Tracy Van Duyn and Diane Galatro v. Board of Education of the Borough of South River, Middlesex County, 2/7/25 (#45-25)

45-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10695-2022
Agency Dkt. No. 307-11/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Tracy Van Duyn and Diane Galatro,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of South River,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that respondent,
Board of Education of the Borough of South River (Board), unlawfully terminated petitioners’ employment
as tenured teachers after they had given the Board 60 days’ notice of their resignations, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8, but before the 60-day notice periods had expired.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby granted. The Board shall reimburse petitioner Tracy Van Duyn in the amount of $563.49.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 7, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	February 10, 2025
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.

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
CORRECTED
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
AGENCY DKT. NO. 307-11/22
TRACY VAN DUYN AND
DIANE GALATRO,
Petitioners,
v.
BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Edward Cridge, Esq., for petitioners (Mellk Cridge, LLC, attorneys)
Christopher B. Parton, Esq., for respondent (Kenny, Gross, Kovats & Parton,
attorneys)
Record Closed: July 12, 2024 	Decided: January 13, 2025
BEFORE CARL V. BUCK III, ALJ:
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners, Tracy Van Duyn (Duyn)1 and Diane Galatro (Galatro)2, allege that they
were involuntary terminated by respondent, Board of Education of the Borough of South
River, Middlesex County (Board), in violation of their tenure rights.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about November 15, 2022, petitioners filed a Verified Petition (Petition) with
the Commissioner of Education. 	The Office of Controversies and Disputes of the
Department of Education (Department) transmitted the contested case to the Office of
Administrative Law, where it was filed on December 1, 2022. The case was subsequently
assigned to me on December 14, 2022.
A number of conferences were held and the parties made several attempts at
resolving the matter which were unfortunately unsuccessful. The hearing on the matter
was ultimately scheduled for July 11, 2024. No post hearing submissions were made and
the record was closed on July 12, 2024. 	Extensions to file this Initial Decision were
requested and granted.
JOINT STIPULATION OF FACT
The following are Joint Stipulations filed by the parties and as such I find them as
FACT:
1. 	Petitioners Tracy Van Duyn, 1--- J------- Street, P----- Borough, New Jersey 0--
--, and Diane Galatro, 3—P--- Avenue, F------, New Jersey 0----, are and at all
times relevant to this matter were certified and licensed teaching staff members
pursuant to the regulations of the New Jersey Department of Education.
1 Duyn was terminated on August 30, 2022.
2 Galatro was terminated on August 29, 2022.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
3
2. 	Respondent South River Board of Education is a body corporate and politic
charged with the provision of a thorough and efficient, free, public education to
the school-aged residents of the Borough of South River, Middlesex County,
New Jersey.
3. 	Up to and including the 2021-2022 school year, both petitioners were employed
by respondent as tenured, certified teaching staff members.
4. 	Both petitioners were reappointed by respondent for the 2022-2023 school
year.
a. 	Van Duyn’s 2022-2023 compensation was established at $83,250,
consisting of a salary of $80,150, in addition to special education stipend
of $600 and twenty-three year longevity of $2,500.
b. 	Galatro’s 	2022-2023 	compensation 	was 	established 	at 	$85,350,
consisting of a salary of $80,150, in addition to master’s degree
increment of $2,000 and twenty-four year longevity of $3,200.
c. 	Pursuant to respondent’s final, approved 2022-2023 school calendar
[EXHIBIT J-1], the 2022-2023 work year for ten-month teaching staff
members, including both Petitioners, was to consist of 182 workdays.
d. 	Applying the above, Van Duyn’s 2020-2023 per diem compensation,
had she remained in Respondent’s employ for the 2022-2023 school
year, would have been $457.42.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
4
e. 	Applying the above, Galatro’s 2020-2023 per diem compensation, had
she remained in respondent’s employ for the 2022-2023, school year
would have been $468.96.
f. 	Pursuant to the final, Board-approved calendar for the 2022-2023 school
year in respondent South River [EXHIBIT J-1], the first workday for ten-
month teaching staff members for the 2022-2023 school year was
September 6, 2022.
5. 	On or about August 12, 2022, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8, Galatro notified
respondent that she would be resigning from her tenured teaching position,
effective sixty (60) days thereafter.
6. 	Based upon these notifications and the 60-day notice requirements, Galatro’s
nominal final day of employment with and compensation by respondent would
have been October 10, 2022.
