Anthony W. Ingrassia v. Board of Education of the Borough of Watchung, Somerset County, 5/19/25 (#262-25)

262-25
OAL Dkt. No. 08126-24
Agency Dkt. No. 36-2/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Anthony W. Ingrassia,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Watchung,
Somerset 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 that, in filling a vacant
position, the Watchung Board of Education complied with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f), the
Board’s policy regarding vacancies, the notice to the public regarding the vacancy, and the Board’s general
duty to the public.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 19, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	May 19, 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
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 36-2/24
ANTHONY W. INGRASSIA,
Petitioner,
v.
BOROUGH OF WATCHUNG
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent.
__________________________
Anthony W. Ingrassia, petitioner, pro se
Keri A. Wright, Esq., for respondent (Porzio Bromberg & Newman, attorneys)
Record Closed: February 7, 2025 Decided: April 9, 2025
BEFORE WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Anthony W. Ingrassia (petitioner), filed a petition for a declaratory ruling
concerning the application of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) to the process employed by the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
2
Borough of Watchung Board of Education (respondent or Board) to fill an unexpected
Board vacancy.
The specific question presented by petitioner is whether a board of education must
provide information regarding all candidates seeking to fill a vacancy on a school board,
even if they have been determined ineligible for the position, to voting Board members
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f).
Answer: No, a school board fulfills its statutory obligations when filling a vacancy
so long as it complies with the language of the statute, the board’s policy as written, and
the board’s general duties to the public.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, where on June 10,
2024, it was filed as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
On October 10, 2024, the parties agreed that the material facts were not in dispute
and the matter could be resolved through motion practice. On or about January 21, 2025,
the parties submitted a joint stipulation of material facts (C-1). Legal memorandums from
the parties were submitted and oral argument was heard on February 7, 2025.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Based upon the joint stipulation of facts and pleadings submitted by the parties, I
FIND as FACTS the following:
The Watchung Borough Board of Education consists of nine elected members.
The petitioner is an elected member of the Board. On January 11, 2024, a member of
the Board resigned, leaving a vacancy to be filled pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f). On
January 19, the Board posted a notice on its website advising that “The Board of
Education will review all qualifying applicants. Interviews of all qualified applicants will be
conducted in public on February 22, 2024, beginning at 7:00 pm, with an appointment

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
3
expected that evening.” The notice also included a list of qualifications for New Jersey
board of education membership and instructions for applying by submitting a letter to the
Board’s secretary. C-1, Exhibit A.
The notice instructed applicants that “letters of application and resumes will be
accepted through Friday, February 2, 2024,” at noon. On February 2, the administration
notified the Board members via email that nine individuals applied for the vacancy. The
administration advised that they had not accepted submissions via email, and that the
two applicants who had emailed their submissions were offered a chance to hand-deliver
their applications to the Board office. Neither of the two applicants did so. The
administration thus notified the Board that seven applicants would be invited to an
interview for the vacancy during the Board’s February 22, 2024, meeting.
On February 5, the petitioner requested the ability to review all qualifying
applicants, including the two who submitted applications via email.
At the February 22 meeting, the Board reviewed the seven invited candidates’
applications prior to the commencement of the meeting. During the thirty-minute review
period, the administration informed the Board that three applicants had withdrawn their
applications, leaving four candidates to be interviewed. The candidates were provided
with instructions and questions prior to the meeting and were given three minutes to
respond to each question during the interviews in public session. The Board moved to
executive session after conducting the interviews, and after just over an hour of closed
session, returned and voted publicly to appoint the chosen candidate. All present
members of the Board voted in the affirmative, apart from Ingrassia, who abstained from
the vote.
The Board’s selected candidate withdrew her appointment prior to taking her seat
on the Board. The Board president sought contact information from the Board for the
three other candidates who were interviewed on February 22, and notified the Board once
he had contacted them to confirm their continued interest in the vacancy. At the Board’s
next regular meeting on March 18, the Board voted unanimously to appoint one of the
three candidates, who served the remainder of the 2024 term as a full voting member.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
4
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary Decision
The petitioner and the Board each seek summary decision. Under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, “[a] party may move for
summary decision upon all or any of the substantive issues in a contested case.” N.J.A.C.
1:1-12.5(a). Such motion “shall be served with briefs and with or without supporting
affidavits” and “[t]he decision sought may be rendered if the papers and discovery which
have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter
of law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). When the motion “is made and supported, an adverse party
in order to prevail 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 standard governing agency determinations under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5 is
“substantially the same as that governing a motion under Rule 4:46-2 for summary
judgment in civil litigation.” L.A. v. Bd. of Educ. of Trenton, 221 N.J. 192, 203 (2015)
(citing Contini v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 286 N.J. Super. 106, 121–22 (App. Div. 1995)
(citations omitted), certif. denied, 145 N.J. 372 (1996)). “In other words, a court must
ascertain ‘whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary
standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue
in favor of the non-moving party.’” Id. at 204 (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995)); see also Contini, 286 N.J. Super. at 121–22.
