor in recruiting and retaining quality faculty and staff to care for and educate New York’s children. Providing insurance coverage is currently the sole responsibility of each BOCES and school district, the cost of which comes from the same revenues needed to pay for all other expenses that are integral to operating a district. Therefore, sadly, districts are faced with the unavoidable choice of having to make cuts that diminish educational quality in order to pay for continually increasing insurance coverage costs. This dilemma is not sustainable. Though this Resolution does not mandate support for a specific type of legislative or regulatory change, the need to consider various ideas to address this problem have prompted this resolution. These include, but are not limited to, direct dedicated state funding of district health insurance costs; an exclusion of insurance costs from the tax levy limit (much like is already done with retirement contributions); and a statewide single-payer healthcare system. While we are aware NYSSBA currently has an official position of support for the establishment of Health Insurance Reserve Funds (2025), we believe that position is too narrow, whereas this Resolution requires NYSSBA to consider all possible means of relief for districts and BOCES. It is unconscionable for the state to ignore this ever-increasing problem for our schools and communities, as these costs will incur devastating effects on our children's education. It is fundamentally unfair to New York’s students and contrary to our constitutional obligation to provide a sound basic education that school boards are forced to diminish the quality of educational services to cover increasing health insurance costs. Providing insurance coverage is a moral imperative faced by all districts. Therefore, NYSSBA should strongly advocate for the State to take steps to ensure that providing employees with quality, affordable health coverage and ensuring students have access to quality education are not mutually exclusive. DEI Committee Review: No Position PROPOSED RESOLUTION 7 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (6/13/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association support a new state bond act to support school district capital and facility needs - such as HVAC, new electrical systems, prek space and technology. RATIONALE School districts across New York face significant and ongoing capital needs, including aging infrastructure, outdated electrical systems, insufficient classroom space, and increasing demands for modern technology. Investments in facilities such as HVAC systems, prekindergarten space, and energy-efficient upgrades are essential not only for maintaining safe and healthy learning environments, but also for supporting evolving educational standards and student needs. In 2022, the state enacted a mandate for school districts to transition to zero-emission buses. Under current technology, electric buses are the only option to meet the zero-emission requirements. Just two years later, the state enacted legislation that would require school classrooms and buildings to be closed when temperatures reach a specific threshold. This new law has led to more districts looking into the cost of expanded air conditioning. And in 2026, the Governor proposed a significant expansion of 4-year-old prekindergarten, requiring all districts to provide such [Back to Listing] 18 services to those who request it, by 2028. These new standards and requirements create new needs and expectations when it comes to school district facilities. A new state bond act would provide critical financial support to help districts address these large-scale capital projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. Without such support, many districts are forced to delay necessary improvements or rely heavily on local funding, which can create disparities between communities with different fiscal capacities. State investment through a bond act helps distribute costs more equitably while enabling districts to make essential upgrades. By supporting a state bond act for school facilities, NYSSBA recognizes the importance of modern, safe, and well- equipped learning environments in promoting student success. Strategic capital investments not only improve educational outcomes but also support long-term operational efficiency and community well-being. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 8 Submitted by the Brockport School Board (6/17/26) Endorsed by: Massapequa School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall advocate for policies that ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the tax burden among all classes of property statewide. RATIONALE School districts across New York rely heavily on property taxes to fund essential educational programs, staffing, and services. In many communities, concerns have emerged that commercial properties - particularly large corporate holdings, may be benefiting from assessment practices or statutory tax calculation rules that reduce their share of the local tax levy. When this occurs, the burden shifts to residential taxpayers, who already face rising housing costs and stagnant wage growth. Because this issue affects rural, suburban, and urban districts alike, it warrants a coordinated statewide review. A core principle of public education funding is that it should be predictable, transparent, and equitable. Without a clear understanding of how commercial and residential tax burdens compare across regions, NYSSBA and local school boards cannot fully assess whether their communities are being treated fairly. A statewide investigation by NYSSBA would provide school districts with reliable, comparable data and help identify whether structural inequities exist in the tax system. Recent increases in residential property values, reassessment cycles, and economic development incentives have raised new questions about how tax burdens are distributed. As commercial real estate markets evolve — particularly in the wake of shifts in retail, office use, and industrial development, there is a pressing need to understand whether current tax policies are keeping pace with these changes. A NYSSBA study would investigate and report to its membership on the relationship between commercial and residential property tax bills across New York State, including whether shifts in assessment practices, equalization rates, or local tax policies have resulted in a disproportionate transfer of the tax burden from commercial properties to residential taxpayers. It would allow school boards to respond proactively rather than reactively and report to its membership on the relationship between commercial and residential property tax bills. NYSSBA’s advocacy is most effective when grounded in comprehensive statewide data. By conducting this investigation, the organization will be better positioned to advocate for reforms that protect taxpayers, strengthen school district fiscal stability, and ensure that all property classes contribute fairly to the cost of public education. