Garfield Park Academy v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance, 11/19/2020, (#264-20)

264-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Garfield Park Academy,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner Garfield Park Academy (GPA) – an approved private school for students with disabilities (APSSD) –
challenged the action of the respondent, New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Fiscal Accountability
and Compliance (OFAC), disallowing the cost of student meals in the tuition rate calculated by GPA for the
2009-2010 school year. OFAC found that GPA had not received board resolutions from a majority of sending
school districts prior to the start of the school year, as required for the cost of meals to be included in the tuition
rate. GPA argued that it should be permitted to include the cost of the meals as the Department allegedly failed
to release the mandated tuition contract forms necessary for the contracts at issue in a timely manner.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20) generally prohibits an APSSD from including the
cost of student meals in its tuition rate; there is, however, an exception allowing the cost of meals to be included
if the school receives – prior to the start of the school year – board resolutions from a majority of school districts
that have contracted to send students to the APSSD in that fiscal year stating that the districts do not require the
APSSD to apply for funding from the Child Nutrition Program or to charge students for meals; immediately
prior to the start of the 2009-2010 school year, GPA had informal commitments from 28 school districts, but no
executed contracts for students from these districts to attend GPA; petitioner’s argument that GPA meets the
exception criteria because a majority of zero school districts is zero, is without merit; however, GPA was
delayed in complying with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20) because OFAC delayed posting the
mandated tuition contract (MTC) form that GPA needed in order to enter into contracts with sending districts.
The ALJ concluded that if the MTC had been posted earlier, GPA could have complied with the regulation’s
time requirements. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered that OFAC’s disallowance of $82,753 in student meal cost be
reversed.
Upon comprehensive review, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that: because GPA did not have any contracts
with sending school districts as of June 30, 2009, it was not required to submit any resolutions in order to
qualify for the regulatory exception allowing it to include meal costs in its tuition; GPS’s interpretation that a
majority of zero is zero is correct; and there is no suggestion in this case that GPA had any improper motive or
intentionally delayed its contracting process. Accordingly, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the
OAL as modified herein. OFAC’s disallowance of $82,753 was reversed.
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.
November 19, 2020

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11338-14
Agency Dkt. No. 213-8/14
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Garfield Park Academy,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Department of Education,
Office of Fiscal Accountability and
Compliance,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), the exceptions filed by respondent pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto by
petitioner have been reviewed.
This matter involves a decision by the Office of Fiscal Accountability and
Compliance (OFAC) of the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE), disallowing the cost of
student meals in the tuition rate calculated by petitioner Garfield Park Academy (GPA), an
approved private school for students with disabilities (APSSD). OFAC found that GPA had not
received board resolutions from a majority of sending school districts prior to the start of the
school year, as required for the cost of meals to be properly included in the tuition rate. 	GPA
filed a petition of appeal.

2
The ALJ found that N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20)1 generally prohibits an APSSD
from including the cost of student meals in its tuition rate. However, the regulation contains an
exception allowing the cost of meals to be included if the school receives – prior to the start of
the school year – board resolutions from a majority of school districts that have contracted to
send students to the APSSD in that fiscal year, resolving that the districts do not require the
APSSD to apply for funding from the Child Nutrition Program or to charge students for meals.
On June 30, 2009, the last day prior to the start of the 2009-2010 school year, GPA had informal
commitments from 28 school districts, but no executed contracts to send any students to GPA.
The ALJ rejected GPA’s argument that a majority of zero school districts is zero, such that GPA
met the criteria for the exception, concluding that GPA’s interpretation would undercut the intent
of the regulation and would incentivize APSSDs to delay receipt of signed contracts. However,
the ALJ also found that GPA was delayed in complying with the conditions of the regulation
because the DOE delayed posting the mandated tuition contract (MTC) form that GPA needed to
use to enter into the contracts as required. The MTC was not posted on the DOE’s website until
June 12, 2009, shortly before the June 30 deadline, and the ALJ concluded that if the MTC had
been posted earlier, GPA could have complied with the regulation’s time requirements.
