W.M., on behalf of minor child, J.M. v. Board of Education of the Township of Bedminster, Somerset County, 3/7/2023, (#59-23)

59-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
W.M., on behalf of minor child, J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Bedminster,
Somerset County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner disputed the respondent Board’s finding that his son, J.M., committed an act of harassment,
intimidation or bullying (HIB) against a fellow student pursuant to New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq (the Act). 	After an investigation by the school’s anti-bullying
specialist, the Board determined that J.M. had committed an act of HIB against classmate C.D. when he
made comments regarding C.D.’s weight and attire. The Board asserted that J.M.’s conduct satisfied all
of the elements of the statutory definition of HIB under the Act. 	The petitioner contended that the
Board’s HIB determination was based on a flawed, incomplete, and biased investigation, and was
therefore arbitrary, capricious, and/or unreasonable.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	an action by a board of education is entitled to a presumption of
correctness unless it is proven to be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; under the Act, “harassment,
intimidation, or bullying” is broadly defined as any gesture, any written, verbal, or physical act, or any
electronic communication that is reasonably perceived as motivated by any actual or perceived
distinguishing characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical, or sensory disability, that takes place
on school property and substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school; in the instant case,
the record reflects that J.M. did not deny asking C.D. how much he weighed, nor making unkind
comments about the size of C.D.’s shoes, but defended his inappropriate comments as merely “trash
talk” among a group of classmates; C.D. was insulted and demeaned by the comments made by J.M.
and those comments had the effect of disrupting C.D.’s education by causing him to stop taking his
medication in the hope that he would lose weight, and by causing him not to want to go to school for
fear of being made fun of by J.M. 	The ALJ concluded that the petitioners have failed to meet their
burden of proof that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in concluding
that J.M.’s actions constituted harassment, intimidation or bullying under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights
Act. Accordingly, the ALJ affirmed the Board’s HIB determination and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Board did not act in an arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable manner in rendering its HIB determination. Accordingly, the Initial Decision
of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and 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.

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 07337-19
Agency Dkt. No. 73-4/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
W.M., on behalf of minor child, J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Bedminster, Somerset County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Board’s reply thereto.
In this matter, petitioner challenges the Board’s determination that his son committed
an act of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) based on alleged comments about the
victim’s weight and attire. Specifically, J.M. admitted to asking C.D. how many pounds he
weighs; witnesses reported J.M. calling C.D. fat behind his back and referring to his shoes as
being as big as “sailboats”; and C.D. alleged that J.M. used his body to push and intimidate him.
As a result of the conduct, C.D. stopped taking his medication because it caused him to gain
weight and he did not want to come to school out of concern that he would be teased. The
school’s anti-bullying specialist conducted an HIB investigation in which she interviewed J.M,
C.D., and three student witnesses, and concluded that J.M.’s conduct met the definition of HIB.
59-23

2
Specifically, the HIB investigation report found that the verbal and physical acts were motivated
by the distinguishing characteristics of weight, attire, and athletic ability. Moreover, in addition
to causing a substantial disruption or interference, the conduct had the effect of insulting or
demeaning C.D, and severely or pervasively caused physical or emotional harm to C.D., as he
did not want to come to school and ceased taking his prescribed medication. The Board
confirmed the HIB determination and petitioner subsequently filed this petition of appeal.
Following a hearing on the merits, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that
the Board was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in determining that J.M. committed an
HIB violation, as the record demonstrates that J.M made a series of insulting and demeaning
comments based on C.D.’s perceived characteristics of weight, shoe size, clothing, and athletic
ability. The ALJ further explained that the comments disrupted C.D.’s education as they caused
C.D. to stop taking his medicine and fear coming to school. Moreover, the ALJ disagreed with
petitioner’s arguments and found that the HIB investigation was proper, unbiased, and
complete.
