Eleanor Elcock v. Essex County Regional Educational Services Commission, Essex County, 2/4/2022, (#24-22)

24-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Eleanor Elcock,
Petitioner,
v.
Essex County Regional Educational Services,
Commission,
Respondent.
Synopsis
The petitioner – a tenured certified student assistance coordinator (SAC) employed by the
respondent Essex Regional Educational Services Commission (ERESC) prior to a Reduction in
Force (RIF) – challenged ERESC’s decision to abolish her position. The petitioner argued that
the Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18 when it distributed her former duties to other existing
staff members and contended that she is entitled to reinstatement as a SAC, with back pay and
benefits. The ERESC contended that its actions were consistent with law and regulations, and
filed a motion for summary decision which was opposed by the petitioner.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case and
the matter is ripe for summary decision; N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18 does not require districts to
provide a designated SAC employee; districts may instead provide SAC services through other
certificated staff; the two employees – both guidance counselors – assigned to perform SAC-
related duties after petitioner’s SAC position was eliminated are properly certified to perform
said duties; petitioner does not hold any other certifications besides an educational services
certificate with a SAC endorsement and therefore does not have any bumping rights over other
employees. The ALJ concluded that petitioner’s tenure and seniority rights were not violated
and she is not entitled to reinstatement or back pay. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the ERESC’s
motion for summary decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, and
adopted the Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. The petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 17294-19
Agency Dkt. No. 298-11/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Eleanor Elcock,
Petitioner,
v.
Essex County Regional Educational Services
Commission,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
The petitioner, a certified student assistance coordinator (SAC), challenges the decision
of respondent Essex Regional Educational Services Commission (ERESC) to terminate her
employment as part of a reduction in force (RIF). The petitioner argues that the elimination of
the SAC position and reassignment of the duties to other less senior employees who do not
hold SAC certifications violated her tenure and seniority rights. The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) found that ERESC did not violate petitioner’s rights by eliminating the position of SAC and
assigning the duties to two school guidance counselors because N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18 does not
require districts to provide a designated SAC employee and may instead provide SAC services
through other certificated staff. Additionally, the petitioner does not hold any other
24-22

2
certifications besides an educational services certificate with a SAC endorsement, so she does
not have “bumping” rights over other employees.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that ERESC did not violate
petitioner’s tenure and seniority rights when it eliminated the SAC position as part of a RIF and
assigned the duties to existing employees. See Kate Romeo v. Board of Education of the
High Point Regional High School District, Sussex County, Commissioner’s Decision No. 32-19,
decided January 29, 2019, affirmed, New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, A-2602-18T4
(July 23, 2020); Morris Lucky v. Board of Education of the City of Englewood, Bergen County,
Commissioner’s Decision No. 82-19, decided March 27, 2019.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter
and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division
within 45 days from the date of mailing of this decision.
February 4, 2022
February 7, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 298-11/19
ELEANOR ELCOCK,
Petitioner,
v.
ESSEX COUNTY REGIONAL
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COMMISSION,
Respondent.
___________________________________
Gail Oxfeld Kanef, Esq., for Petitioner (Oxfeld Cohen, PC, attorneys)
Sandra N. Varano, Esq., for Respondent (Nirenberg & Varano, LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 9, 2021 	Decided: December 21, 2021
BEFORE LESLIE Z. CELENTANO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Eleanor Elcock (Elcock), is a certified student assistance coordinator
(SAC), formerly employed by the respondent, the Essex Regional Educational Services
Commission (ERESC). She appeals the action of ERESC terminating her employment,
effective August 2019, pursuant to a reduction in force (RIF). Elcock alleges that this was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
2
done without regard to her tenure and seniority rights. She seeks reinstatement and back
pay. ERESC claims that its actions were consistent with the applicable law and
regulations.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arose with the filing of a petition of appeal by Elcock on November 15,
2019. 	The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law on December 9,
2019, as a contested case.