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 19 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 9 Submitted by the Amherst, Cassadaga Valley, Cheektowaga-Maryvale, Clymer, Eden, Kenmore-Tonawanda, Lewiston-Porter, Newfane, Olean, Sweet Home, and Wilson School Boards (06/30/26) Endorsed by: Greenwood School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association will support legislation that amends New York State FOIL laws to allow public school districts to charge a reasonable fee for the staff time to fulfill the FOIL requests whether paper or electronic format from entities who will use the information for commercial purposes. RATIONALE The initial justification for FOIL was to make public institutions transparent and therefore more accountable to citizens. However, most FOIL requests in this digital age come from entities who are mining school district data for commercial purposes, i.e., for profit.1 In other words, these companies are making money from public schools without incurring any reasonable costs for the information they will then sell, and often these companies make regular requests throughout the year (see footnote). Currently, NY State FOIL law only allows districts to charge for the cost of physically copying and sending hard copies of documents, and the staff time it takes to do that physical copying, if it takes more than two hours (NYSSBA Law Book 13:18). If a school district has only physical copies of a record but the FOIL requests a digital copy, the school district must scan the record and send it via e-mail at “no charge if the scanning does not require any effort additional to an alternative method of responding” (NYSSBA Law Book 13:17). Districts should be able to charge for-profit companies the full cost for staff time to fulfill their FOIL request. This resolution would not burden the State or school districts with any additional costs, and although a reasonable fee for such FOIL requests would not add much to a district’s revenues, the fee requirement would at least acknowledge the initial justification for the FOIL law without absolutely refusing access to companies seeking information for commercial purposes. DEI Committee Review: No Position PROPOSED RESOLUTION 10 Submitted by the Sweet Home School Board (07/08/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association supports legislation allowing school districts to provide meals year round using the same regulations covering the September to June time- frame, and provide reimbursements at the same rates. RATIONALE In New York State, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students has grown to 60% as of the 2024-2025 school year. Many of those students count on getting breakfast, lunch and more at their schools and may not get adequate amounts of food at home. The educational growth and social well being of our students is very dependent on proper nutrition. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 20 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 11 Submitted by the New York State School Boards Association Board of Directors (7/8/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association calls upon the state to provide funding to school districts in support of any and all required free appropriate public education (FAPE) services for students with disabilities, who have not earned their high school diploma. RATIONALE In 2021, a federal court in Connecticut ruled that Connecticut was required to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities who had not received high school diplomas until their 22nd birthdays. Prior to that ruling, schools in Connecticut (and New York) provided, at a minimum, services until such students turned 21. In 2023, the New York State Education Department issued an opinion of counsel stating that the 2021 court decision “requires that public schools in New York provide special education and related services to resident students with disabilities until age 22, or the day before the student’s 22nd birthday,” based on the opinion that “New York State law defining eligibility for special education is materially indistinguishable from the Connecticut law” that was successfully challenged. While some districts may have not had a concern with providing such services for an additional year (in fact, a number of districts were already doing so), subsequent cases challenging the State Education Department’s authority to issue their opinion of counsel are still pending. Regardless of individual districts’ reactions to such requirement and the subsequent outcomes of pending cases, what is clear is that state law currently provides funding only through the school year in which the student turns 21. School districts receive no state or federal funding to support provision of services for students with disabilities, who have not earned their high school diploma, until the age of 22. Regardless of what age school districts are required to provide services until, it is important that school districts – and these students – are supported equitably and adequately in doing so. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 12 Submitted by the Onteora School Board (07/08/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocates for school boards to be offered a pencil and paper option for New York State testing in grades 3-5. RATIONALE There is a lack of empirical evidence that one-to-one internet-connected devices are a net benefit to student learning, particularly at the elementary level, and emerging data that use of screens in grades K-2 may be harmful to learning. Currently, New York State does not directly mandate the use of screens or one-to-one devices in elementary grades and recognizes choice around screen use on the district level. However, the removal of the pencil and paper option for the NY State test effectively creates a de facto mandate for screen use in grades K-2. By offering a pencil and paper option in grades 3-5, New York State will allow for districts to make choices around the use of screens in grades K-2 based on best practices for learning and not out of a need to prepare young learners to take a computer-based test. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 13 Submitted by the Onteora School Board (07/08/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards support legislation at the state and/or federal level that would require technology companies providing student-facing educational AI products to employ “duty of care” safety and privacy standards. RATIONALE A “duty of care” represents a legal and ethical obligation requiring individuals or organizations like schools to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to students’ safety and/or well-being. Governments can impose duty of care laws on technology companies so that student-facing products are designed based on what is best for minors as opposed to what is best for the technology company. When governments impose duty of care laws on technology companies, these mandates establish liability to ensure safety and exercise care in design implementation. For minors, this obligation specifically addresses preventing harms, including compulsive use, anxiety, depression, eating disorders and predictable emotional harm. Another example of an action that could be incorporated under a duty of care framework would be requiring technology companies to set privacy protections to the highest default standards. Duty of care laws typically restrict data collection and use practices, mandate privacy protections, and prohibit algorithms that push harmful content to children. Vermont has already taken this type of action to protect its students, NY should do the same. Vermont legislation https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Docs/ACTS/ACT063/ACT063%20As%20Enacted.pdf DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 14 Submitted by the Onteora School Board (07/08/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocates for a New York State requirement that technology companies alert Public School districts of updates that add new AI functionality to existing programs and allow for an opt-out from those updates. RATIONALE The roll out of AI programs has been extremely