In his exceptions, petitioner argues that the HIB determination should be reversed
because it was based on a flawed, incomplete, and biased investigation. Petitioner explained
that when C.D.’s parent first contacted the guidance counselor about J.M.’s conduct, the
counselor told her she was sorry about what the family was going through and that C.D. is a
great kid. Petitioner contends that since the guidance counselor is also the anti-bullying
specialist who conducted the investigation, the investigator was biased in favor of C.D. based of
her initial exchange with C.D.’s parent. Petitioner also contends that the investigation was
flawed as no staff were interviewed and, instead, the report relied only on the statements of

3
fifth-grade students who were named by the victim. As one witness was a good friend of the
victim’s and was also suspended for punching J.M. in the nose, petitioner alleges he was a
biased witness. According to petitioner, the investigator downplayed the assault and never
explored the possibility that the HIB complaint was in retaliation for the witness’ three-day
suspension. Further, the petitioner argues that the investigator did not ask the witnesses about
whether C.D. participated in trash-talking; did not consider evidence demonstrating that J.M.
was joking and had no history of HIB complaints; and did not place weight on the fact that the
victim had no physical injury and that, although he claimed he did not want to come to school,
C.D. missed no school days.
Petitioner contends that the ALJ erred in not placing weight on his testimony or the
testimony of his son, which, he alleges, demonstrates that the HIB determination was arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable. According to petitioner, his testimony established that there was
a conflict of interest as the Superintendent’s children were involved, while his son, J.M.,
testified that the students would all “trash-talk” each other at lunch, and that after the
investigator informed him that C.D. was upset, J.M. apologized. Finally, petitioner takes
exception to the ALJ’s refusal to accept the testimony of petitioner’s expert as reliable.
Accordingly, petitioner urges the Commissioner to reject the Initial Decision.
In reply, the Board argues that petitioner does not challenge the ALJ’s legal
determinations, but rather credibility determinations and assessment of the facts. The Board
argues that the ALJ’s credibility assessments are supported by the record – as petitioner’s
testimony was inconsistent and his expert relied on inaccurate information – and therefore the
ALJ’s determinations were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Additionally, the Board

4
contends that the HIB determination was supported by the record, including J.M.’s own
admission that he made a comment about how many pounds C.D. weighed. As such, the Board
asks that the Initial Decision be adopted.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that, based on the evidence in the
record, petitioner did not establish that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable manner in finding that J.M. committed an act of HIB. The Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act (the Act) defines HIB as follows:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic
communication, whether it be a single incident or a series of
incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either
by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory
disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that takes
place on school property, at any school-sponsored function, on a
school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of
P.L. 2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of
other students and that:
a. a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances,
will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student
or damaging the student's property, or placing a student in
reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to his person or
damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or
group of students; or
c. creates a hostile educational environment for the student by
interfering with a student's education or by severely or
pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to the student.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
Therefore, a finding of HIB requires three elements. First, the conduct must be reasonably
perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived enumerated characteristic or other
distinguishing characteristic and, second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere

5
with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the school. The third condition is
that one of the three criteria enumerated in the Act regarding the effect of the conduct must
also be satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex County, Commissioner
Decision No. 51-20 (decided February 4, 2020).
Regarding the first element, J.M. admitted to asking the victim how many pounds he
weighs, and the comments about weight and shoe size were corroborated by witness
statements. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the Board to conclude that a
reasonable person would consider J.M.’s comments to be motivated by the distinguishing
characteristic of weight or body type. Regarding the second element, there is ample evidence
in the record that the conduct caused a substantial disruption to the rights of C.D, as he
reported that he stopped taking his medication in an effort to lose weight and was afraid to
come to school. Finally, regarding the third element, there is no doubt here that making fun of
someone’s weight and shoe size would insult or demean that student. As such, the Board was
not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in determining that J.M.’s conduct met the definition
of HIB.
The Commissioner does not find petitioners’ exceptions to be persuasive. The
investigation was not biased or flawed. Any initial contact with the victim’s family did not
impact the investigation and the ultimate determination was made based on the victim’s own
admission and supported by witness statements. Additionally, the Act does not require
interviews with staff members for an investigation to be complete. In this case, evidence to
justify the HIB determination was established by interviews with the victim, the accused, and
three student witnesses, including one of the accused’s friends who indicated that he heard

6
J.M. call the victim “fat” behind his back. Further, the evidence in the record in no way reflects
that the HIB complaint was in retaliation for another incident in which a witness punched the
accused. It is irrelevant to the determination in this matter whether C.D. participated in trash-
talking or whether J.M. was joking; the HIB definition does not consider the accused’s intent. It
is also irrelevant that C.D. did not have a physical injury or miss school; the victim’s fear of
coming to school as well as his refusal to take his medicine constitutes a substantial disruption
of his rights. Petitioner’s remaining exceptions stem from the ALJ’s credibility determinations,
which the Commissioner finds no basis to overturn. As such, petitioner failed to meet his
burden of demonstrating that the Board’s HIB determination was arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter
and the petition of appeal 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.