Accordingly, the ALJ ordered that OFAC’s disallowance of $82,753 in student meal cost be
reversed.
In its exceptions, which largely reiterate arguments made below, OFAC argues
that the MTC was not delayed, as the evidence presented at hearing showed that the MTC for the
2008-2009 school year had been released even later than the 2009-2010 MTC. OFAC notes that
GPA’s business manager admitted that GPA had not sought an extension of the June 30 deadline,
1 This section of the regulations pertaining to APSSD tuition was subsequently renumbered and revised. Citations
herein refer to the provisions in effect at the time of the events at issue in this matter.

3
and asserts that there was no evidence that the June 12 release of the MTC had an identifiable
impact on GPA.
In response, GPA asserts similar arguments to those it made below, including that
it should not have been required to provide any resolutions because it had not entered into any
contracts as of June 30, and that it was prejudiced by the late posting of the MTC, which even
OFAC’s witness admitted made it unlikely that GPA could have timely obtained signed contracts
and resolutions.
Upon comprehensive review, the Commissioner finds that, because GPA did not
have any contracts with sending school districts as of June 30, 2009, it was not required to
submit any resolutions in order to qualify for the regulatory exception allowing it to include meal
costs in its tuition.2 	In Delaware Valley Sch. for Exceptional Children v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ.,
Commissioner Decision No. 56-12 (February 17, 2012), the Commissioner held that “the date
identified in [the regulation] as the time at which school districts must weigh in about whether
they will allow food service costs to be included in tuition fees is clear. 	In Delaware Valley,
supra, that date was June 30, 2007. 	Thus, for petitioner to have been allowed to include food
service costs in its tuition fees, it would have had to receive the required board resolutions from
[a majority of districts] that had entered into contracts with it by June 30, 2007.” 	(emphasis
added). 	The undisputed facts in this matter demonstrate that GPA had not entered into any
contracts with school districts by June 30, 2009. 	The Commissioner agrees with GPA’s
2 Because the Commissioner concludes that GPA was not required to submit any resolutions, she does not reach the
issues of the alleged “delay” in the DOE’s posting of the MTC or its impact on GPA.

4
interpretation that a majority of zero is zero, such that GPA was permitted to include meal costs
in its tuition for the 2009-2010 school year even though it did not obtain any board resolutions.3
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, as modified herein. OFAC’s disallowance of $82,753 is reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 19, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	November 20, 2020
3 The Commissioner acknowledges and appreciates the ALJ’s concern that this interpretation could incentivize
APSSDs to delay the execution of their contracts so that they could include meal costs in their tuition without the
school districts having the opportunity to agree or disagree. However, there is no suggestion in this case that GPA
had any improper motive or intentionally delayed its contracting process. By this decision, the Commissioner does
not foreclose the possibility that other cases may present facts demonstrating that an APSSD purposefully subverted
the intent of this regulation.
4 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
AGENCY DKT. NO. 213-8/14
GARFIELD PARK ACADEMY,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF FISCAL
ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPLIANCE,
Respondent.
______________________________
David Rubin, Esq., for petitioner
Laurie Fichera, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent New Jersey State
Department of Education (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New
Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: March 25, 2019 	Decided: August 19, 2020
BEFORE PATRICIA M. KERINS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner Garfield Park Academy (GPA), a private school for the disabled,
appeals from the decision of the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance (OFAC)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
2
of the Department of Education (Department) disallowing the cost of meals for students
in its tuition rate where it had not contracted timely with any school district prior to the
start of the fiscal year. GPA argues that it should be permitted to include the cost of the
meals as the Department allegedly failed to release the mandated tuition contract forms
necessary for the contracts at issue in a timely manner.
