the minutes that twenty-three votes were recorded in favor of the consolidation and twenty-two against it.

The petitioners allege that the clerk of the meeting erroneously recorded the votes cast by the electors of district No. 9, in that one of the electors who is recorded as voting in the affirmative did in fact cast his vote in the negative. The allegation is supported by the affidavit of the person voting, who states specifically that he voted against the consolidation but was recorded in its favor. It is further alleged that a number of the electors who voted in favor of the consolidation were not qualified electors of the district, in that they were only temporarily within the district and did not either own or hire taxable real property therein.

The papers upon the appeal were duly served on the district superintendent, the clerk of the board of education of the town school unit and the clerk of the joint district meeting. No answer has been interposed, and, therefore, the allegations of the petition have not been denied. In the absence of such denial it must be assumed that the allegations as set forth in the petition are true. It is definitely and positively asserted that at least ten of the persons who voted in favor of the consolidation were laborers upon the farms of residents of the district, who were temporarily occupying tenant houses upon such farms and were merely sojourning there for the purpose of giving temporary aid in the harvesting of crops. This statement is sufficient of itself to show that they were not qualified electors and had no legal right to participate in the meeting. It is alleged that they were permitted to vote under the protest of the appellants, and that the acceptance of their votes in favor of the consolidation resulted in a reversal of the will of a majority of the qualified electors of the district.

Upon this statement of facts it must be held that the consolidation of the districts did not receive the approval of a majority of the qualified electors of district No. 9 present and voting at the meeting. Because of this fact the consolidation was not effected and cannot be sustained.

The appeal is sustained.

It is hereby ordered, That the acts and proceedings of the joint district meeting in school districts Nos. 9 and 17 of school unit No. 2 in the town of Eaton, Madison county, held on September 7, 1917, purporting to approve the order consolidating such districts issued by the district superintendent on August 17, 1917, be and the same hereby are set aside.

In the Matter of the Appeal of FRANK LEWIS for Leave to Examine the Records of School District No. 3 in the Town of Colonie, Albany County

Case No. 418

(Decided March 12, 1918)

Right of a collector to refuse to exhibit school records under certain circumstances.

Jacob V. Pearce, the collector of school district No. 3, town of Colonie, Albany county, refused the demand of a trustee of the district to exhibit certain school records. Upon the facts shown appeal dismissed.

FINLEY, Commissioner.-An appeal was filed in January, 1917, by Frank Lewis, one of the trustees of district No. 3, town of Colonie, from the alleged refusal on the part of Jacob V. Pearce, the collector of said district, to exhibit to the appellant certain school records in his possession. On February 9, 1917, the respondent, Jacob V. Pearce, filed a statement with this Department to the effect that he had filed with the district clerk of said district all accounts and orders for the school years 1914-1916 and had caused a notice thereof to be served upon the appellant.

On May 2, 1917, the Township School Law took effect, thereby changing the school administration from the former district system to the township system with a town board of education, which took office on August first. No complaint has been made or filed with the Department by the present school authorities as to failure to obtain the school records from said district No. 3.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

In the Matter of the Application for the Removal of LEWIS EDMINISTER as Trustee of School District No. 33 of the Towns of Catharine and Rector, Schuyler County

Case No. 420

(Decided March 12, 1918)

Effect of Township School Law is to abolish district boards.

The Township School Law (Laws of 1917, chap. 328) provides that the office of district trustee was abolished on the incoming of the new town board of education. Application dismissed.

FINLEY, Commissioner. The last pleading in the above entitled proceeding was filed with this Department on April 20, 1917. On May 2, 1917, the Township School Law took effect, thereby changing the school administration from the former district system to the township system, with a town board of education which took office on August first. Under the provisions of the Township School Law (Laws of 1917, chap. 328) the office of district trustee was abolished, and the respondent in this proceeding went out of office under the provisions of the law at the time the new town board of education took office.

There is therefore no reason for the continuance of this proceeding and the same is dismissed.

In the Matter of the Appeal of the VERNON HIGH SCHOOL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION as to the Propriety of Using the School Building for the Annual Meeting of the Association

Case No. 421

(Decided March 12, 1918)

Permission to use a school building for meetings of the Alumni Association is largely a matter within the discretion of the board of education.

In May, 1917, the Alumni Association of the Vernon High School, located in district No. 7 of the town of Vernon, Oneida county, applied

to the board of education for permission to use the high school building for the holding of its annual meeting or reunion. The board of education of union free school district No. 7 refused the application of the association. This board is no longer in existence, the building being now under the control of the board of education of the town school unit of which such district is a part. Such board assumed office on August 1, 1917. No order can be made herein but at the next annual meeting the board of education will be guided by the ruling herein made that the use of the building by such association for the purpose of its annual meetings and luncheons will be permitted.

FINLEY, Commissioner.

The Vernon High School is located in district No. 7 of the town of Vernon, Oneida county. A new high school building was erected in said district something over a year ago. In May, 1917, the Alumni Association of said high school made application to the board of education to permit the use of the building for the purpose of holding its annual meeting or reunion. Permission was refused by the board and this appeal is taken from such refusal.

Its

The Alumni Association is composed of one hundred and eighty-one graduate members, sixty-two honorary members by marriage and forty-two faculty and ex-faculty members. purposes are to afford an opportunity for the graduates to meet each year and to promote the welfare of the school in general. But one meeting is held each year following the commencement exercises in June. It is customary to serve a luncheon on such occasions, which, prior to the erection of the new school building, has been given in the village hall. It is alleged that the basement of the new building furnishes an excellent place for such meetings, and that, because of the intimate relations between the association and the school, permission to hold the meeting and its accompanying luncheon in the new school building should have been granted by the board.

The objections which seem to have been urged against granting such permission were based mainly upon the grounds that the association is an exclusive organization, that a charge is made for the luncheon or banquet served to the members and that the board would be criticised by the taxpayers for permitting the preparation and service of the luncheon or banquet in the building.

Section 455 of the Education Law defines the uses to which a school building may be put when not in use for school purposes, with the consent of the board of education and under regulations to be prescribed by it. Among such uses are the following:

"For holding social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainments, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community; but such meetings, entertainments and uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be open to the general public.

"For meetings, entertainments and occasions where admission fees are charged, when the proceeds thereof are to be expended for an educational or charitable purpose; but such use shall not be permitted if such meetings, entertainments and occasions are under the exclusive control, and the said proceeds are to be applied for the benefit of a society, association or organization of a religious sect or denomination, or of a fraternal, secret or other exclusive society or organization."

An association such as this cannot be considered as exclusive within the meaning of this section. It is open to all graduates of the school without any distinction. Any charge made is for the purpose of defraying the actual expense of the meetings. Such organizations have proved themselves of great benefit to the schools with which they are associated by promoting interest in the school through the encouragement and aid of its alumni. While permission to use a school building is largely a matter of discretion on the part of a board of education, nevertheless, an appeal will lie from a refusal to permit its use for a given purpose, and if it appears that the board has erred in the exercise of such discretion its action will be overruled.

In my opinion the use of the building as contemplated for the annual meeting of this association is eminently proper and within the provisions of the section above referred to, and the board evered in refusing its permission for the use of the building as 1equested.

The only apparent purpose of this appeal is to obtain a ruling of this Department as to the propriety of using the school building for the annual meeting of the Alumni Association. The board