March 7, 2023
March 9, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07337-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 73-4/19
W.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR
CHILD J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF BEDMINSTER BOARD
OF EDUCATION, SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent.
Robert M. Biagiotti, Esq., for petitioners
Rita F. Barone, Esq., for respondent (Flanagan, Barone, O’Brien, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 14, 2022 	Decided: December 15, 2022
BEFORE SUSAN L. OLGIATI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, W.M. on behalf of his minor son J.M., challenges the determination of
the respondent, Bedminster Township Board of Education (hereinafter referred to as the
Board) that J.M. committed an act of harassment, intimidation or bullying (HIB) under the
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the Commissioner of Education, disputing
respondent’s determination in HIB case #137. The Department of Education transmitted
the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for hearing as a contested case,
where it was filed on May 30, 2019. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
The hearing was delayed due to COVID restrictions on in-person proceedings.1 	The
hearing was held on May 24, 2022. During conferencing on the first day of hearing, the
parties advised the undersigned that petitioner had just learned that the victims in HIB
case #137, the HIB that is the subject of this appeal, and HIB case #1382 were not the
same student. Petitioner acknowledged that the HIB investigation reports, along with the
identification numbers of the students involved in the two HIB cases had been provided
to them in discovery but contend that W.M. formed his belief as to the identity of the
victims based on information provided to him by the Board. 	Following the testimony of
W.M. and J.M., the hearing was continued and petitioners presented the testimony of
their expert witness on the second day of hearing held on June 7, 2022. Thereafter, the
record remained open for the parties to request a transcript of the proceedings and submit
written closing arguments. Upon receipt of the closing arguments, the record closed on
September 14, 2022. 	Thereafter, by Order of Extension, the time for filing this Initial
Decision was extended until December 15, 2022.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Having reviewed the evidence in the record, I FIND that the following facts have
been jointly stipulated or are otherwise undisputed, therefore I FIND them as FACT:
During the relevant time, J.M. was in the fifth grade in the Bedminster Township
Public School District. 	In December 2018, J.M. was identified as the accused/alleged
1 The parties jointly requested/agreed upon an in-person hearing rather than proceeding via zoom remote
hearing platform.
2 Another HIB case in which J.M. was named as one of the accused. The allegations of the matter were
not substantiated and were not appealed.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
3
offender in HIB case #137 and was identified as one of multiple accused/alleged
offenders in HIB case #138.
For HIB case #137, the initial report was received on December 3, 2018. 	See
Stipulation of Facts at No. 1.
The investigation was concluded on December 13, 2018, and the report was
signed by the Anti-Bullying Specialist, Anti-Bullying Coordinator, and Principal and then
submitted to the Superintendent on that same date. Id. at No. 2.
The Superintendent, Jennifer Giordano, signed off on the report on December 17,
2018, after she clarified a statement on page five of the report. Id. at No. 3.
A reorganization meeting of the Bedminster Board of Education was held on
January 4, 2019. Id. at No. 4.
On January 17, 2019, HIB #137 was discussed in executive session of the Board.
Id. at No. 5.
By letters dated January 21, 2019, petitioners were advised by the District that HIB
case #137 was substantiated against J.M. Id. at No. 6.
By email dated February 5, 2019, petitioner W.M. requested a hearing on HIB case
#137 before the Board. Id. at No. 7.
The hearing was scheduled for February 12, 2019, but cancelled due to weather.
Id. at No. 8.
Petitioners were advised that the hearing was rescheduled for February 21, 2019,
but failed to appear. Id. at No. 9.
On February 21, 2019, HIB case #137 was discussed in executive session of the
Board. Id. at No. 10.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
4
By letters dated February 25, 2019, petitioners were advised by the District that
HIB case #137 was substantiated against J.M. Id. at No.11.
For HIB case #138, the initial report was received on December 20, 2018. 	Id. at
No. 12.
For HIB case #138, the investigation concluded on January 10, 2019, and the
allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. Id. at No. 13.