Multiple status conferences were held, and in a June 2020 conference, the parties
advised that they were still exchanging discovery, and requested a January 2021 hearing,
anticipating that in-person hearings would return by then. January dates were scheduled,
but subsequently adjourned in a December 20, 2020, telephone conference at the request
of the parties, who indicated a preference for an in-person hearing.
Respondent ERESC filed a motion for summary decision on September 21, 2021.
On October 25, 2021, Elcock filed a brief in opposition to ERESC’s summary decision
motion. ERESC filed a reply to Elcock’s opposition on November 9, 2021.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The petition raises the following issues:
1. 	Whether the employees assigned to perform the SAC-related duties formerly done
by Elcock are authorized to do so by N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18 and N.J.A.C. 6A:9-13.2?
2. 	Whether ERESC’s elimination of the full-time SAC position and subsequent
reassignment of SAC-related duties to existing certificated employees violated
Elcock’s tenure and seniority rights?

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are not in dispute, and I FIND:
1. 	Elcock holds a standard New Jersey Educational Services Certificate endorsed as
a Student Assistance Coordinator (SAC). She holds no other endorsements.
2. 	Elcock was employed by ERESC as a SAC from 1998 to August 31, 2019. 	She
worked exclusively as a SAC during her twenty-one years at ERESC.
3. 	In June 2019, Elcock was advised that a recommendation had been made to non-
renew her employment for the 2019-2020 school year due to a lack of funding.
4. 	In July 2019, Elcock was informed that ERESC eliminated her SAC position and
as she held no certifications other than as a SAC, that her employment was
terminated, effective August 31, 2019. At the time of her termination, Elcock was
the most senior SAC employed by ERESC.
5. 	Since the RIF eliminating the SAC positions, ERESC has not employed any full-
time, dedicated SACs.
6. 	After Elcock’s termination, the SAC-related duties were assigned to two guidance
counselors 	for 	the 	2019-2020 	school 	year. 	Both 	hold 	School 	Counselor
certifications and one has a SAC certification.
7. 	ERESC also employed two social workers and a school psychologist during the
2019-2020 school year. 	The school counselors and one social worker provided
counseling to students on drug and alcohol abuse.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To prevail on a motion for summary decision, the moving party must show that
there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that they are entitled to prevail as a matter

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
4
of law. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.1 et seq. 	To prevail, a nonmoving party must, by responding
affidavit, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can only be
determined in an evidentiary proceeding. Ibid. The motion judge must “consider whether
component evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party . . . are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged
disputed issue in favor of the nonmoving party.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995). 	And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some
evidence, this forum must grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that
[the moving party] must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536.
1. 	The employees assigned by ERESC to perform SAC-related duties after the
SAC position was eliminated are properly certified to perform said duties
In her petition, Elcock contends that in September 2019, she learned that “less
senior employees” were performing the duties she previously performed as a SAC, and
that these employees were not sanctioned by statute to provide SAC services.
N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18 does not preclude districts from providing SAC services
through other properly certified staff. Romeo v. Bd. of Educ. of the High Point Reg’l High
Sch. Dist., 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1479, at *4. The statute was enacted in 1987
as a vehicle through which to pilot the introduction of SAC services to local school
districts. Id. at *14. The statutory language provides districts with the option to participate
in this program. Id. at *15. If they do so, the statute stipulates that the SAC position must
be separate and distinct from other district positions. Ibid. However, nowhere does the
statute preclude districts from providing services through other certified staff. Id. at *17.
Thus, Elcock’s argument that ERESC employees are performing SAC-related duties in
contravention of the statute is unavailing. Redistributing Elcock’s duties among existing
staff who are properly certified is clearly permitted. Romeo, at *9.
2. 	Elcock’s tenure and seniority rights were not violated and Elcock is not
entitled to reinstatement or back pay

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
5
Elcock’s main argument is that ERESC’s assignment of her former SAC duties to
employees “who do not hold the proper certification” and who were “less senior than Ms.