Here, the facts are undisputed by petitioner and respondent. It is the conclusion
to be drawn from these facts that is the issue to be determined here, i.e., whether a board
of education must provide information regarding all candidates seeking to fill a vacancy
on a school board, even if they have been determined ineligible for the position, to voting
board members pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
5
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the matter is ripe for summary decision.
Arguments
The petitioner claims that he is entitled to summary decision in his favor because
the methodology utilized by respondent to fill the vacancy was deficient, as the
respondent did not provide sufficient information separately to each Board member so
that an informed decision could be made. He argues that restricting each member to a
review of the applicants’ information for thirty minutes prior to the meeting was
unreasonable. Finally, he argues that restricting members’ access to information to four
of the nine applications was also unreasonable.
Respondent argues that it is entitled to summary decision in its favor because the
process employed to fill the vacancy followed N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 and the Board’s bylaws,
and the meeting wherein the vote was taken was in compliance with the Open Public
Meetings Act.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15
The controlling statute here is N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15, which provides:
Vacancies in the membership of the board shall be filled as
follows:
a. By the county superintendent, if the vacancy is
caused by the absence of candidates for election to the
school board or by the removal of a member because
of lack of qualifications, or is not filled within 65 days
following its occurrence;
b. By the county superintendent, to a number
sufficient to make up a quorum of the board if, by
reason of vacancies, a quorum is lacking;
c. By special election, if in the annual school
election two or more candidates qualified by law for
membership on the school board receive an equal
number of votes. Such special election shall be held

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
6
only upon recount and certification by the county board
of elections of such election result, shall be restricted
to such candidates, shall be held within 60 days of the
annual school election, and shall be conducted in
accordance with procedures for annual and special
school elections set forth in Title 19 of the Revised
Statutes. The vacancy shall be filled by the county
superintendent if in such special election two or more
candidates qualified by law for membership on the
school board receive an equal number of votes;
d. By special election if there is a failure to elect a
member at the annual school election due to improper
election procedures. Such special election shall be
restricted to those persons who were candidates at
such annual school election, shall be held within 60
days of such annual school election, and shall be
conducted in accordance with the procedures for
annual and special school elections set forth in Title 19
of the Revised Statutes;
e. By the commissioner if there is a failure to elect
a member at the annual school election due to
improper campaign practices; or
f. By a majority vote of the remaining members of
the board after the vacancy occurs in all other cases.
Each member so appointed shall serve until the
organizational meeting following the next annual election
unless the member is appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
within the 60 days immediately preceding such election if the
annual election is held in April, or occurring after the third
Monday in July if the election is held in November, to fill a term
extending beyond such election, in which case the member
shall serve until the organizational meeting following the
second annual election next succeeding the occurrence of the
vacancy, and any vacancy for the remainder of the term shall
be filled at the annual election or the second annual election
next succeeding the occurrence of the vacancy, as the case
may be.
Unless the vacancy occurs under one of the enumerated circumstances set forth
in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(a)–(e), a vacancy shall be filled “by a majority vote of the remaining
members of the board.” N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f). “What controls the manner in which a
vacant Board seat is filled are N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15” and the school board’s written policy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
7
Amerman et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Ramapo Indian Hills Reg’l High Sch. Dist., Bergen
Cnty., EDU 00610-23, Initial Decision (Aug. 28, 2023),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, adopted, Comm’r (Oct. 11, 2023),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/. To interpret the text of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15, both
administrative law judges and the Commissioner defer to the plain language of the
statute, as “the Legislature’s intent is the paramount goal when interpreting a statute and,
generally, the best indicator of that intent is the statutory language.” Amerman, Comm’r
Decision at 2–3 (quoting Diprospero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/.
There is no statute, regulation, or case law dictating the methodology by which
boards of education must accept and review applications from candidates seeking to fill
board vacancies.