7. 	On or about August 16, 2022, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8, Van Duyn notified
respondent that she would be resigning from her tenured teaching position,
effective sixty (60) days thereafter.
8. 	Based upon these notifications and the sixty-day notice requirements, Van
Duyn’s nominal final day of employment with and compensation by respondent
would have been October 15, 2022.
9. 	On August 24, 2022, the North Brunswick Board of Education, which is not a
party to this litigation, took formal, public action to hire, appoint and employ
both petitioners as fulltime teaching staff members for the 2022-2023 school
year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
5
a. 	North Brunswick appointed Van Duyn as a teacher of students with
disabilities at North Brunswick Township Middle School, at a 2022-2023
salary of $81,199 per Step M of the BA+30 salary guide, “effective
October 25, 2022 or sooner as determined by the Superintendent”.
(J.2).
b. 	North Brunswick appointed Galatro as a mathematics teacher at North
Brunswick High School, at a 2022-2023 salary of $82,524 per Step M of
the Masters salary guide, “effective October 25, 2022 or sooner as
determined by the Superintendent”. (J-2).
c. 	Pursuant 	to 	the 	approved 	2022-2023 	school 	calendar 	in 	North
Brunswick (J-3) , the 2022-2023 work year for ten-month teaching staff
members, including both Petitioners, was to consist of 186 days.
d. 	Applying 	the 	above, 	Van 	Duyn’s 	2022-2023 	per 	diem 	in 	North
Brunswick, once she commenced employment, would be $436.55.
e. 	Applying the above, Galatro’s 2022-2023 per diem in North Brunswick,
once she commenced employment, would be $443.68.
f. 	Pursuant to the final, Board-approved calendar for the 2022-2023 school
year in North Brunswick (J-3), the first workday for ten-month teaching
staff members for the 2022-2023 school year was August 30, 2022.
10. On or about August 29-30, 2022, both petitioners engaged in discussions with
respondent’s Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joseph Trivisonno. As
a result of those discussions, both petitioners were removed from respondent’s
payroll effective August 29-30, 2022, and neither petitioner was compensated
by respondent for any days of the 2022-2023 ten-month employee work year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
6
11. Van Duyn commenced employment in North Brunswick on September 6, 2022
(J-4), and continued to be employed and compensated in North Brunswick at
all times through and including the end of her notice period with respondent.
12. Galatro commenced employment in North Brunswick on August 30, 2022 (J-
5), and continued to be employed and compensated in North Brunswick at all
times through and including the end of her notice period with respondent.
13. Notice Period Compensation – Van Duyn:
a. 	From August 30 through and including October 15, 2022, there were
twenty-seven (27) workdays for ten-month teaching staff members in
Respondent South River. (J-1).
b. 	At her per diem rate of $457.42 in respondent South River, Van Duyn
would have been paid a total of $12,350.34 for those twenty-seven (27)
days.
c. 	From her employment commencement date of September 6, 2022, in
North Brunswick through and including October 15, 2022, there were
twenty-seven (27) work days for ten-month teaching staff members in
North Brunswick. (J-3).
d. 	At her per diem rate of $436.55 in North Brunswick, Van Duyn was
actually paid a total of $11,786.85 for those twenty-seven (27) days.
\

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
7
e. 	Van Duyn Summary:
Days 	Per Diem 	Total 	Difference
i. 	South River 	27 	$457.42 	$12,350.34
ii. 	North Brunswick 	27 	$436.55 	$11,786.85 	$563.49
14. Based upon the foregoing and the attached, if the Court finds that respondent
wrongfully discontinued payment to Van Duyn as of August 30, 2022, the total
amount of damages owed is $563.49.
15. If the Court finds that Van Duyn voluntarily separated from respondent’s employ
as of August 30, 2022, Respondent owes Van Duyn nothing.
16. The parties agree that whether or not Galatro voluntarily separated, or was
wrongfully removed from the payroll in August 2022, she is not entitled to any
back pay.
The parties further stipulate to the admission into evidence of the Exhibits marked
as J-6 and J-7 hereto.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The parties have agreed on a number of facts as contained in the Joint Stipulation
of Fact given above. 	In addition to the information contained in the stipulation, I would
add the following:
Diane Galatro (Galatro) has been teaching for twenty-six years in New Jersey and
was a tenured teacher at the district at the time of the event. Per the separation regulation
she notified district that she was giving her sixty-day resignation notice on August 12,
2022. 	She planned to begin her new position with the North Brunswick School District
(Brunswick) in mid-October 2022 – at the end of the sixty-day period. 	Brunswick was
aware of Galantro’s position with district and her sixty-day notice requirement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
8
During the period between her notice to the district and her leaving the district she
had scheduled a medical procedure for her son – using her insurance as provided by the
district.