On July 3, 2014, OFAC issued a decision affirming the disallowance of meal
costs and GPA appealed. 	The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) for hearing as a contested case. It was filed with the OAL on September 9,
2014. 	The parties then moved for partial summary decision on the issue of whether
GPA met the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:23a-18.5(A(20)(ii) and (iii) (the regulation) for
the school year at issue 2009-2010. 	The cross motions were denied, and a hearing
was ordered on the limited issue of what, if any, impact the alleged delay in releasing
the mandated tuition contract form had on GPA’s ability to comply with the exemption
requirements for that school year. 	A hearing on that issue was held on March 2, 2017
and the record remained open for the submission of post hearing documents and
exhibits. The record closed on May 9, 2019, and extensions of time were granted for the
filing of the Initial Decision.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
GPA is an approved private school for the disabled (PSD), authorized to receive
students from public school districts. 	On June 12, 2009, the Department posted to its
website 	the 	2009-2010 	mandated 	tuition 	contract 	(MTC) 	form 	prescribed 	by 	the
Commissioner for use by PSDs. 	As of June 30, 2009, GPA had informal commitments
from twenty-eight (28) sending districts but had not yet obtained executed MTCs from
any of those districts.
On February 22, 2012, OFAC issued a report detailing the results of its review of
GPA’s 	audited financial 	records for the 2009-2010 school 	year. 	Therein, OFAC
determined that GPA had erroneously included in its tuition rate certain non-allowable
costs 	including, 	inter 	alia, 	the 	cost 	of 	student 	meals 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$82,753.
According to the report, GPA could not include the cost of student meals in its tuition

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
3
rate unless it submitted board resolutions showing approval by June 30, in accordance
with N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20)(ii) and (iii), from a majority of its sending districts
resolving that GPA was neither required to apply for funding from the CNP, nor required
to charge students for meals. 	The audit determined that forty-two sending districts had
contracted with GPA for the 2009-2010 school year and, thus, GPA was required under
the regulation to submit appropriate resolutions from twenty-two sending districts. 	The
audit further determined that GPA had submitted appropriate resolutions from only
seven sending districts.
On appeal, OFAC Director Robert Cicchino determined that the report had
overstated the number of resolutions required. Accordingly, Director Cicchino amended
the findings to reflect that GPA was required to submit appropriate resolutions from only
fifteen sending districts. 	Director Cicchino ultimately upheld the disallowance, finding
that GPA had not obtained appropriate resolutions from the required number of sending
districts. 	As eight resolutions would have satisfied the regulation’s requirements, GPA
was short by one resolution.
As set forth in the Order of April 26, 2016 Denying Cross Motions for Summary
Decision5, testimony was taken on the limited issue of what, if any, impact the alleged
delay in releasing the MTC from by the Department had on GPA’s ability to comply with
the exemption requirements for that school year. To that end, testimony was taken from
Michele Heinz (Heinz), Business Manager for GPA, and from Elise Sadler Williams
(Sadler-Williams), a supervising auditor at the Department.
Heinz described in detail the process for submission of GPA’s sending district
tuition contracts to the Department to satisfy the regulation’s requirements. 	Once the
Department issues the MTC in the spring, GPA staff incorporates any changes on the
form MTC to the contract form in its computer system. 	The contract for each student
then is prepared with their individual information. 	After copying, the contracts are
mailed to each district. 	When they arrive at the district’s business office, staff there
must contact their special education staff to verify the contract information for each
5 The Order is incorporated herein and attached as C-1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
4
student. 	Once that process is completed, the contracts must be placed on a board’s
agenda for approval at a scheduled meeting. 	That scheduling must allow for the fact
that some boards may only meet once a month and the placement of agenda items
must occur in advance of the meeting. 	Heinz further testified that in her experience it
was not unusual for June meeting dates to be cancelled or rescheduled due to school
activities such as graduations.
According to Heinz, the MTC for school year 2009-2010 was emailed to schools
by the Department at 2:20 p.m., on Friday afternoon, June 12, 2009. 	As there was an
early dismissal that day, Heinz and her staff had left by that time in the afternoon. 	She
also described the heavy workload she and her staff were under dealing with end of
school 	year 	activities 	such 	as 	report 	cards, 	employee 	contract 	and 	performance
reviews, inventory and other matters. 	Heinz was of the opinion that even if the
contracts had been sent out by June 12, it was unlikely that they would have received
them back by June 30 with each Board’s approval. 	In this case, she testified that the
contracts were sent out on June 22, six business days later. 	On cross-examination
Heinz agreed that GPA had not sought an extension of time for submission of the
contracts.
