Stony Brook officials: Southampton closure legal

Stony Brook University officials said Tuesday they have met legal requirements noted in a court ruling last week that found the school violated state education law when it closed most of the Southampton campus this year.

"Although not yet part of the legal record, in fact the university has already complied with the court's directive," Stony Brook spokeswoman Lauren Sheprow said Tuesday.

State Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley Jr. ruled in favor of six Stony Brook Southampton students and a nonprofit they founded to fight the closure announced in April. Baisley ruled Stony Brook officials erred by closing the campus without approval from the 10-member Stony Brook Council. The closure was a "major plan" that required council approval, the judge ruled.

Stony Brook officials say they have that approval.

"On May 11, 2010, at a regularly convened meeting of the Stony Brook Council, president [Samuel] Stanley apprised the council and members of the public then in attendance, about both the budgetary impact of residential operations at Southampton, and his intention to relocate a number of academic programs from Southampton to the Stony Brook campus," according to a statement sent by Sheprow. "The council's recommendation that a blue-ribbon panel be convened to study alternate uses for the campus was implemented."

But Russell Penzer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the university had made a similar argument in court and that the judge, rightfully in his view, rejected it.

"It's clear that they made that argument to the judge and the judge was not persuaded," Penzer said.

He added that he was unaware of a meeting at which Stanley alerted council members of the planned closing. Still, he said, he doubts the mere notification would pass muster.

"As I understand the law, to simply notify the council of the president's intentions would not be sufficient," he said. "They had an obligation to go to the council and be advised by the council."

Council chairman Kevin Law could not be reached for comment.

Two council members, Lou Howard and Diana Weir, said they expect the university to convene a council meeting in the near future.

However, Sheprow said since the closure was discussed at the May 11 meeting, "a special meeting is likely not needed prior to the scheduled October 4 meeting." None has been scheduled, she said.

"In the best of all worlds, of course, it would be wonderful if that campus would have been able to stay as it was envisioned," Weir said. "Measures had to be taken and it was a decision that had to be made because of the cuts."

In announcing the closure, Stony Brook said moving classes to the main campus would save $6.7 million a year as the school faced tens of millions of dollars in expected state funding cuts. Currently, 137 students attend marine sciences classes at Southampton.

Student plaintiffs displaced from the Southampton campus applauded the judge's decision, but wondered whether the ruling will force the university to reopen the campus.

"What we have to see is what this means," said Kathleen Furey, of Hampton Bays.

Penzer said the judge's ruling "set aside the decision to close the campus" and directed Stony Brook to reopen the campus, but he also acknowledged the university can address closing the campus by going through proper procedural steps.

"Of course, the decision to close the campus was done in almost a covert way, without any public hearings or public discourse," Penzer said.