On August 12, 2022 she gave her resignation in person to Superintendent Joseph
Trivisonno (Trivisonno) with whom she discussed the beginning of the school year which
was to begin on September 6, 2022. 	Trivisonno then left a message for her on August
29, 2022, who told her that the district was releasing her from her contract early and she
could begin her employment with Brunswick early. She told Trivisonno that she had spinal
surgery scheduled for her son on September 1, 2022, (approval for the surgery was
received on or about August 27, 2022). 	She told Trivisonno that another Math teacher
had resigned and that teacher should be released first due to her surgery concerns.
Trivisonno told her that as the other teacher provided notice after Galatro that Galatro
would have to go first.
She contacted her son’s medical provider to cancel the surgery. 	She contacted
Brunswick and found out that she could begin with Brunswick earlier than planned but
she would have to submit a release letter first. She needed to then remove all items from
her classroom that afternoon with the assistance of another son. The room had been set
up in anticipation of beginning the school year. She also needed to remove documents
from the district computer system.
On cross examination she stated that Brunswick’s school year began earlier than
the district and she “picked up” four working days. 	She was “surprised and upset” at
Trivisonno’s position and did not “refuse to leave” as she did not think she could refuse
to leave. 	She did not want to leave and intended to work at the district though mid-
October. 	She did reach out to the South River Education Association (SREA) the
afternoon of August 29, 2022, but did not reach out to any attorney for the union.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
9
She was questioned on the regulation dealing with sixty-day notice for her leaving
and was aware that the parties could mutually agree on an earlier departure date. 	She
was questioned whether she considered not cancelling the surgery, not cleaning out her
room, and not leaving the district that day. She attempted to contact Trivisonno later in
the day but was told that he had left for the day.
On redirect she clarified that although she would initially be paid less at Brunswick
than at district, in future years it would be more financially advantageous to move to
Brunswick.
Tracy Van Duyn (Duyn) has been teaching for twenty-two years in New Jersey
and was a tenured teacher at the district at the time of the event. 	Per the separation
regulations she notified district that she was giving her sixty-day resignation notice on
August 16, 2022. She planned to begin her new position with the North Brunswick School
District (Brunswick) on October 18, 2022 – at the end of the sixty-day period. Brunswick
was aware of her position with district and her sixty-day notice requirement.
On or about August 16, 2022, she gave her resignation by hand delivering it to the
office after inquiring if Trivisonno or another individual was in. They were not so she left
her resignation. 	Trivisonno left a message for her on August 29, 2022, on her home
telephone line which she did not usually use. The message asked her to return the call.
She called Trivisonno on August 30, 2022, and who told her that he had good news and
that the district was releasing her from her contract early and she could begin her
employment with Brunswick early. 	She told Trivisonno that she had spoken with
individuals at the district and knew that her replacement had not been hired. Duyn stated
she wanted to stay for her sixty days and was told by Trivisonno that she had to go and
that “this was not my idea”. She thought she had been fired. She called Dan Stempora
the union president and told him that that she had been released from her contract. She
also contacted Trivisonno’s secretary to obtain a release letter from the district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
10
Duyn then contacted Brunswick to inform that she had been released early from
the district and that she could begin early. However, she could not begin until September
6, as she had prior plans (based on the starting date of the district’s calendar).
She subsequently filed a Verified Petition with the Department of Education
challenging her release.
On cross examination she discussed that she had been involuntarily transferred
from the high school to the middle school in the summer of 2022 and felt there was
hostility at the district – though not to Trivisonno. 	She felt the hostility arose from the
Superintendent Zercher. She was an employee of the district until she received a letter
from the district on August 30, 2022 – dated August 25, 2022 - stating that the board had
accepted her resignation effective August 25, 2022, and that the district owed her money
attributable to her health benefits payment.
She clarified that her conversation with Stempora resulted in Stempora telling her
that the district could release her earlier and that she had no recourse. She was docked
five days of pay from Brunswick because she could not begin until September 6, 2022,
due to prearranged plans.
Joseph Trivisonno (Trivisonno) was the assistant superintendent for the district.