Sadler-Willliams then testified for the Department. 	A longstanding employee of
respondent she was responsible for overseeing changes to the MTC and sending it out
to the schools. 	Additionally, she is the supervising auditor for desk reviews for PSDs.
In the event changes are made to the MTC, a lengthy review process within the
Department takes place. 	She described that process as “involved” with a multi-level
review process in the Department, and with the release date for the MTC varying each
year. 	Under cross-examination she agreed that school districts and schools must wait
for each year’s version of the MTC before finalizing contracts with sending districts.
She did not dispute Heinz’ description of the steps necessary for the approval of the
contracts and agreed it would be unlikely for a district to have completed and approved
contracts by June 30 that year.
Both witnesses presented credible testimony in this matter.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
5
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Approved private schools for the disabled are authorized to receive students from
public 	school 	districts. 	PSDs 	are 	required 	to 	use 	the 	MTC 	prescribed 	by 	the
Commissioner for each student received from a district board of education. 	N.J.A.C.
6A:23A-18.4 (a)13. 	A PSD’s final tuition rate must be determined in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.2 and must be less than or equal to the certified actual cost per
student (CACPS). N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.2.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5, approved PSDs are prohibited from including
certain specified costs in the calculation of the CACPS. 	Such “non-allowable costs”
include the cost of meals for students when i) the meals do not meet the nutritional
requirements of the CNP as administered by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture,
ii) the PSD has not applied for and received funding from the CNP, or iii) the PSD has
not charged students for paid and reduced meals in accordance with the income
eligibility criteria established by the CNP. N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20).
Should a PSD wish to include the cost of meals in the CACPS, the regulations
provide a mechanism for obtaining an exemption from this prohibition. 	In that regard,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20), a PSD may include the cost of meals in the
CACPS if the meals meet CNP nutritional guidelines and the PSD receives on an
annual basis prior to the start of the fiscal year, school board resolutions from a majority
of the school districts that have contracted to send students to the PSD in that fiscal
year, which resolve that the board of education does not require the PSD to a) apply for
and receive funding from the CNP, and b) charge students for a reduced and/or paid
meal.
In the instant matter, as of June 30, 2009, GPA had informal commitments from
28 school districts to send students to GPA in the 2009-2010 school year. 	Yet, at that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
6
time, no board of education had actually executed a tuition contract. 	Petitioner’s
primary argument in its motion for summary decision was that “a majority of zero is
zero” and, since it had not contracted with any school districts prior to the start of the
fiscal year, it was permitted to include the cost of meals for students in its tuition rate
without submitting any board resolutions at all. 	Respondent argued that, under the
regulation, the cost of student meals is generally not allowable and, since GPA had not
contracted with any school districts prior to the start of the fiscal year, it was not eligible
for the exemption outlined in N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20).