fast, and much of it has appeared as AI integration into existing programs already in use in schools, such as Google Gemini search engine. Currently, there is no requirement that these companies alert a district before an update to a program currently in use integrates a new AI component. This leads to students having access to AI products that may be inappropriate and harmful to their learning. Furthermore, the onus then falls on the districts’ IT departments to keep abreast of the all new updates being pushed into student devices without any official notice, as well as to attempt to manually code out new updates that are not appropriate for a school device. New York State should require all technology companies to formally alert a district when an update will integrate AI functionality into an existing program, as well as to allow the district to choose to opt out of the update for certain or all grade levels DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 22 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 15 Submitted by the Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocate for the State to fully fund the unfunded mandate of grades 3-8 testing, whether administered as computer-based (CBT) or paper and pencil. RATIONALE There are many costs to districts associated with this unfunded mandate. All of these costs must be borne either by state aid or by property tax levies that are constrained by the tax cap. In many districts, state aid falls far short of sufficiently contributing to, let alone covering, actual costs, presenting the inevitable dilemma under the property tax cap: shift resources away from critical educational priorities, or levy local property taxes – a burden that falls disproportionately on homeowners and community businesses, and may be effectively impossible given the constraints of the tax cap. When the testing is done via CBT, the costs to districts include, but are not limited to: 1) requiring districts to purchase, maintain, support, repair, store, charge, and replace devices (some of these costs are required on an annual basis); 2) improving aging and/or insufficient infrastructure in public school buildings that were neither designed nor built to accommodate and support the electric, WiFi, connectivity, and ventilation needs for this technology, especially during high traffic use during testing administration; 3) training staff to effectively administer and proctor CBT, and assist students when there is an issue with a device; and 4) the costs associated with system crashes and other disruptions during CBT testing administration. In some districts, additional resources are spent to acquire touch screen devices – which provide optimal testing experiences for students – solely for the purpose of administering these tests. This is in addition to the “soft” costs of testing delays, student work lost on the ethernet, additional loss of classroom instruction time due to delays, and student and teacher frustration. For pencil and paper tests, there is the cost of procuring and storing the tests. For both formats, another other costs, there are costs associated with lost administrative time and lost classroom instructional time in general, and the costs associated with proctoring, scoring, and processing the tests. There are also costs associated with typographical errors in the questions and/or answers, and the resources needed to correct and remedy those errors. This is yet another unfunded mandate the state should cover. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 16 Submitted by the Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) Endorsed by: Massapequa School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocate that the State conduct a comprehensive study to determine which mode of administering the grades 3-8 tests -- computer-based testing (CBT) or paper and pencil testing -- produces the most valid, reliable, and cost-effective results. This advocacy should in no way compromise or interfere with the need for students with testing accommodations to test via CBT. RATIONALE There is conflicting evidence regarding whether students perform better on computer-based tests or paper and pencil tests. Although almost every district in NYS voluntarily implemented a 1:1 device program during the pandemic, NYS recently mandated – without having conducted any type of comprehensive studies -- that all districts administer the grades 3-8 tests via CBT. This has required districts to purchase, maintain, and support devices in order to comply with the unfunded state mandate, even though, six years after the pandemic, some districts are looking to reduce their reliance on 1:1 device programs, and the financial burden that accompanies these devices, especially given the confines of the tax cap. This also requires districts to bolster their aging, and insufficient, infrastructure to ensure the ability to handle high volume during testing administration. In some districts, additional resources are being spent to acquire touch screen devices solely for these tests – an expense not otherwise contemplated. [Back to Listing] 23 To compound the debate of whether CBT provides a valid and reliable, and better, testing outcome for NYS students, the state has been routinely plagued by system crashes and other disruptions during CBT testing administration, since the beginning of the pilot period right to the recent 2025-26 testing administration. These disruptions have resulted in testing delays, lost work, loss of classroom instruction time, and student and teacher frustration, among other issues. It’s time NYSED be required to research and provide valid, reliable evidence to show why it is better for students to take – and for districts to administer – the grades 3-8 tests via computer rather than pencil and paper. Such research should include, but not be limited to: 1) evidence that supports CBT as yielding valid, reliable results; 2) the number, types/sources, e.g., vendor and/or server issues, district connectivity issues, faulty/inadequate devices, and/or insufficient district infrastructure, etc., and duration of disruptions that have occurred during CBT administration, beginning with the CBT piloting period through the full-in 2025-26 testing season; 3) whether CBT has produced higher or lower scores/outcomes as compared to the analog test administration; and 4) assessing the annual cost to districts to procure appropriate devices and maintain and support them, ensure appropriate infrastructure to support connectivity during high-traffic test administration windows, as well as the costs of the delays caused by outages, crashing servers, etc., both in terms of lost instructional time and financial resources. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 17 Submitted by the Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) Endorsed by: Massapequa School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association calls upon the State Legislature, the Governor, the State Education Department, and the Board of Regents to enact legislation, regulation, and guidance that prohibits artificial intelligence from serving as the educator of record, from independently assigning grades of record, from conducting behavioral evaluations of students, or from making high- stakes decisions regarding student discipline, promotion, placement, or graduation. RATIONALE Artificial intelligence is entering New York classrooms faster than school districts can establish policy, and vendors are marketing tools that do work traditionally reserved for qualified educators: acting as the educator of record, assigning grades, evaluating student behavior, and making high-stakes decisions about students. This resolution identifies four specific areas in which AI substitution for qualified educators should be prohibited. It does not oppose the use of AI in schools. Adaptive learning programs, diagnostic platforms, formative practice tools, and AI-driven supports for students with disabilities and English language learners have demonstrated value and remain expressly permitted. The qualified educator is the legally accountable party for instruction, special education compliance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, mandated reporting under the Social Services Law, behavioral intervention, harassment and bullying prevention under the Dignity for All Students Act, and student safety. Allowing artificial intelligence to assume these responsibilities would undermine the statutory role of qualified educators under New York Education Law and expose students to algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and the loss of the human relationships central to learning. The resolution applies whether educators are credentialed through current certification pathways or through future pathways the State Education Department may establish, provided any such pathway continues to require demonstrated preparation in pedagogy, special education, mandated reporting, and student safety. This resolution preserves local district authority over the integration of artificial intelligence in classrooms. Local school boards retain full discretion to decide which AI tools to adopt, how educators integrate them, how students learn with them, and how resources are allocated. The resolution sets only narrow statewide guardrails on AI substitution for qualified educators, leaving every other decision about AI integration to local districts. This resolution calls upon the State Legislature, the Governor, the State Education Department, and the Board of Regents to enact legislation, regulation, and guidance. A clear NYSSBA position will give the Association direction for its advocacy as the State develops AI policy for public schools, protect the qualified educator pipeline, and affirm a commitment to human-centered public education alongside the responsible, supervised use of new technology. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 18 Submitted by the West Islip School Board (07/09/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association supports adoption of the NYS Dyslexia and Dysgraphia Task Force report and recommendations by appropriate parties including: equitable, adequate and sustainable state funding for training and implementation of appropriate evidence-based literacy instruction, universal dyslexia screening and intervention services for students with dyslexia. RATIONALE See link below for the NYS Dyslexia and Dysgraphia Task Force Report https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/main/nysed-dyslexia-dysgraphia-task-force-report.pdf Historically across the nation, an assortment of literacy curricula have been used by school districts, with varying degrees of success. NY State has expressed the value in research-and evidence-based literacy instruction. The NY State Education Department has released a number of guidance documents for school districts that express the importance of this shift toward an evidence – based instructional model of literacy. When professional development is provided in evidence- based literacy instruction, students perform significantly better than students whose educators did not have the same professional development in evidence-based literacy instruction and intervention. We recognize the need for early screening, greater accountability and urge all district to implement appropriate, evidence-based instruction in both general and special education classrooms with curricula that are tested empirically and are explicit, systematic, and sequential for both code and meaning-focused reading skills. We are advocating for the provision of additional structured literacy interventions and accommodations for students at risk of and with a diagnosis of dyslexia. Adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding will enable school districts to provide professional development for educators, evidence-based curricula and appropriate dyslexia interventions. This will ensure that every child has an equal opportunity to learn and succeed. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 19 Submitted by the West Islip School Board (07/09/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards supports the use of evidence-based practices by school districts to improve literacy outcomes for students with dyslexia. These practices include the following: • evidence-based literacy instruction and structured literacy intervention that is appropriate for each student and can be accessed by both general and special education populations • access to assistive technologies and appropriate classroom accommodations • teacher/staff training and ongoing professional development to improve understanding of dyslexia, and recognition of early warning signs • require universal early screening with timely reporting of results to parents and guardians leading to prompt implementation of evidence -based interventions specific to dyslexia. RATIONALE Dyslexia occurs at a rate of one in five which amounts to 20% of our students, it accounts for 80% of learning disabled classifications and persists as an inequity that has many mental and socioeconomic effects on our students and society including the “dyslexia to prison pipeline.” Dyslexia is a language based learning disorder and is recognized under Federal LAW (IDEA) as a "specific learning disability” that is neurobiological in nature. It affects the areas of fluent word recognition, reading, written expression, spelling, speaking and learning a second language. The severity of dyslexia can be mitigated through the use of a structured literacy program which includes explicit, systematic, multisensory instruction in phonology, sound symbol correlation, syllable instruction, morphology, syntax and semantics. Structured literacy programs benefit ALL students whether they are struggling readers that may need some extra help or have typical learning needs. It is imperative NYSSBA support this resolution as the economic, social and mental health toll far exceeds costs associated in its implementation. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 25 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 20 Submitted by the Washingtonville School Board (07/15/26) Endorsed by: Greenwood School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association seeks and supports legislation that protects the nonpartisan nature of school board elections by preventing partisan political influence. RATIONALE Historically, school board service is intentionally apolitical, with decisions made individually and collectively with the ultimate objective of serving the best interests of students. This protocol encourages the practice of issues being discussed and decided on their own merit rather than a political ideology. Campaign statements that include party identification and endorsements from sitting elected officials based on political affiliation introduce partisanship to a process that is designed to be non-partisan, resulting in a climate that is antithetical to the stated ideals of board service and operations. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 21 Submitted by the Massapequa School Board (07/15/26) Endorsed by: Wappingers School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocate for changes to applicable federal & state laws, regulations, & guidance to include water, whether dispensed or packaged, as an allowable beverage component of a reimbursable school breakfast or lunch. RATIONALE New York State has made a significant investment in ensuring that all students have access to free school breakfast & lunch. As participation in school meal programs continues to grow, school districts should have the flexibility to implement meal programs that promote student wellness, reduce unnecessary waste & reflect the needs of their local communities. While schools are required to make potable drinking water available to students during meal service, current reimbursement requirements generally require students to select milk or another approved beverage in order for the meal to qualify for reimbursement. As a result, many students take milk simply to satisfy meal requirements and discard unopened containers, resulting in unnecessary food waste & additional costs for school districts. Water is widely recognized as the preferred beverage for hydration, yet students who would choose water in place of milk are generally not afforded that option within the reimbursable meal structure. Allowing plain drinking water to satisfy the beverage requirement would encourage healthy hydration, reduce waste & provide districts with greater flexibility while maintaining the nutritional integrity of school meal programs. Decisions regarding whether to offer packaged drinking water should remain with locally elected boards of education, allowing each district to determine the most appropriate and cost effective approach based on local needs. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 22 Submitted by the Massapequa School Board (07/15/26) Endorsed by: Wappingers and Greenwood School Boards RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocate for legislation and regulatory changes that standardize and streamline the approval process for qualified community-based organizations seeking to provide UPK services, while preserving the authority of local boards of education in determining how and by whom UPK is provided. RATIONALE New York State has made a significant investment in expanding access to Universal Prekindergarten and continues to encourage broader statewide participation. As UPK access expands, many school districts will increasingly rely on partnerships with qualified community-based organizations to meet the needs of their communities. Despite increased funding opportunities, many districts face significant challenges in expanding UPK due to limited classroom space, staffing shortages, and an unnecessarily complex approval process for community-based providers. Qualified organizations often must navigate multiple agencies, duplicative documentation requirements, and inconsistent review timelines before they are eligible to partner with a school district. These administrative barriers delay implementation, discourage provider participation, and limit educational opportunities for families. A more efficient and predictable approval process would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy while maintaining appropriate health, safety, and educational standards. Streamlining the approval process would provide districts with greater flexibility to respond to local needs, increase the availability of qualified providers, and make better use of existing community resources, while preserving the authority of locally elected boards of education to determine whether and how to partner with approved providers. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 23 Submitted by the Manhassset and Bellmore-Merrick School Boards (07/16/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association shall support legislation that AI companies cannot use FOIL as a method to data mine information to build their databases. RATIONALE District Clerk are being inundated with FOIL requests from AI companies for the purpose of building their data bases for commercial purpose. AI companies are abusing FOIL, they are using multiple domains to make their lengthy requests i.e. Databranch.com, Databranchus.com and Databranchusa.com, then refuse to sign non-solicitation forms citing, "Under New York's FOIL statue, a government agency does not have the authority to condition the release of public records on the execution of certification regarding the requestor's intended use of those records. The Court of Appeals and the NY Committee on Open Government have consistently held that an agency may not impose conditions or requirements on a requestor beyond those expressly authorized by the statute. No such requirements exists in FOIL for requests of this nature." This claim contradicts The Statute: Under N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 89(2)(b)(iii), releasing a list of names and home addresses to a company for commercial sales, marketing, or fundraising constitutes an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. DEI Committee Review: No Position [Back to Listing] 27 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 24 Submitted by the Gananda School Board (07/17/26) Endorsed by: Massapequa School Board RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association support and advocate for amendments to the New York State Education Law and related regulations to include the reasonable and necessary costs of transporting students to and from Board of Education-approved interscholastic athletic contests, competitions and related events as allowable transportation expenses eligible for State Transportation Aid. RATIONALE Athletic programs provide students with opportunities to develop teamwork, leadership, discipline, perseverance, physical fitness, social-emotional skills, school engagement, and academic success. These experiences reinforce learning that occurs during the regular school day and help prepare students for future success. School districts throughout New York State are experiencing significant increases in transportation costs due to inflation, rising fuel prices, higher insurance costs, vehicle replacement expenses, driver shortages, and increased travel demands associated with athletic schedules. Although transportation for certain educational and extracurricular activities may qualify for State Transportation Aid, transportation to athletic contests is generally excluded from aidable expenses, requiring districts to absorb these costs entirely through local revenues. The lack of state reimbursement creates financial pressure on local taxpayers and may limit a district's ability to sustain athletic opportunities, particularly in rural, geographically large, and lower-wealth districts where students often travel substantial distances to compete. Providing Transportation Aid for approved interscholastic athletic travel would reduce this burden, promote equity among school districts, and help ensure that students have access to valuable educational opportunities regardless of geographic location or district wealth. DEI Committee Review: Support PROPOSED RESOLUTION 25 Submitted by the Uniondale School Board (07/17/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocate for the state to conduct a comprehensive study on charter school funding, with a particular focus on how such funding impacts public school budgets, student transportation and high-need districts. RATIONALE Charter schools have a disproportionate financial impact on high need public school districts, such as the Uniondale Union Free School District. The financial impact of charter schools is having a negative impact on students, teachers, administrators, and high need Districts as a whole. A study