Buffalo schools would have a state monitor overseeing board decisions

New York's education commissioner would appoint one monitor to oversee Buffalo's school finances and education decisions. The monitor would serve on the Buffalo school board without a vote and could attend all board meetings, including closed sessions. At appointment, the monitor could not live in the district, work for it, or have a family relationship with a board member covered by the bill's definition. The district would pay reasonable, necessary work expenses and cover the monitor's legal defense and liability to the same extent as a district employee. The district would provide needed records and access to its information systems while following state and federal privacy laws. The appointment requirement would take effect upon enactment and expire June 30, 2030.

The monitor could block board decisions or make resolutions binding when board action or inaction breaks education laws or rules, or conflicts with the required plans. These powers would apply to Buffalo school board decisions. The monitor could also reject district-paid travel outside New York. These powers would exclude negotiated union agreements and unlawful cuts to required services for non-public schools. The monitor would give written reasons. A submitted resolution would take effect at the next board meeting unless withdrawn. The commissioner could reverse an override within ten days of the directive and overrule other monitor decisions that conflict with the plans or budget, except negotiated union agreements. The commissioner could extend the override notice deadline for exceptional circumstances. The monitor could extend the directive deadline when requested information is not provided within 48 hours. Override notice would generally be due within 48 hours of a board decision, followed by a directive within ten days of notice. These powers would expire June 30, 2030.

The board, superintendent, and monitor would prepare financial and academic improvement plans, and the monitor would review yearly budgets. The plans would cover the 2027–2028 school year and the next four school years. Budget review would check balance, required programs, and alignment with both plans. The financial plan would keep yearly operating spending within operating income. The academic plan would target areas the commissioner identifies for improvement. Three public hearings would gather comments on school oversight, academic performance, and finances. Each proposed plan would also receive a public hearing and be posted at least three business days beforehand. Disputed plans and the monitor's proposed changes would go to the commissioner by December 1, 2027. The commissioner would settle those plans by January 15, 2028. The commissioner would require budget changes when needed to follow the plans. Actions tied to a reported possible plan violation would pause until the commissioner decides, within 20 days of notice. Initial hearings would occur within 60 days of appointment. Plans would be due November 1, 2027. Annual budget submissions would be due March 1, starting with 2028–2029. These requirements would expire June 30, 2030.

The board would adopt rules for handling conflicts of interest, and the district and monitor would regularly report on school performance and finances. The conflict policy would cover board members and administrators. Reports would cover academic results, finances, and district operations. People with a conflict could give background information or answer questions before discussion or voting, but could not improperly influence the decision. The board would record each conflict and how it was resolved. The monitor's twice-yearly reports would include all district contracts entered into during the year. The district would report quarterly to the monitor and yearly to state education leaders. The monitor would report twice yearly to state leaders. These duties would expire June 30, 2030.