For HIB case #138, the Principal Todd St. Laurent signed off on the investigation
report and notified the victim’s parents on January 21, 2019. Id. at No. 14.
Gina Infante was the investigator regarding both HIB case #137 and HIB case
#138. Id. at No. 15.
Testimony for petitioner
W.M. testified that he has been a teacher for the past thirty-four years. During the
relevant time period, J.M. attended school in the District. He is currently attending school
at St. James and is in the seventh grade. On approximately November 27, 2018, W.M.
received a telephone call from the Vice Principal (VP) Mr. St. Laurent, advising that J.M.
had been punched in the face. 	At that time, the VP said he could not say who was
involved in the incident. W.M. later talked with his son who advised that he was punched
in the face by A.C. or S.C., who were twin brothers, and that another student, C.D. was
there egging them on to punch J.M. The VP advised that the student who punched J.M.
had been suspended for three days. W.M. had a good relationship with the VP. The VP
later confirmed which of the students were involved in the incident. He also advised that
J.M. would have to sit with him at lunch—meaning he would have detention relating to
the punching incident.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
5
Thereafter, he received a call from the Principal, Corby Swan, about a HIB incident
in the cafeteria [HIB #137]. Mr. Swan advised that he could not provide any details of the
incident.
W.M. then learned about a second HIB concerning J.M. 	Mr. Swan called him to
advise that there was a HIB on the bus. [HIB #138]. W.M. was concerned because J.M.
did not take the bus.
Later at the Board meeting, he asked whether the two HIB incidents were the same
and he was told, “yes.” He also asked if children of the board members were involved in
HIB case #138, and was told, “yes.” 	The conversation was with the Board. 	The
Superintendent, Ms. Giordano was also there.
W.M. appeared at the Board meeting with his former attorney who has since
passed away. At the meeting, he was advised that the HIB matters were handled together
and that the victims were the same. 	As a teacher, W.M. is very familiar with the HIB
process. He advised the Board that proper procedure was not followed. He was told that
the Board meeting was not a regular meeting, but rather a reorganization meeting. 	In
speaking with others, he learned that the Board should have taken time at the meeting to
hear J.M.’s case. 	Later in his testimony, W.M. recalled that his conversation regarding
improper 	procedure 	and 	whether 	the 	two 	incidents 	were 	the 	same, 	was 	with
Superintendent Giordano.
W.M. explained that he did not look at the student ID numbers in the HIB reports.
He thought the Board would have told him the truth about the students involved.
On cross-examination, W.M. explained that after he was called by the principal
about HIB case #137, he contacted the VP to ask whether the same boys who punched
J.M. were also involved in HIB #137. He believed he contacted the VP after J.M. spoke
with Ms. Infante. J.M. came home hysterically crying, extremely upset and angry. Infante
pulled him off the lunch line in the cafeteria and questioned his actions and had him sign
an important document. His friends overheard and they called him a bully. His discussion
with the VP concerned his disgust regarding Infante’s actions and how she could be so

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
6
“callous” about J.M.’s well-being. 	His information regarding Infante’s interview of J.M.
came from J.M. and the VP. 	W.M. asked for school video from the cafeteria and was
given inaccurate/untrue information about the existence of video footage.
He was confused by the letters he received from the District regarding the two HIB
cases. He didn’t understand how the same incident could be substantiated in one case
and not the other.
He clarified that the Board told him the incidents were the same but did not tell him
“it was the same kid.”
Upon review of Infante’s report, W.M. acknowledged that he was mistaken about
her pulling J.M. out of the cafeteria to interview him, and explained that information must
have come from J.M. or the VP.
Upon questioning by the undersigned, W.M. testified that Ms. Giordano told him at
the Board meeting that the victim in the two HIB incidents were the same, that children of
board members were involved, and that the next meeting of the Board was not a
reorganization but was a regular Board meeting.
J.M. is currently fourteen years old. He testified that he is doing well at St. James’
school and has had no behavioral issues there.