In relevant part, N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)(20) provides as follows:
(a) Costs that are not allowable in the calculation of the
certified actual cost per student include the following:
. . . (20) The cost of meals:
i. For students when the meals do not meet the
nutritional requirements of the Child Nutrition Program
as administered by the New Jersey Department of
Agriculture;
ii. Effective July 1, 2007, for students when a non-
profit 	approved 	private 	school 	for 	students 	with
disabilities has not applied for and received funding
from the Child Nutrition Program as administered by
the New Jersey Department of Agriculture except
when the private school has received, on an annual
basis prior to the start of the fiscal year, school board
resolutions from a majority of the school districts that
have contracted to send students to the private school
in that fiscal year, which resolves the district board of
education does not require the private school to apply
for 	and 	receive 	funding 	from 	the 	Child 	Nutrition
Program (CNP);
iii. 	Effective 	July 	1, 	2007, 	for 	students 	when 	the
approved private school for students with disabilities
has not charged students for paid and reduced meals
in 	accordance 	with 	the 	income 	eligibility 	criteria
established 	by 	the 	Child 	Nutrition 	Program 	as
administered 	by 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of
Agriculture 	except 	when 	the 	private 	school 	has
received, on an annual basis prior to the start of the
fiscal year, school board resolutions from a majority of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
7
the 	school 	districts 	that 	have 	contracted 	to 	send
students to the private school in that fiscal year, which
resolves 	the 	district 	board 	of 	education 	does 	not
require the private school to charge students for a
reduced and/or paid meal; and
[N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)20] (emphasis added)
As set forth in the Order on Cross Motion the plain language of the regulation
supports the DOE’s interpretation. 	The regulation expressly prohibits PSDs from
including the cost of student meals in the tuition rate. 	The regulation provides a
mechanism by which a PSD may obtain an exemption from the general prohibition. But
a PSD seeking to take advantage of this exemption must take affirmative steps to
satisfy all of its regulatory conditions. 	More specifically, such a PSD must obtain the
requisite number of appropriate board resolutions. 	Here, GPA had not contracted with
any sending districts and, thus, was not capable of satisfying the conditions for the
exemption.
The DOE’s interpretation is further supported by the regulatory history of the rule,
which evidences the DOE’s intent to generally mandate participation in the CNP.
During the comment period, a commenter requested that the proposed regulation be
altered to allow a PSD to include the cost of student meals in the tuition rate in the event
it is unable to collect student income eligibility forms and/or collect payment for meals.
In its response, the DOE stated, in pertinent part:
Meals are critical to the educational health of all students,
both public and private, which is one of the primary reasons
the Child Nutrition Program (CNP) was established. 	The
CNP, 	administered 	by 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of
Agriculture, offers reimbursement for the cost of meals to
non-profit 	organizations 	that 	comply 	with 	the 	agency’s
nutritional and financial requirements. 	Due to the Federal
requirements, profit schools are precluded from receiving
Federal 	reimbursement 	for 	meals. 	The 	Department,
however, does not believe that the full cost of these
meals 	should 	be 	charged 	to 	tuition 	when 	Federal
reimbursement is available and Federal guidelines exist
on the maximum amount allowable to charge for paying
students…Public 	school 	districts 	comply 	with 	the
income 	eligibility 	requirements 	in 	order 	to 	receive

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
8
Federal funding to decrease the cost to the taxpayers of
their communities. 	Private schools should be required
to maximize reimbursement and minimize the burden on
the taxpayers of the sending districts.
[38 N.J.R. 4178(b)] (emphasis added).
The DOE reiterated the purpose of the rule in its January 7, 2013 denial of a
Petition for Rulemaking, which had sought an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)20
that would have allowed an alternate mechanism for obtaining an exemption. 	Therein,
the State Board of Education stated:
The CNP offers reimbursement for the cost of meals to
nonprofit 	organizations 	that 	comply 	with 	the 	agency’s
nutritional and financial requirements. 	Therefore, the full
cost of these meals should not be charged to tuition
when 	deferral 	reimbursement 	is 	available 	and 	State
guidelines exist on the maximum amount allowable to
charge 	for 	paying 	students. 	The 	purpose 	of 	the
regulations at N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.5(a)20ii and iii is to
require 	all 	approved 	and 	eligible 	PSSDs 	to 	take
advantage of the additional revenues that are available if
they comply with certain requirements. 	Nonprofit PSSDs
have the opportunity to receive Federal reimbursement from
the CNP as administered by the New Jersey Department of
Agriculture. 	All PSSDs have the opportunity for additional
revenue 	by 	charging 	for 	paid 	and 	reduced 	meals 	in
accordance with the income eligibility requirements of CNP.
These 	additional 	revenues 	will 	decrease 	the 	cost 	of
providing meals 	to students enrolled in 	PSSDs. 	Public
school 	districts 	comply 	with 	the 	income 	eligibility
requirements in order to receive Federal funding to decrease
the cost to the taxpayers of their communities. 	Private
schools 	should 	be 	similarly 	required 	to 	maximize
reimbursement and minimize the burden on the taxpayers of
the sending districts.