conducted by Hofstra University on the impact of charter school saturation on public school districts, and believes that the high need School Districts are experiencing negative impacts from such saturation of charter schools, leading to lower enrollment in the District schools, a loss of revenue to District Schools, higher transportation costs to the District for charter school students, excessing of teachers and programs in District schools, and a generally negative impact on the overall educational program that the District is able to provide to its public school students. Action is necessary to require the legislature to fund a comprehensive study on the ever changing formula used to fund charter school and the financial impact of charter schools on public school districts, particularly high need school districts, taking into consideration the loss of revenue on public school districts, the increasing costs public schools are required undertake to provide transportation to charter school students, and the disproportionate impact on educational programs that public school districts can provide to their students. DEI Committee Review: Support [Back to Listing] 28 PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE FOR ADOPTION PROPOSED RESOLUTION 26 Submitted by the Peru School Board (6/15/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association support legislation that would reduce the required number of Lockdown Drills conducted each year. RATIONALE With the current State requirements, a student will participate in nearly 50 lockdown drills over their K-12 education. These drills have been shown to cause significant anxiety in students and faculty alike This anxiety significantly disrupts the learning outcomes for all students, as noted in a 2020 study by Georgia Tech and Everytown: "Active shooter drills in schools are associated with increases in depression (39%), stress and anxiety (42%), and physiological health problems (23%) overall, including children from as young as five years old up to high schoolers, their parents, and teachers." https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-active-shooter-drills-in-schools The focus on student and staff safety is the top priority for any school district and board, however there is very little evidence suggesting these drills achieve the desired outcomes when compared with less traumatic investments in threat detection, social supports, and non-punitive discipline programs. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument additional drills make our schools safer and rather are proven to create significant trauma and disruption. Our state cannot tolerate unnecessary learning loss among our students. EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee noted that repeated lockdown drills can better prepare students and staff for correct deployment of lockdown procedures should there be an actual emergency. They also agreed that lockdown drills should be trauma- informed to minimize negative impacts on students’ wellbeing. The Committee acknowledged that similar resolutions were proposed in 2023 and 2025 but defeated by the voting delegates during both annual business meetings. DEI Committee Review: Oppose PROPOSED RESOLUTION 27 Submitted by the Port Washington School Board (07/08/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association advocate for the Governor and/or State Legislature to demonstrate their commitment to a responsible, sustainable expansion of Universal Pre- Kindergarten (UPK) by pausing implementation of the mandate requiring all school districts to offer full- day Pre-K to every four-year-old by the start of the 2028-29 school year, so that a comprehensive due diligence feasibility study can be conducted. RATIONALE New York’s school boards strongly support expanding access to high-quality early childhood education. However, the UPK mandate as currently structured—with an imminent implementation deadline and a proposed per-pupil funding floor that falls far short of actual program costs in many parts of the State—raises serious concerns about the initiative’s feasibility; that is, whether it can be implemented equitably, sustainably, and without imposing significant new financial burdens on local communities. Before a timeline for full program expansion can be imposed, it is critical that the Governor and/or Legislature transparently assess, on a district-by-district basis: [Back to Listing] 29 1. the physical capacity and/or space limitations of the school district to provide standards-compliant Pre-K learning spaces Many school districts currently lack the physical capacity, let alone age-appropriate, state-compliant facilities, necessary to absorb a full grade-level of newly enrolled four-year-old students–a population for which many public school buildings were never designed. For districts that are already at or near enrollment capacity, providing appropriate Pre-K spaces will require new construction, costly renovation, or conversion of spaces that currently serve other purposes—impacts the State has not studied, quantified, or funded. 2. whether the State’s minimum guaranteed allocation of $10,000 per child is sufficient for operating a full-day, high-quality Pre-K program within the district, and the degree to which the mandate constitutes an underfunded obligation that requires the shifting or raising of local property tax revenue to support State- directed programming The National Institute for Early Education Research estimates the cost of high-quality full-day preschool in NYS at almost $19,000 per child—almost double the Governor’s proposed per-pupil minimum. In many districts, even the increased funding does not cover or sufficiently contribute to actual program costs, presenting an inescapable dilemma: decline to participate and face penalties; significantly reduce program quality to fit available funding; shift resources away from other critical, educational priorities; or absorb the gap through local property tax revenues—a burden that falls disproportionately on homeowners and community businesses, and may be effectively impossible given the constraints of the property tax cap. 3. the capacity of existing community-based organizations (CBOs) within the district to support a complete, statewide UPK implementation State law requires school districts to partner with community-based organizations (CBOs) to deliver at least 10 percent of UPK seats. Yet statewide, just 1,900 CBOs operate across the 650 school districts that receive UPK funding, and nearly 60 percent of the State’s census tracts are classified as “childcare deserts.” The pipeline of eligible CBOs needed to facilitate statewide UPK implementation simply does not exist. Even in districts with CBOs willing to participate, reimbursement rates often lag behind true costs, forcing CBOs to absorb operating deficits, reduce program quality, or withdraw from the UPK system entirely. A mandate built on this strained ecosystem, without a blueprint to expand CBO infrastructure in childcare desert communities, is not a sustainable plan. 4. the availability of qualified early childhood education staff to support UPK expansion within the mandated timeline, and the feasibility of compensation offered through the State’s UPK funding model relative to market wages Even if school districts and CBO partners have sufficient physical capacity, they face an equally formidable barrier: a severe shortage of qualified early childhood educators. Over the next decade, New York will need more than 180,000 new educators to address post-pandemic attrition and a looming teacher retirement cliff; yet declining enrollment in teacher