.He described the lunchroom at the Bedminster school as being organized by
grade. 	Students are able to sit where they wanted within the tables assigned to their
grade. C.D. is the student whom he was accused of bullying. C.D. was a part of his lunch
group, he regularly sat with J.M. and his friends. During lunch, J.M. and his friends would
talk about sports and would sometimes “trash talk” with each other. 	They sometimes
referred to him as “giraffe neck” or “twig.” C.D. would participate in the trash talk. When
they played sports at lunch, he would block and/or “box out” others, but he did not do that
with C.D.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
7
He admitted to commenting about C.D.’s shoes size but at the time, didn’t think
there was any problem with it. He also acknowledged commenting about C.D.’s weight
but explained that they all talked trash with each other. 	They joked around and no one
took things too harshly. C.D. continued to sit with them daily.
On November 27, 2018, J.M. was punched in the face by A.C. A.C. said something
to him, and he said something back, and A.C. punched him in the nose. A teacher sent
them both to the principal’s office. A.C. was also a witness in HIB #137.
J.M. did not recall where Infante interviewed him. She asked him yes/no questions
and couldn’t really explain what happened. 	Sometime after speaking with Infante, she
had him sign a statement in the lunchroom. 	She called him over to a table near the
entrance. He didn’t know what he was being asked to sign. If he knew it was going to be
on his record, he “would never have signed it.” He was embarrassed. His friends asked
him what it was about. C.D. was there.
After J.M. spoke with Infante, he said, “sorry” to C.D. 	He stopped making
comments about him. He did not intend to hurt C.D.
On cross-examination, he acknowledged that asking somebody “how many
pounds they are” would be offensive but explained that they were all joking around and
that C.D. said things to him. He denied saying to C.D. that he was fat but acknowledged
that he could have used another word other than “pounds.” He also acknowledged that
he might have asked C.D. why his shoes were so big.
Raymond Bauer testified to his credentials and work experience in the field of
education. 	He began his career as a teacher and then worked as a vice principal in
middle and high school. 	He was a middle school principal and was the acting
superintendent of schools. 	He is familiar with the HIB statute and has been involved in
approximately ten HIB investigations and has reviewed HIB investigation reports. 	He
never served as an anti-bullying coordinator and acknowledged that he attended only one
HIB training when the statute was implemented. 	He was offered and qualified as an
expert in the field of HIB investigations over the objection of the Board.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
8
He explained that he was advised by W.M. that the victims in HIB cases #137 and
#138 were the same. 	He has since learned the information was not correct. 	He
acknowledged that the investigation reports he reviewed contained student identification
numbers, but he did not review or compare that information in the two HIB reports.
Bauer opined that the investigation in HIB case #137 was not appropriate. As an
initial matter, he found a conflict with guidance counselor Gina Infante investigating the
HIB, because as a counselor, she is a student advocate, and in the course of a HIB
investigation, she is obtaining information that could be used against a student for
disciplinary purposes.
He found procedural inconsistencies in HIB #137. 	Infante made assumptions
about the victim’s statements. He believed that Infante’s response to the victim’s mother,
in which she expressed that she was sorry for what C.D. and the family was going
through, and that her comment that C.D. was a “great kid,” were not appropriate. 	She
should have received the information from the mother without comment.
He also had serious questions regarding Infante’s handling of J.M.’s interview and
the manner in which his statement was presented for his signature. J.M. was not given
an opportunity to edit or comment on the statement and he was placed in an embarrassing
situation when he was required to sign the statement. 	Additionally, Infante failed to
interview or obtain information from adults who were supervising the students.
Further, the fact that J.M. was punched by witness No. 1 three days earlier was
not taken into consideration. 	Infante seemed not to have considered that there were
conflicts with the other children involved in the HIB. 	She failed to learn about a prior
conflict that J.M. had with one of the witnesses outside of school.
As the investigator, Infante had the prerogative to arrange for a peer to help ensure
proper behavior at the lunch table. Witness No. 2 offered to speak with J.M., but this was
never explored. She also could have arranged for a group counseling session, but there

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
9
was no indication that was ever done and saw no counseling for the parents of the
children involved.
Bauer opined that Infante made comments she was not qualified to make, about
the psychological harm allegedly suffered by C.S. He believes that J.M. was a scapegoat
because HIB case #137, which involved alleged psychological harm, was substantiated
against J.M. while HIB case #138, which involved allegations of hitting and pushing, was
not. He explained that learning that the victims in the two HIB cases were not the same,
strengthened his opinion that J.M. was “scapegoated” because in a very short time, the
victim in HIB #137 went from being considered a victim to an accused in HIB #138.