Elcock” violated her tenure and seniority rights. 	ERESC argues that the district is not
required to have a designated SAC position, and thus cannot be prohibited from
reassigning SAC-related duties to certified employees when such position is abolished.
The purpose of the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18, is “to aid in the
establishment of a competent and efficient school system by affording teaching staff
members ‘a measure of security in the ranks they hold after years of service.’” Carpenito
v. Rumson Bd. of Educ., 322 N.J. Super. 522, 528-29 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting
Viemeister v. Prospect Park Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J. Super. 215, 218 (App.Div.1949)). 	A
district may reduce the number of teaching staff members for reasons of economy or in
response to a decline in student enrollment, referred to as a “reduction of force” (RIF).
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9. Any dismissals resulting from a RIF must be made based on seniority.
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-10. 	Seniority is determined based on the number of academic or
calendar years of employment in the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-13; N.J.A.C. 6A:32-
5.1(b).
The prerogative of a school district to reduce force is well established. School
districts may reduce ranks or reorganize the delivery of services to its students.
Eliminating and consolidating positions are among the actions within a local board’s
authority. Francin v Maywood Bd. of Educ., EDU 09131-08, Initial Decision (July 6, 2009),
adopted Commissioner (August 20, 2009), <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>,
citing Dunellen Bd. of Educ. v Dunellen Ed. Ass’n. 64 N.J. 17, 30 (1973).
First, it should be noted that Elcock is not a tenured teacher; she is tenured
exclusively as a SAC under an educational services certificate. The employment of SACs
in certain school districts is governed by N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18 and N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.2.
The statute specifies that the SAC position must be separate and distinct from any other
employment position in the district, including – but not limited to – district guidance
counselors, school social workers, and school psychologists. N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-18(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
6
Tenure accrues to teaching staff members under a certificate only if they have
served in a position under that same certificate for the requisite period. 	Dennery v. Bd.
of Educ., 131 N.J. 626, 638 (1993). 	Thus, any tenure and seniority rights an employee
possesses are restricted to positions in that certification. 	Aiello v. Bd. of Educ. of
Westwood Reg’l Sch. Dist., 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1690, at *5.
The SAC endorsement authorizes the holder to perform the functions of a SAC in
preschool through grade 12. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.2(a). Such functions may include:
1. 	Assisting with training of school staff on how to combat substance abuse;
2. 	Serving as an information resource for substance abuse prevention, curriculum
development, and instruction;
3. 	Assisting with district in revising and implementing substance abuse and related
policies and procedures;
4. 	Developing and administering substance abuse and related intervention services;
5. 	Providing counseling and referral services to students regarding substance abuse
and related problems; and
6. 	Cooperating with community service providers or other officials in the rendering of
substance abuse and related treatment services. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.2(a).
In Lucky v. Bd. of Educ., the Commissioner found that a school employee, who
lost his job when his position as a full-time SAC was abolished and the duties of that
position were combined with the duties of a School Counselor in a new position, failed to
establish that such conduct violated the employee’s tenure and seniority rights. 	EDU
13727-17, Initial Decision (February 14, 2019), adopted Comm’r (March 27, 2019), <
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. The Commissioner agreed with the ALJ that the
employee was not certified as a school counselor, that such certification was needed to
serve in that position, and that the board presented valid educational reasons for
combining the two positions, including efficiency and the delivery of better integrated
counseling services. 	Id. 	Because petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite
School Counselor endorsement to serve in the position, he did not have entitlement over
the SAC/School Counselor position, and it was properly filled by someone who did. Id.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
7
Here, there is no dispute that Elcock achieved tenure in her position as a SAC.
