A.G., S.D., A.G.-H., M.G., S.H., R.H., B.I., J.I., E.L., J.L., D.M., D.P., R.P., N.R., E.S., R.S., S.S., and D.Z., on behalf of minor children v. Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional School District, Burlington County, 4/28/25 (#249-25E)

249-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06340-25
Agency Dkt. No. 98-4/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
A.G., S.D., A.G.-H., M.G., S.H., R.H., B.I., J.I., E.L., J.L.,
D.M., D.P., R.P., N.R., E.S., R.S., S.S., and D.Z., on
behalf of minor children,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional
School District, Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioners have failed to
demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia,
90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioners’ application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the Office of Administrative Law
with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 28, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	April 28, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 98-4/25
A.G., S.D., A.G.-H., M.G., S.H., R.H., B.I.,
J.I., E.L., J.L., D.M., D.P., R.P., N.R., E.S.,
R.S., S.S., AND D.Z. ON BEHALF OF
MINOR CHILDREN,
Petitioners,
v.
BORDENTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION,
BORDENTOWN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
A.G., pro se, for petitioners
Cameron R. Morgan, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri & Jacobs,
LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 16, 2025 Decided: April 17, 2025
BEFORE ADVIA KNIGHT FOSTER, ALJ:
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 19, 2025, respondent, Bordentown Board of Education, proposed a
redistricting plan to balance the 2025–26 school budget. The proposal requires, among
other things, for elementary school students to change schools every two years. No proof
exists that schoolchildren will suffer any harm. Are petitioners, parents of schoolchildren,
entitled to a stay? No. To be entitled to a stay, petitioners must demonstrate, among
other things, that they will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted.
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 8, 2025, petitioners filed a Petition of Appeal with the Department of
Education seeking a stay of implementation of the One Bordentown redistricting plan
proposed by the Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional School District.
On April 10, 2025, the Department of Education transmitted the case to the Office
of Administrative Law under the Administrative Procedure Act , N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15,
and the Act establishing the office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and disputes
arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. Jurisdiction is conferred under N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9. On April 16, 2025, I held oral arguments and closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 19, 2025, the Bordentown Regional School District Board of Education
(Board) held a public meeting to address the tentative budget for the 2025–26 school year
for which proper advance forty-eight-hour notice was given to the public. Dr. Edward
Forsthoffer III, interim superintendent, presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining
the budget and the Board’s rationale and posted it on the Bordentown School District

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
3
website. (R-1.) The final budget must be submitted to the Department of Education
(DOE) on or before May 14, 2025, according to N.J.S.A. 18A:22-32(b). 1
For the upcoming 2025–26 school year, there is a substantial budget gap of over
$8.3 million due to declining enrollment, losses in State aid, increased costs in special
education and healthcare premiums, and loss of grant money. To balance its budget for
the upcoming school year, the Board proposed a tentative budget that contained several
cuts and reductions, including reducing summer curriculum writing, eliminating middle
school sports, postponing the purchase of two buses, eliminating summer pay, and
eliminating 47.5 staff positions. (R-1.)
The proposed tentative budget also contained a redistricting plan, called One
Bordentown. Currently, there are five schools in the district: Bordentown Regional High
School, which houses grades 9–12; Bordentown Regional Middle School, which houses
grades 6–8; MacFarland Intermediate School (MacFarland), which houses grades 3–5;
Peter Muschal Elementary School (Peter Muschal), which houses grade pre-K–2; and
Clara Barton Elementary School (Clara Barton), which houses grades pre-K–2. Under
the One Bordentown plan, only the elementary schools’ enrollment changes. For
example, Peter Muschal school would house grades pre-K–1, Clara Barton would house
grades 2–3, and MacFarland would house grades 4–5. 2
The redistricting plan will produce larger classes and require elementary students
to change schools every two years.
If the Board were to fail to submit a balanced budget and hence fail to certify the
tax levy by the deadline of May 19, 2025, the Commissioner would make the required
cuts to balance the budget and determine the local tax levy. N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-9.8(b). The
DOE could also appoint a fiscal monitor over the district according to N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-
55.
1 Petitioners argued at oral argument there was a vacant Board seat in Bordentown City which I considered
but it did not alter my decision.
2 Petitioners argued at oral argument but did not present any evidence that the incoming kindergarten class
was born at or during the pandemic and were delayed and the redistricting plan would cause them even
greater harm. This argument did not change my decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
It is well settled that “an action of the local board which lies within the area of its
discretionary powers may not be upset unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or
induced by improper motives.” Kopera v. West Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288,
294 (App. Div. 1960). The decision of a local board “is entitled to a presumption of
correctness and will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision
was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J.
Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965). With respect to school laws in particular, the
commissioner has jurisdiction to hear and determine all controversies and disputes
arising under the school laws, except higher education, or under the rules of the State
board or of the commissioner. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. Where the subject matter of the
controversy is a particular course of action by a district board of education or any other
party subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioner, the petitioner may include with the
petition of appeal a separate motion for emergent relief or a stay of that action pending
the commissioner’s final decision in the contested case. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(a). A motion
for a stay or emergent relief must be accompanied by a letter memorandum or brief which
must address the following standards to be met for granting such relief pursuant to Crowe
v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying petitioner’s claim is settled;
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of the underlying claim; and
4. When the equities and interests of the parties are
balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the
respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b).]