On cross-examination, Bauer acknowledged that it would be highly unusual for a
superintendent to breach student confidentiality and inform another parent that the
students involved in a HIB were children of Board members.
Regarding his opinion that it was a conflict for a guidance counselor to serve as
the HIB investigator, Bauer acknowledged that the HIB statute allows the District
discretion in appointing the investigator. 	He further acknowledged that guidance
counselors are often appointed as investigators in HIB matters.
Bauer believes the charges against J.M. should not have been substantiated. He
also did not agree with the corrective action recommended by Infante.
Gina Infante testified to her work experience. She has been a school counselor
for twenty years. She has been an Anti-Bullying Specialist and has received HIB training
since 2011. She also presented HIB training to teachers and staff. She investigated HIB
case #137. At the time, she had conducted approximately thirty other HIB investigations.
HIB #137 was brought to her attention through a November 30, 2018, email from C.D.’s
mother, who reported that he was being bullied at school. 	Infante responded to the
mother immediately, because she made concerning statements that C.D. stopped taking
his medication, was very depressed, and that they were having problems finding a
psychiatrist. Infante told the mother she was sorry they were going through this and that

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
10
C.D. was a great kid. 	The mother reported that the bullying occurred throughout the
school year. The father also sent an email about the bullying.
Infante explained that when she conducts an interview, she types up her notes and
reads through it with the individual and if they are okay with the statement—they sign it.
She interviewed C.D. and asked if people were making fun of his clothes. 	She
took his statement in her office. 	He reported that J.M. said he wears the same clothes
every day and called his shoes “crap.” 	J.M. also asked about how much he weighed.
J.M. put him down and called him stupid. He had heard that J.M. called him fat, but did
not say it “to his face.” C.D. was talking about his medication and how it made him gain
about thirty pounds and J.M. commented that he could not believe he gained thirty pounds
from medication. 	C.D. said he stopped taking the medication because he thought he
could lose weight. 	He didn’t want to come to school because he was afraid J.M. would
make fun of him. He sits with other students and said that his friendships have improved
since he moved from J.M.’s table. He named three witnesses.
Witness No. 1 confirmed that the victim said he did not want to come to school.
He saw J.M. being mean to the victim multiple times. The victim did not respond. He just
put his head down. 	Infante found this significant because a lack of response can
demonstrate an imbalance of power. 	She was aware that witness No.1 had previously
punched J.M. 	He told her about the incident during the interview. 	That incident was
handled through the Code of Conduct. 	J.M.’s comments leading up to the punch were
not appropriate and were not tolerant, but they did not justify the punch.
She interviewed witness No. 2 in her office. He was a friend of J.M.’s. He heard
J.M. make comments about C.D.’s weight behind his back. 	He didn’t know if J.M.
understood that his comments were hurtful, but witness No. 2 noticed that C.D. was upset.
J.M. made fun of C.D.’s double chin.
Infante interviewed J.M. in her office on December 5, 2018. She asked him about
his comments to C.D. He could not remember his comments but acknowledged that he
asked C.D. “how many pounds he weighed.” Infante had previously talked to J.M. about

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
11
calling others names. J.M. said that after their talks, he learned his lesson and knew not
to do that, and apologized. 	J.M. denied “body checking” or blocking C.D. 	They also
talked about when J.M. got punched by witness No. 1. He gave her his version of what
happened. 	They were using inappropriate terms and J.M. acknowledged that he had
taunted witness No. 1 by telling him to push him and hit him. On December 13, Infante
reviewed J.M.’s statement with him in her office. She told him to read it to make sure it
was accurate. He did not make any changes.
She had J.M. sign his statement for HIB case #138 in the lunchroom. J.M. did not
demonstrate any HIB behaviors in that matter. She waived him over to the doorway. She
told him to read it, asked him if he was okay with it, and had him sign it. She explained
that there were eleven students involved in HIB #138. She was under time constraints to
interview everyone, type up the reports, and get the statements signed off. 	All the
behavior in HIB #138 was unsubstantiated.
Infante also interviewed witness No. 3 in connection with HIB case #137. Witness
No. 3 is the brother of witness No. 1. He said he had been bulled by J.M. since “pre-K.”
J.M. recently called him a “loser” and said that “no one liked him.” 	He also heard J.M.
call C.D. a “fat loser” and said that he was terrible at recess.