However, the district has subsequently eliminated all designated SAC positions due to
budget constraints. For the 2019-2020 school year, the district assigned the SAC-related
duties to two school counselors, Brenda Moretti and Patricia Cuttino. Moretti previously
held the positions of Secretary and Educational Coordinator. Cuttino previously held the
positions of Instructional Aide, Home Instructor, and SAC. 	Moretti has a School
Counselor educational services certification and Cuttino has both a School Counselor and
SAC certifications. According to the record, Moretti and Cuttino currently work solely as
school counselors in the district.
Therefore, despite Elcock’s many years of service as a dedicated SAC for the
district, she does not have tenure or seniority in any existing district position that entitles
her to “bumping rights” over other employees. 	The SAC endorsement is the only
endorsement on her educational services certificate, and no other positions are available
that require only this endorsement.
Second, Elcock has not alleged or provided evidence that the RIF was undertaken
by ERESC in bad faith, such as combining positions to “defeat” Elcock’s tenure and
seniority rights. A local board of education may engage in a reduction of the work force,
even if tenured positions are affected, if done for reasons of economy. 	Klinger v.
Cranbury BOE, 190 N.J. Super. 354, 357 (App.Div. 1982); Trigani v. Monmouth Beach
BOE, EDU 	8644-00 	and 	8645-00, 	Initial 	Decision, 	(Oct. 	11, 	2002),
<http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search >, 	adopted, 	Comm'r 	(Dec. 	2, 	2002)
<http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search >. 	Such decisions are subject to review to
determine whether a position has been abolished or merely transferred in violation of the
tenure statutes. Viemeister v. Prospect Park BOE, 5 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1949).
The controlling statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9, provides that
[n]othing in this title or any other law relating to tenure
of service shall be held to limit the right of any board of
education 	to 	reduce the 	number 	of 	teaching staff
members employed in the district whenever, in the
judgment of the board, it is advisable to abolish such
positions for reasons of economy or because of a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
8
reduction in the number of pupils or of change in the
administrative or supervisory organization of the district
or 	for 	other 	good 	cause 	upon 	compliance 	with
provisions of this article.
In sum, a local board of education may reduce its teaching staff so long as it "is
genuinely for reasons of economy." Impey v. Shrewsbury BOE, 142 N.J. 388, 398 (1995).
Deciding to reduce the teaching force by abolishing specific positions need not
eliminate the services related to those positions. 	See Impey, 142 N.J. at 399; see also
Klinger, 190 N.J. Super. at 357 (concluding that a local school board may alter the full-
time status of a tenured employee to restructure a department to meet financial
constraints 	while 	continuing 	to 	provide 	identical 	services). 	Whether 	services 	are
eliminated, reduced, or modified may be relevant in determining whether abolishing the
position genuinely helps advance the goals of economy and efficiency, and was done in
good faith. Viemeister v. Prospect Park Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J. Super. 215, 218 (App. Div.
1949) (the "substance" rather than the “form” of the change controls; if a Principal, for
example, was replaced with an identical position but different title, it would not be a valid
reduction in force).
After the RIF eliminated the SACs, ERESC did not employ anyone else in those
positions. 	Rather, 	the 	SAC-related 	duties 	were 	assigned 	to 	two 	school 	guidance
counselors. One of the counselors has a SAC certification. Both counselors and a social
worker provide counseling to students regarding drug and alcohol abuse. 	And all three
were already employed by ERESC prior to Elcock’s termination.
I therefore CONCLUDE that the record reveals nothing improper in the ERESC’s
action in eliminating Elcock’s SAC position. I CONCLUDE that the position was abolished
as part of an overall reorganization for legitimate reasons of economy, and her duties
were distributed among existing certificated staff. 	Elcock offers no legal support or any
evidence to the contrary. I further CONCLUDE that the ERESC did not violate Elcock’s
tenure and seniority rights and there are no indications in the record of bad faith or
arbitrariness on part of ERESC in taking such actions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17294-19
9
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that respondent’s Motion for Summary
Decision is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
December 21, 2021
DATE 	LESLIE Z. CELENTANO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	December 21, 2021
Date Mailed to Parties: 	December 21, 2021
dr