After thirty-two months of medical leave, paid suspension and a costly battle, a hearing officer has determined that Cooperstown middle school principal David Pearlman is guilty of insubordination and conduct unbecoming a principal, two of three charges arising from his relationship with a female high school student.

A hearing officer ruled that the district may suspend Pearlman for three months without pay and require him to continue receiving counseling. After the three month period, Pearlman will be allowed to return to the district as an administrator.

District superintendent Mary Jo McPhail said the district was required to pay Pearlman's $70,351 annual salary when disciplinary charges were brought by the school board in November 1999, following Pearlman's return to work after a medical leave for depression beginning in April of that year.

"We were asking for his dismissal," said school board president Kelly Branigan.

McPhail said the district is pleased that Pearlman was found guilty on thirteen of the sixty-nine specifications, which were lumped into three general charges. Still, she's says, the penalty is far too lenient and took much longer than the district anticipated, or state law suggests.

"The hearing officer appears to have been significantly impacted by his perception of Mr. Pearlman's emotional issues," said McPhail. "Educational leaders and role models are held to a high standard, and rightly so, and their actions should not amount to less than that. They're placed in a position of trust."

Pearlman said he has dealt with his "psychological illness" and, with the aid of a "wonderful therapist," feels stronger than ever.

"I want to go back to doing the job I was doing before this happened," Pearlman said. He declined to discuss preventative measures, if any, that have been taken to assure parents in the district who may be concerned about his psychological state as he prepares to return to his job. He said he regrets all events beginning in January 1999, at which time he was depressed about "events from childhood" and the death of his stepmother.

"It's not a decision I'm happy with," he said, "but I have to accept it and live with it. The hearing officer found that there was no basis for termination."

And, as the district and its attorney are quick to point out, the officer took his time doing it.

During the course of the proceedings, Branigan said the district filed several complaints with the State Education department because the hearings were not being held on consecutive days, as state law promises except in cases extraordinary circumstances.

According to McPhail, hearings in this case were held on average once every 21 days.

"The district was prepared to go forward at all times, the substantial delays were not caused by the district," said McPhail.

Branigan said the district was "strongly opposed" when Pearlman's counsel applied for an extension for filing briefs.

"We made our position clear," said Branigan, "but the hearing officer granted it anyway."

State law also requires a hearing officer to issue a written decision within thirty days of the last hearing. McPhail said it took approximately 150 days for this decision to be reached, written and sent.

Mary Ellen Mangold is the supervisor of the State Education Department's Employer/Employee Relations Unit, and specializes in supervising 3020-a hearings. She worked with the district throughout this case, and describes it as an "unusually long" one.

"There's a lot of reasons why it took as long as it did," said Mangold. "The law is in place, but it has a lot to do with attorneys, cancellations and postponements. The parties filed their briefs late, and then both filed response briefs a couple of months after the hearings ended."

School district attorney Hank Sobota said he filed a number of complaints with the State Department of Education about the length of time it was taking to move the process along.

"On November 8, 2000, when I filed one complaint, we were having 2.6 average hearing days per month. On April 12, 2001, I filed another report, and by then we were only having 1.5 hearing days per month. If the state is going to have a procedure under a statute requiring consecutive days, the state ought to get more hearing officers to adhere to the statutory timetable."

"At one point, towards the end, two months passed between hearing days," Sobota said.

The school can appeal the decision on limited grounds, but such appeals are very difficult to win, Sobota said.

Mangold said the 3020-a disciplinary hearing process was revised in 1994. The major change was that the state commissioner on education was eliminated as an avenue of appeal.

"From what I understand, the 3020-a process has been revamped," said Branigan. "I'd hate to see what it was like before. It's ridiculous. It's unfair. It's time consuming and expensive."

Sobota and Lynn Green, attorneys for the district, planned to meet with the board in executive session Wednesday night to discuss the board's options. They must adhere to the hearing officer's ruling, Sobota said, within fifteen days. In addition to three months suspension without pay, Pearlman will be given continued counseling.

"Section 913 of the State Education Law does authorize a Board of Education to direct any employee to undergo a physical or mental examination as it deems necessary for job performance," Sobota said.

Pearlman's attorney, Louis Patack, said, "I get angry when I hear people say what if he gets depressed again. So what? He's being treated. There's still a terrible prejudice out there against mental illness."

McPhail and district business manager James Collison are in the process of determining the costs incurred by the district during the process.

Patack said he wouldn't be surprised if the school had spent $300,000 on the disciplinary procedure, but McPhail said this number seems inflated. He said that if the school had wanted to settle the matter more expeditiously, a result similar to the eventual compromise ruling could have been agreed to months ago.

"Through the process, there were always offers and counter-offers," Branigan said. "But the offers they made were not acceptable."

Branigan said she encourages members of the community to speak their mind.

Hearing officer Ronald Kowalski in his decision stated that Pearlman "is a 10-year employee of the district with a good work record and has clearly contributed in a positive way to the lives of many of the students. He has no prior discipline. While these proceedings have been long, difficult and at times emotional, there are no grounds for termination and the parties are professionals and can continue to work together.