She did not interview any adults because the information she obtained met the HIB
criteria.
Infante concluded that J.M.’s comments were motivated by the victim’s weight.
J.M. admitted asking C.D. how much weight he gained on his medication. Witnesses No.
1 and No. 2 also said they heard J.M. say that C.D. was fat and that his shoes were as
big as “sailboats.” In addition to weight, she concluded that J.M.’s statement/actions also
involved athletic ability. 	J.M.’s comments also caused a substantial disruption to C.D.’s
day. He stopped taking his medication, did not want to wear his clothes because he was
afraid of what J.M. would say to him, and did not want to come to school. It didn’t matter
that C.D. did not actually miss any school days. It was significant that he did not want to
come to school. She also determined that there was a series of incidents because it was
reported that the HIB occurred throughout the year—no specific dates were given.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
12
Following her investigation, Infante recommended using peer leaders to lead group
lessons and talk about different character traits. She also recommended that the teachers
incorporate empathy lessons, that they bring in an empathy program, and provide all
accused students with a mandatory anti-bullying message. She also recommended pupil
counseling and counseling to the parents, if needed. 	Additionally, she recommended
increased supervision or assigned seats, since the lunchroom/recess were “hot spots.”
In terms of the corrective action taken, she explained there was a Unity Day in February
where they had a program called, “The New Kid.” 	The teachers were given follow up
questions for use in the classroom. 	The leaders talked to the students about kindness
and tolerance and the DARE officer came in to talk to the students during health class.
She completed the investigation in HIB case #137 on December 13, 2018.
Infante received a verbal report regarding another HIB—case #138 on December
17, 2018. In HIB #138, the only accusation against J.M. was that he and another student
taunted the victim and his friends. 	Infante interviewed J.M. in her office. 	She found
nothing inappropriate with the way he acted in that matter.
On cross-examination, Infante did not agree that most of the allegations in HIB
case #137 occurred in the lunchroom and at recess. She contends that the incidents also
occurred in the classroom. She acknowledged she did not interview any teachers or staff.
Additionally, she explained that she did not perceive the emails from the victim’s
parents in which they referenced taking “severe action,” to be threatening a lawsuit.
Rather, she understood that they wanted the HIB to be addressed.
Witness No. 1 told Infante that C.D. was one of his best friends. 	Infante agreed
that witness No. 3 did not think much of J.M., and that much of his statement discussed
things that happened between he and J.M. more than five years ago.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
13
She testified that the information supporting her conclusion that the HIB was also
based on “athletic ability” may have come from the victim’s mother. She acknowledged
that notes of such conversations were not in her report.
Jennifer Giordano is the school superintendent. She explained that once the HIB
investigation was completed, it went to the principal, the superintendent, and then to the
Board. She signed the report on December 17, 2018. Under the “further action” section
of the report, she noted that when she was in the lunchroom on December 4, 2018, she
saw the victim and the accused sitting at the same table.
The Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting was held on January 17, 2019. She
presented both HIB cases during the executive session. On January 4, 2019, the Board
had a joint special meeting with the Township, where they swore in new members. The
January 17, 2019, meeting date was the first meeting at which the HIBs could have been
presented.
The appeal of HIB case #137 was scheduled for February 12, 2019. 	The Board
honored a request to reschedule the appeal due to bad weather. 	The appeal was
rescheduled for February 21, 2019, but J.M.’s parents did not appear. The Board honored
another request for a meeting which was held on March 12, 2019. 	The meeting was
attended by the Board, its attorney, the Board secretary, and Giordano. 	W.M. and his
then attorney also attended and spoke at the meeting. 	They requested that the HIB be
looked at again because they felt it should not have been substantiated. Giordano made
no statements regarding the HIB. 	The meeting was run through the Board’s attorney.
Petitioners did not appeal HIB case #138. 	Giordano was not aware of HIB case #138
being mentioned. 	After the meeting, Giordano received correspondence from W.M.
requesting a meeting to discuss the well-being and academic achievement of his children.
The meeting took place in the beginning of April. She and the VP talked with W.M. She
was asked if she would dismiss the charges, but she refused.