education programs and structural pay inequities in the early childhood field present significant challenges to rapid UPK expansion. Early childhood educators in New York earn 26 percent less than the living wage for a single adult, with 50 percent of early childhood educator households participating in one or more public safety net programs—conditions that drive chronic turnover and make it difficult to build a qualified workforce at the scale universal expansion requires. A mandate that requires rapid expansion without first assessing whether its funding model supports competitive compensation across all markets will not produce qualified educators for new classrooms, only vacant positions that further stress Pre- K programs. Pause the mandate, not the mission: Funding must continue for districts that are ready to act now New York’s school boards recognize that UPK expansion funding is urgently needed and must continue flowing to communities that have the capacity to serve more students. Withholding funding from those districts during a feasibility study period would delay real progress for children in school districts that are ready to act now. The existing, voluntary UPK expansion model demonstrates that incentive-based funding has already produced significant, durable [Back to Listing] 30 growth in statewide Pre-K access–without a mandate–as additional districts voluntarily opted in when funding increased. New York’s school boards support the Governor and Legislature in continuing that process while thoroughly assessing–and then addressing–what it will take to build a high-quality, sustainable, and truly universal Pre-K program. During this pause, all proposed UPK expansion funding set forth in the 2026–27 Executive Budget should be provided to school districts that demonstrate the physical capacity, staffing infrastructure, and fiscal readiness to voluntarily establish or expand Pre-K programming, with such funding to be distributed without conditioning receipt on compliance with a mandatory universality timeline. SOURCES 1. National Institute for Early Education Research, “2024 State of Preschool Yearbook, Table B: Minimum gap in spending per child and total spending,” Rutgers University, 2025. 2. New York State Education Department, Office of Early Learning, “Collaborating with community-based organizations.” 3. New York State Education Department, “NYS-Administered prekindergarten fast facts,” 2025. 4. New York State Office of Children and Family Services, “Child care data: Child care deserts,” 2025. 5. Governor Kathy Hochul, “Rebuild NY’s teacher workforce,” State of the State Book, 2022. 6. Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California Berkeley, “Early Childhood Workforce Index 2024: New York State Profile.” 7. Fiscal Policy Institute, “Does New York State have Universal Pre-K?” January 10, 2025. EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE While the Committee saw potential value in a study, they ultimately were concerned that a pause in implementation could give cause to either a delay or reduction in current funding for UPK. Such a change in funding could have an adverse impact on districts currently offering UPK programs, especially in high-need communities. DEI Committee Review: Oppose [Back to Listing] 31 PROPOSED RESOLUTION 28 Submitted by the Valley Central School Board (07/09/26) RESOLVED, that the New York State School Boards Association NYSSBA supports legislation prohibiting a spouse of a current employee of a district from serving on the district's board. RATIONALE Boards of Education are responsible for overseeing district operations, negotiating collective bargaining agreements, approving employee benefits, and making decisions affecting school personnel. Public confidence in these decisions depends on the independence and impartiality of board members. While family members of district employees on the governing board can be capable and dedicated public servants, the service of a spouse of a district employee on the governing board can create actual, perceived, or potential conflicts of interest when matters involving employee compensation, benefits, or personnel policies come before the board. Public confidence can be further strengthened through transparency regarding relationships and affiliations that may influence board governance and public trust. The purpose of this proposal is not to exclude citizens from public service but rather to strengthen public trust, encourage independent governance, and ensure that residents have full information regarding relationships that may affect a candidate's impartiality. EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE The Committee expressed concern regarding the rights of a spouse to serve on a board and limiting or disenfranchising someone based on whom they are married to. Much of the Committee was of the mind that board members with conflicts of interest already have the ability to, and do, abstain from certain decisions or conversations, but that they should not be prohibited from serving. An additional concern was that a proportionally larger percentage of the population may be related in rural districts. DEI Committee Review: No Position [Back to Listing] 32 INFORMATION FOR THE VOTING DELEGATES The voting delegates at the Annual Business Meeting vote on a slate of officers for the Association, including a President, First Vice President, Second Vice President, and Treasurer. They debate and vote on changes to the Association’s bylaws and resolutions that will establish the Association’s positions on various legislative and policy matters. Voting delegates must be registered for the Annual Business Meeting by their district clerk using only NYSSBA’s voting delegate registration form. Prior to the meeting, the New York State School Boards Association will host both a voting delegate orientation and a resolutions Q&A session that delegates are encouraged to attend. Below you will find details related to meeting procedures for all voting delegates during the Annual Business Meeting. ORDER OF BUSINESS The Order of Business for the Annual Business Meeting is the agenda for the meeting. It sets forth the items of business that are scheduled to be accomplished during the course of the meeting. The meeting will begin promptly at 4:00 pm with several procedural items. First, the Association President, who presides throughout the meeting, announces the presence of a quorum. New York State School Boards Association bylaws require 200 members in attendance to achieve quorum. Following the announcement of a quorum, the President calls for a motion to adopt the Order of Business. The President also calls for a motion to adopt the Proposed Rules of Conduct for the meeting. These rules are prepared to be consistent with the Association’s bylaws. The rules describe how delegates must conduct themselves during the meeting, such as setting out the time allotted for discussion of certain items. THE BUSINESS MEETING Next, the President will announce the winners of this year’s Area Director elections, which were conducted locally in each of the designated areas. According to NYSSBA’s bylaws, Area Directors serve two-year terms. Election of Area Directors in Areas 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 occur in odd-numbered years. Election of Area Directors in Areas 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 occur in even-numbered years. This year, election results will be announced for Areas 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. ELECTION OF NYSSBA OFFICERS The Board Officer election is the next item on the Order of Business. Each June, the Board