He stated, “under the direction of the Superintendent I was asked to have a conversation
with Ms. Galatro to see if she would be willing to part before the 60 days and start with
New Brunswick at the beginning of the school year.” He made the suggestion that Galatro
contact Brunswick. She had informed him that Brunswick had already arranged coverage
for the sixty days. He had expected that she would get back to him. If she had told him
that Brunswick could not accommodate her early then the district would continue to
employ her. If Galatro said “No, I am staying through my 60 days” she would have been
continued to be employed by district. 	He did not fire her nor did he have that authority.
In his opinion Galatro’s separation was consensual.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
11
On cross examination it was clarified that he was the assistant superintendent for
personnel and that changes on short notice could be extremely disruptive. He last spoke
with the superintendent about the petioners some time ago. He spoke with Galatro after
her notice of August 12, and they probably discussed her teacher leader position and
during that conversation they did not discuss her leaving early. After the resignation letter
was received, he spoke with the Superintendent at some point between August 12 and
August 29, where the superintendent asked that I contact Galatro to see if she was
interested in leaving before the sixty days.
He did not remember if anyone was hired as a replacement for Galatro at that time.
He did not remember if Galatro, during his conversations with her, said she did not want
to be released early other than indicating the other individual may wished to leave first. It
was qualified as an “offer” to leave not a directive. She was upset but she still accepted
the “offer” to leave. He did not recall saying this was optional nor that if she refused, she
could maintain her employment at the district during the sixty-day period.
He stated that his discussion with Duyn mirrored his conversation with Galatro in
that he did not tell Duyn that she would be retained at the district if she did not accept this
“offer” nor was he specific with either that this was an “offer” which could be refused.
He took his directive in taking these actions from the superintendent who he testified
was not fond of Duyn.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Instructional legislation provides that:
Notice of intention to resign required
Any teaching staff member, under tenure of service, desiring
to relinquish his position shall give the employing board of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
12
education at least 60 days written notice of his intention,
unless the board shall approve of a release on shorter notice
and if he fails to give such notice he shall be deemed guilty
of 	unprofessional 	conduct 	and 	the 	commissioner 	may
suspend his certificate for not more than one year.
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8.
Per the Tenure Employees Hearing Law (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10—18A:6-18.1):
no person shall be dismissed or reduced in compensation, if
he is or shall be under tenure of office, position or employment
during good behavior and efficiency in the public school
system of the state . . . except for inefficiency, incapacity,
unbecoming conduct, or other just cause, and then only after
a hearing held pursuant to the Tenure Employees Hearing
Law, by the commissioner, or a person appointed by him to
act on his behalf, after a written charge or charges, of the
cause or causes of complaint, shall have been preferred
against such person, signed by the person or persons making
the same, who may or may not be a member or members of
a board of education, and filed and proceeded upon as in the
Tenure Employees Hearing Law.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10(a).
(Emphasis added.)
There was no allegation of “inefficiency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct, or other
just cause” against either petitioner – therefore this provision is inapplicable. Respondent
states that the petitioners were not “fired” – that they “accepted an offer to leave before
their 60 day periods had expired” (paraphrasing).
Whether or not petitioners were “terminated” or had their resignations “accepted”
earlier than anticipated is a semantic issue. 	The fact is that both petitioners gave their
resignations with the required sixty-days’ notice AFTER receiving offers from another school
district – coincidentally the same district. 	Those offers from Brunswick were made with
knowledge and acceptance that both would have to satisfy their obligations to provide a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
13
sixty-day notice to the district. 	Brunswick accepted the commitments of their new
prospective employees as the commitment complies with the notice statute.
Credibility
In evaluating evidence, it is necessary to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
Credibility is the value that a finder of the facts gives to a witness’ testimony. It requires
an overall assessment of the witness’ story in light of its rationality or internal consistency
and the manner in which it “hangs together” with the other evidence. 	Carbo v. United
States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). 	“Testimony to be believed must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself,” in that “[i]t
must be such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable in the circumstances.” In re Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950).
A fact finder “is free to weigh the evidence and to reject the testimony of a witness
. . . when it is contrary to circumstances given in evidence or contains inherent
improbabilities or contradictions which alone or in connection with other circumstances in
evidence excite suspicion as to its truth.” 	Id. at 521–22; see D’Amato by McPherson v.
D’Amato, 305 N.J. Super. 109, 115 (App. Div. 1997). 	A trier of fact may also reject
testimony as “inherently incredible” when “it is inconsistent with other testimony or with
common experience” or “overborne” by the testimony of other witnesses. 	Congleton v.
Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
I did have the opportunity to judge the credibility of petitioners as witnesses, and
find that their testimony was presented clearly, plainly and with detail. 	The evidence
showed that they both intended to honor their 60 day commitment and the inference from
Respondent’s counsel that Galatro wanted to “cut and run” from her commitment is
repugnant.
Galatro had just scheduled (on approximately August 27) spinal surgery for her
son (under her district health insurance) and had to cancel that surgery after her
termination by the district. 	Galatro had her room set. 	She had to “break down” her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
14
classroom – which was set for the beginning of the school year – containing her teaching
materials of nineteen years, in a matter of a few hours on no notice. It is unfathomable
that Galatro would agree to an early termination considering her personal circumstances
and the health issues facing her son.
Query: 	Why would Galatro accept early termination under these conditions?
Answer: There is no logical or evidentiary reason to show why she would do so.
Duyn had a prearranged vacation scheduled based on the district’s academic
calendar. She would not have been able to move forward with employment at Brunswick
until after that obligation.
Query: 	Why would Duyn accept early termination under these conditions?
Answer: There is no logical or evidentiary reason to show why she would do so.
Trivisonno, for his position as assistant superintendent for personnel, had an
appalling lack of memory about hiring replacement teachers, about his conversations with
Galatro’s insurance concerns about her son’s surgery, notwithstanding Galatro’s “offer” and
failure to mention to Galatro that she could refuse the “offer” and remain at the district. His
statement that continuity of resources and staffing are important - while notifying two tenured
teachers of an “offer” to depart early is disingenuous at best. 	In answering my question
about his conversations with the superintendent the week before, where she instructed him
to speak with the parties about possibly leaving early, he testified that he did not know why
he waited until Monday, August 29, 2022 to contact the petitioners rather than contacting
them immediately after his conversation with the superintendent and giving petitioners
earlier notice of this “offer”. He did not recall how many employees were leaving and he did
not recall if any were offered “early release”.
The fact that Galatro requested that Trivisonno contact the other Math teacher who
gave her notice after Galatro is a clear indication that Galatro did not want to leave early
and/ or keep her sixty-day commitment. 	To disregard this statement by Trivisonno

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
15
considering his statement that this was an “offer” and if disregarded that Galatro would be
maintained as a teacher at the district is duplicitous. If Galatro wanted to defer to another
employee that is a clear indication that she did not want to accept this “offer” and yet
Trivisonno did not follow up to tell Galatro that she would be maintained as a teacher.
Respondent also contends that petioner Duyn had a duty to mitigate her claimed
damages of $436.55 which assertion is specious and ludicrous considering she was
terminated on one-day notice with preexisting plans made based on the schedule of the
districted that was terminating her employment and not complying with the contractually
obligated sixty-day notice period.
In view of the testimony, the applicable law, and justifiable equity to the parties I
CONCLUDE that the Board terminated the petitioners’ employment – whether in the guise
of a termination or presuming that the petitioners “accepted” an “offer” to “leave earlier” than
their employment earlier than the sixty days anticipated.
I further CONCLUDE that petitioner Van Duyn should be awarded reimbursement of
$563.49. 	And I further CONCLUDE that petitioners’ departure from the South River
School District shall be deemed a termination – not the acceptance of an offer to depart
from the South River School District earlier than their obligations by Statute dictate.
ORDER
It 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED 	that 	petitioner’s motion 	for 	relief 	is 	GRANTED 	and
ORDERED that the Board make the payments to petitioners as detailed above.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
16
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting 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 	ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
January 13, 2025
DATE 	CARL V. BUCK III, ALJ
Date Received at Agency 	resent 1/16/25 via email
Date Mailed to Parties: 	resent 1/16/25 via email
CVB/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10695-2022
17
EXHIBITS
JOINT:
J-1 	South River Public Schools District Calendar 2022 - 2023 - REVISED
J-2 	Acceptance of Petitioners’ Resignations on or about October 25, 2022
J-3 	North Brunswick Township School District 2022-2023 School Calendar
J-4 	North Brunswick Twp Public School District Employee Salary Composite
Report
J-5 	North Brunswick Twp Public School District Employee Salary Composite
Report
J-6 	Email from Van Duyn to Beth DePinto - Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:21 AM
J-7 	Van Duyn - August 30, 2022 Release of Employment