Outside organizations have, however, emphasized the importance of a school
board’s duties to the public. While not binding or precedential, a past guidance document
from the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA) is instructive. The guidance
document noted that “[p]rocedures [for filling a vacancy under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15] are
established by board policy.” N.J. Sch. Bds. Assn., “Board Governance—Legal Issues—
2014,” at 7, njsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/board-governance-outline.pdf (last
visited April 3, 2025). The document recommends that any such policy should consider
advertisement, solicitation of resumes, interviews, deliberations, and Open Public
Meeting Act issues. In more updated guidance, the NJSBA recommends the best
practices to school boards when filling a vacancy. The NJSBA recommends using open-
ended questions when interviewing candidates, as “[t]he more the candidate reveals, the
easier it will be for the board to determine if that candidate is a good fit.” Kathleen Helewa,
“Best Practices for Filling Board Vacancies,” N.J. Sch. Bds. Assn.,
https://www.njsba.org/best-practices-for-filling-board-vacancies/ (last visited April 3,
2025).
The NJSBA also emphasizes that interviews should be “fair and consistent: the
same questions should be asked of every candidate.” Ibid. During deliberations, a board
should offer an opportunity for discussion after the motion is made to appoint a candidate,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
8
though discussion is rare, “as board members would have discussed the candidates in
closed session.” N.J. Sch. Bds. Assn., “Board President’s Corner: How Do You Fill a
Vacancy?” School Board Notes (Dec. 12, 2023), https://www.njsba.org/school-board-
notes/board-presidents-corner-how-do-you-fill-a-vacancy/ (last visited April 3, 2025). If
the board chooses not to appoint an individual from the pool of candidates, “the board
should inform the public about what steps it agreed on in closed session to further its
efforts to fill the vacancy.” Ibid. The NJSBA emphasizes that “[i]t is vital that boards
review their process and district bylaws with their board attorney to ensure that relevant
laws and regulations are followed.” Ibid.
Ultimately, school boards must “hold the respect and confidence of the people” and
“ensure and preserve public confidence” in their conduct. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22. The
Legislature appears to have intentionally constructed the relevant statutes to have this
effect. Written board policy furthers this intention by establishing the procedure through
which a school board complies with its obligation to the public. Guidance from both the
Commission as well as the NJSBA further indicates that a board’s primary requirement is
to comply with both statute and policy. The NJSBA suggests that it may be prudent to
obtain as much information as possible from candidates seeking to fill a vacancy, but that
the interview process, rather than the written application process, is the best means to do
so prior to the board’s closed deliberations.
Here, the Board’s policy states that
[t]he Board will give public notice of the vacancy and invite
any qualified person to submit a written request for
consideration of his/her candidacy for the vacancy. The Board
may also require candidates to submit a resume with their
written request. In considering candidates who have
expressed an interest in a vacancy, the Board of Education
may interview candidates in public or executive session. The
Board must vote to appoint a candidate for a vacancy in public
session and there shall be no decisions made in executive
session. In the event interviews are conducted in executive
session, Board members, in the public session nomination
and voting process, shall express their opinion in support of
their vote so the public can witness any deliberations, policy
formulation, and the decision-making process of the Board.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
9
[C-1, Exhibit B, at 2.]
The Board does not appear to have violated its policy in filling the vacancy at issue.
The Board gave public notice of the vacancy using the posting on its website, which
specified the delivery address and deadline for letters of application and resumes.
Neither the policy nor the notice made any reference to accepting applications for the
vacancy via email, and the noon deadline was communicated in the notice. It does not
appear that the Board violated either the statute, which does not specify a procedure for
filling a vacancy under subsection (f), its written policy, or the expectations of any
applicants by refusing to consider the two applicants who applied via email. Thus, the
Board likely did not err in refusing to provide those applications to Ingrassia or any other
Board member.
Further, under the circumstances, the Board appears to have complied with its duty
to serve the public. The Board’s policy notes the importance of public disclosure of
“deliberations, policy formulation, and the decision-making process.” The thirty-minute
preliminary opportunity to review the candidates’ resumes prior to the meeting appears
less important to the process than the candidate interviews. The NJSBA provides
guidance about the interview process conducted in public session. The Board had the
opportunity to comprehensively understand the eligible candidates during the interview
process. After the interviews, the Board deliberated in executive session for over an hour,
using the information provided to the Board members during the interviews—the most
important part of the vacancy-filling process. Thus, it appears that the Board acted
appropriately, using the information available to both the Board and the public, in filling
the vacancy.
Applying the law to the credible facts, I CONCLUDE that the Board did not err in
refusing to accept the applications submitted via email, in refusing to provide those
applications to the petitioner or other Board members, or in reviewing the applications for
only thirty minutes prior to the candidate interviews. I further CONCLUDE that the Board
complied with the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f), its written policy

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
10
regarding vacancies, the notice provided to the public, and its duty to the public as a
whole.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED and the petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is DENIED.
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 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 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.
April 9, 2025
DATE WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date E-Mailed to Parties:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08126-24
11
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For the Court:
C-1 Joint Stipulation of Facts, with attached exhibits
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
None