of Directors, which acts as the nominating committee for the delegates to the Annual Business Meeting, nominates a slate of officers who stand for election at the Annual Business Meeting. These individuals are automatically placed in nomination. Once this occurs, the President, or his or her designee, calls for other nominations from the floor. If there are no such nominations, the vote is taken at the time. If there is a nomination from the floor, the vote is taken after such individual accepts the nomination. The President then announces the winner. ADOPTION OF BYLAW AMENDMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS The next item is the Report of the Resolutions Committee. The Resolutions Committee is a standing committee of the Association created by Article 9 of the Association’s bylaws. The Committee chair reports directly to the delegates rather than the Board of Directors. The Resolutions Committee is appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Area Directors. The Committee has one member from each Association area, one representative from the Conference of Big 5 School Districts and one member from the Caucus of Black School Board Members. 33 The Chair is designated by the President from among those appointed to the Committee. In accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, once the Chair moves adoption of a bylaw amendment or resolution recommended for adoption by the Resolutions Committee, no second is required. Next, delegates will consider any proposed bylaw amendments. The Resolutions Committee Chair moves recommended bylaw amendments; a second is not needed. Each bylaw amendment will be debated and voted on separately. Any amendment to the bylaws must have the approval of a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. In accordance with Article 17 (2) of the bylaws, bylaw amendments may not be proposed or amended from the floor of the Business Meeting. Thus, all proposed bylaw amendments had to be submitted by July 17, 2026, and all amendments to the bylaws must be sent to each member board by a date that will allow each member board time to review them in advance of the Annual Business Meeting. The Resolutions Committee Chair next moves those existing NYSSBA positions that have been recommended for adoption. These previously approved resolutions are established NYSSBA positions that are scheduled to sunset if they are not renewed. After the sunsetting positions have been considered and voted on, delegates will next be asked to address newly recommended resolutions individually. The Resolutions Committee Chair moves each resolution recommended for adoption by the Committee. Each recommended resolution is presented and voted upon separately. The Resolutions Committee Chair will move those resolutions recommended by the Committee for adoption; a second is not needed. Resolutions require approval by a simple majority of those present and voting for passage. Following consideration of the resolutions recommended for adoption, the President shall provide voting delegates the opportunity to move any of the “not recommended” resolutions. Since the Resolutions Committee Chair will not move items that were not recommended, each motion requires a second by a voting delegate. OTHER BUSINESS After considering all proposed resolutions, the President will ask if there is any Other Business. If there is no Other Business, the President will ask for a motion to adjourn the Annual Business Meeting. 34 VOTING DELEGATE INSTRUCTIONS NYSSBA’s Annual Business Meeting serves as the opportunity for school board members to elect leadership and set the general advocacy direction of the association. Our bylaws require a quorum of 200 voting delegates to conduct official business, so we strongly encourage you to honor the efforts of your fellow delegates and school board members with your participation until all our business is complete. We respectfully ask that you stay logged into the meeting for its entirety. As the meeting chair, President Ruffo is free to call upon members or staff she believes will assist in clarifying matters being debated, including Jay Worona, who will serve as the Parliamentarian and will be assisting throughout the meeting. In that role, Jay will be calling on speakers during discussion of proposed resolutions. We encourage a thorough debate. However, please remember we are not crafting legislation. We are setting a general direction for NYSSBA’s advocacy. The intent of the resolutions that are adopted by this body will be documented and incorporated into NYSSBA's positions. HOW TO JOIN THE DEBATE During the meeting, delegates can indicate interest in speaking on a resolution by using the “Raise Hand” function at the bottom of your Zoom window. Speakers will be granted access in the order they have raised their virtual hands. For each recognized speaker, there will be a slight delay as your account is changed from listen only to speaker. We ask all delegates to please be patient, as this may take a few seconds, and wait until you are called upon to begin speaking. When called upon to speak, you will be granted audio and video permission. You will then need to do the following: 1. Accept the prompt that appears at the top of your zoom window. 2. Once fully accessed, please turn on your camera and microphone and wait to speak until you are recognized by the Parliamentarian. 3. When you are recognized, please unmute your microphone, state your name, and your school district or BOCES. You will be on screen and can be seen and heard by all delegates and observers when speaking. 4. When you are done speaking or your time has expired, you will then be returned to listen only mode. RULES FOR DEBATE Delegates are initially limited to speak on resolutions or amendments for two minutes. After all others have first spoken, a delegate may speak for an additional minute if time for debate remains. The total time for debate for each resolution is 10 minutes, and each amendment is five minutes. Delegates also have the ability to move to extend debate on bylaws, resolutions and amendments, subject to majority approval. Digital clocks on the screen will count down the time remaining for an individual speaker and total debate. The timekeeper will indicate when times have expired for both the speaker clock and the debate clock. We ask you to please be considerate of other speakers and all delegates by respecting the clocks. As you see noted in the Voting Delegates’ Guide and through previous communications, any amendments that were submitted to NYSSBA staff as of 5:00 pm on October 13 are eligible to be introduced and considered during the Annual Business Meeting. To ensure a smooth, efficient and productive meeting, additional amendments cannot be considered. 35 HOW TO VOTE When a vote is called, a window will automatically appear on your screen showing the number of the bylaw amendment or resolution being considered – or other applicable question – along with a “Support” option and a “Oppose” option. To vote, you will simply select whichever way you choose to vote – Support or Oppose – and then click “Submit.” At the conclusion of the vote, the result will display and will be officially announced by President Schnars. If you do not see the voting windows at any time during the meeting, please let us know by using the Q&A function at the bottom of the Zoom screen. Delegates can also use the Q&A function during the meeting if you are experiencing any other issues with your technology. Thank you for your participation in this important process. 24 Century Hill Drive, Suite 200 Latham, NY 12110 518.783.0200 • 800.342.3360 • nyssba.org 9-26/042