[45 N.J.R. 57(a)] (emphasis added).
The “majority of zero is zero” interpretation advocated by GPA directly undercuts
the intent of the regulation, and incentivizes PSDs to delay receipt of signed contracts,
allowing them to unilaterally determine to forego CNP funding and lay the full cost of
student meals upon sending districts. 	Thus, GPA’s argument in this regard was
rejected. However, the issue of the alleged delay in releasing the MTC remains.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
9
GPA argues that it was delayed in complying with the conditions of the regulatory
exemption because DOE delayed posting the 2009-2010 MTC. Here GPA has shown it
could have satisfied the conditions of the regulatory exception had the contract been
timely posted to DOE’s website6. 	Although the MTC was issued midafternoon on June
12 that year, it was a Friday afternoon. 	When GPA staff returned on the following
Monday, it had to balance end of year duties with the detailed preparation of individual
student contracts for a number of districts. 	Once those individuals’ contracts were
transmitted to the districts, each district had to go through their own review process and
schedule the contracts on a Board meeting in conformance with Open Public Meeting
Act requirements. 	Had the MTC been issued earlier in June, both GPA and the
individual sending districts would have been in a better position to comply with the
regulation’s time requirements.
Here GPA presented credible testimony as to its efforts in complying with the
regulation once the MTC was issued by the DOE. 	Even respondent’s witness admitted
that given all of the steps necessary for the preparation, transmittal and Board approval
of the contracts it would be difficult to comply with regulation’s time mandate. 	It should
also be noted that GPA fell short by only one contract to be in compliance. To penalize
GPA under the above facts is unfair given the timing of the MTC release and GPA
should not be penalized for its substantial compliance with the regulation. 	GPA
therefore is entitled to a reversal of the $82,753.00 disallowance of student meal costs.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s disallowance of $82,753 in student
meal costs is REVERSED.
6 In its April 3, 2012 appeal to Director Cicchino, GPA indicated that, in lieu of board resolutions, it submitted to
OFAC letters signed by board members/administrators from a number of its sending districts. GPA argued that
those letters substantially complied with the board resolution requirement. 	However, the Commissioner has
specifically upheld OFAC’s refusal to accept such letters signed by board members/administrators in lieu of board
resolutions. Delaware Valley Sch. for Exceptional Children v. N.J. Dept. of Educ., Div. of Finance, OAL Dkt. No. EDU
9326-10, Init. Dec. (November 18, 2011), adopted as modified, Dkt. No. 144-7/10, Comm’r Dec. (February 17,
2012).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
10
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.
August 19, 2020
DATE 	PATRICIA M. KERINS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	August 19, 2020 (emailed)
Date Mailed to Parties:
/mel

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
11
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
Michele Heinz
For Respondent:
Elisa Sadler-Williams
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 	E-Mail from E. Sadler-Williams dated June 12. 2009
P-2 	New Jersey Department of Education Website Posting (2009-10 School
Year – Annual Information)
P-3 	Memorandum from K. Attwood to Chief School Administration, et als,
dated June 12, 2009
P-4 	Mandated Tuition Contract for School Year 2009-10
P-5 	Chart of GFA Contract Return Dates
P-6 	Chart of GFA Sending District Meeting Date/Agenda Information
P-7 	E-Mail from L. McCormick to GFA Sending Districts, dated September 14,
2012, and responses received
P-8 	Order on Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Decision dated April 26,
2016
P-9 	Certification of Michele Heinz dated October 14, 2015
For Respondent:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11338-14
12
R-1 	Letter dated February 22, 2012 from NJ Department of Education – Office
of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance – Director
R-2 	Letter from David Rubin, Esq., to Director, NJ Department of Education –
Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance dated April 3, 2012
R-3 	Letter from NJ Department of Education – Office of Fiscal Accountability
and Compliance – Director dated July 3, 2014 to Steven Morse, Director
of Garfield Park Academy