The petitioner must satisfy all four prongs of the Crowe test.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
5
Irreparable Harm
Regarding the first prong, “irreparable harm” is defined as the type of harm that
“cannot be redressed adequately by monetary damages.” Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132–33.
Indeed, the purpose of emergent relief is to “prevent some threatening, irreparable
mischief, which should be averted until opportunity is afforded for a full and deliberate
investigation of the case.” Id. at 132 (quoting Thompson ex rel. Bd. of Chosen
Freeholders v. Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624, 625 (E. & A. 1854). In addition, the irreparable-
harm standard contemplates that the harm be both substantial and immediate. Subcarrier
Communications v. Day, 299 N.J. Super. 634, 638 (App. Div. 1997).
In this case, petitioners argue that the One Bordentown redistricting plan will cause
irreparable harm to elementary students since it requires larger classes and children to
switch schools every two years. Petitioners further argue that this will negatively impact
the students’ mental health, social stability, and academic development, and cite many
studies as supporting evidence. However, they have not shown that the studies are
scientific or reliable. Petitioners failed to show how the studies correlate with the children
in this case. Further, most of the studies petitioners cite relate to adolescents, not
elementary-aged children, and are inapplicable. Therefore, petitioners’ claim that the
redistricting plan will cause irreparable harm is purely speculative.
Petitioners also fail to show imminent harm. They seek a “halting” to
implementation of the One Bordentown redistricting plan, which is not scheduled to be
implemented until September. Thus, petitioners fail to show imminency. Therefore, I
CONCLUDE that petitioners failed to establish irreparable harm.
Legal Right is Settled and Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits
Regarding petitioners’ first claim, lack of proper notice under the Open Public
Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, they fail to establish a legal right that requires the
Board to advertise the entire contents of a budget prior to its meeting. Contrary to their
assertion, the Board did provide proper and adequate notice under the Act because the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
6
Board provided written notice forty-eight hours in advance by advertising the date, time,
and location of the meeting, as well as the agenda. Moreover, petitioners concede in their
petition that the Board provided adequate notice.
In their second claim, petitioners argue that the redistricting plan violates the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by disproportionately affecting services
for special education students and disrupting Basic Skills Instruction (BSI) programs.
Under the IDEA, only a parent, guardian, or adult child may file a claim identifying an
individual student, the nature of the problem as it relates to his or her educational rights,
and a resolution of the problem. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7). For these reasons, I
CONCLUDE that the petitioners have no standing to bring this IDEA claim.
In their third claim, petitioners argue that the redistricting plan will cause substantial
financial consequences and that the Board has not been transparent about the
transportation costs. Their premise that there will be substantial financial costs is purely
speculative. Petitioners have not provided any evidence that there will be significant
costs. The Board announced and detailed the tentative 2025–26 budget at its meeting,
which included a PowerPoint presentation done after the meeting by the interim
superintendent, which is on the district’s website. So, the Board has fulfilled its legal
obligations.
Petitioners also argue that the redistricting plan will significantly increase traffic
demands and cause “unintended consequences for traffic safety, air quality, and district
operations,” and, therefore, the Board is required to do a traffic-congestion and road-
safety study. Again, petitioners failed to identify any well-settled legal right or requirement
that a school district conduct a traffic study or an environmental-impact study prior to
implementation of a redistricting plan.
Petitioners must show that the Board’s redistricting plan is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. Given the evidence before me, I CONCLUDE that the legal rights are well
settled, but that petitioners failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
7
Balance of Equities
Due to declining enrollment, losses in State aid and grants, and increased costs in
healthcare premiums and special education, the Board had to close an $8.3 million
budget gap. The redistricting plan was devised out of that need to close the gap. The
Board must have a balanced budget that has to be presented to the DOE by May 19,
2025, otherwise, the Commissioner would make whatever cuts to programs he deemed
necessary to balance the budget, thereby taking control away from the community and
risking cutting highly rated programs. The DOE could also appoint a fiscal monitor, taking
control of district operations and removing all control from the Board and local elected
representatives of the community. Weighing the interests of the Board, including the need
for a balanced budget, against the petitioners’ interests, whose harm is purely speculative,
I CONCLUDE that the Board will suffer greater harm.
For the reasons set forth above, I CONCLUDE that petitioners have not met the
standards for emergency relief.
ORDER
I ORDER that the petitioners’ request for emergency relief seeking an order
“halting” the redistricting plan is DENIED.
Petitioners’ request for emergent relief to stay the implementation of the
redistricting plan pending resolution of several investigatory requests, including but not
limited to transportation costs, traffic studies, and environmental-impact studies, shows
that further issues remain open upon resolution of this emergent case.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
8
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is
authorized to make a final decision in this matter. The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. If
Commissioner of the Department of Education does not adopt, modify or reject this order
within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final decision on the issue
of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
April 17, 2025
DATE ADVIA KNIGHT FOSTER, ALJ
AKF/tc