Regarding the remedial steps and corrective action taken, Giordano was aware
that peer leaders were involved, and of “The New Kid” presentation which addressed
bullying, and that the DARE officer conducted a class in February. Additionally, Infante

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
14
conducted student counseling with the victim and J.M. until W.M. advised that he did not
want Infante to meet with his children. The student lunch seats were also moved but she
explained that in middle school, students change their seats.
On cross-examination, Giordano acknowledged that the recommendation of
parent counseling was not provided.
During the April 2019 meeting with Giordano and the VP, W.M. said that Giordano
had the authority to “make the HIB go away.” She could not recall if HIB #138 “came up”
at that meeting.
She did not agree that the two HIB cases had “certain similarities.”
Credibility
In evaluating evidence, it is necessary for me as the finder of fact to assess the
credibility of the witnesses. This requires an overall assessment of the witness’s 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).
A trier of fact may 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).
“The interest, motive, bias, or prejudice of a witness may affect his credibility and justify
the [trier of fact], whose province it is to pass upon the credibility of an interested witness,
in disbelieving his testimony.” 	State v. Salimone, 19 N.J. Super. 600, 608 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 10 N.J. 316 (1952) (citation omitted).
The testimony of W.M. concerning the information he claims he was told about the
two HIB cases, including the identity of the victim and the other students involved, and by
whom he was told, was confusing—and at times contradictory. Additionally, his testimony
that C.D. was involved in the incident in which J.M. was punched and that he was “egging
on” the puncher, is unsupported by the evidence in the record. Further, he acknowledged

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
15
at hearing that he was mistaken about Ms. Infante pulling J.M. out of the cafeteria to
interview him. 	W.M. was emotional and angry during his testimony and during that of
Gina Infante. 	While he is understandably very concerned about his son and the
substantiated HIB determination, his testimony appeared to be unduly influenced and
colored by his belief that J.M. was treated unfairly by the District, and that its handling of
the HIB investigation was improper. 	Although W.M.’s beliefs may be sincerely held, he
has no first-hand knowledge of the HIB incidents or of Infante’s actions in conducting the
investigation. 	Moreover, some of the information upon which he relies has been
demonstrated to be incorrect and/or is overborne by the more credible testimony and the
documentary evidence in the record. 	For these reasons, I am unable to accept W.M.’s
testimony as reliable or to give it much, if any weight.
J.M.’s testimony that he made comments about C.D.’s weight and shoe size and
his acknowledgement that those statements could be considered offensive is consistent
with his statements made during the investigation and with the documentary evidence in
the record, thus I accept this testimony as credible.
With respect to assessing the testimony and opinions of petitioner’s expert witness,
it is well settled that “‘[t]he weight to which an expert opinion is entitled can rise no higher
than the facts and reasoning upon which that opinion is predicated.’” Johnson v. Salem
Corp., 97 N.J. 78, 91 (1984) (citation omitted). In this regard, it is within the province of
the finder of fact to determine the credibility, weight, and probative value of the expert
testimony. 	State v. Frost, 242 N.J. Super. 601, 615 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 127 N.J.
321 (1990); Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 242 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 1990),
modified on other grounds and remanded, 125 N.J. 421 (1991). 	Much of the testimony
of Raymond Bauer was based on inaccurate information provided by W.M. and/or his
unsupported theories of the case. 	Additionally, Bauer references no statutory or
regulatory provision, nor any model policy, or procedure in support of his opinion. Rather,
his opinion appears to be based on his personal belief that the investigation could or
should have been conducted differently. 	Finally, his conclusions that investigation was
flawed and that J.M. was “scapegoated” because HIB case #137 was substantiated, while
case #138 was not and/or because the victim in HIB #137 was also named as an accused
in HIB #138, is not reasonable or sensible and appears to ignore that the two cases

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
16
involve unrelated and wholly differing facts and circumstances. For these reasons, I do
not accept the opinion testimony of Bauer as reasonable or reliable and afford it little to
no weight.
As to respondent’s witnesses, I accept the testimony of Gina Infante as credible.
Her testimony regarding her conduct of the investigation is supported by the documentary
evidence 	in 	the 	record. 	Similarly, 	her 	testimony 	regarding 	her 	conclusions 	was
straightforward, reasonable, and supported by the evidence in the record including the
written statement and hearing testimony of J.M.
Finally, I also accept the testimony of Jennifer Giordano regarding the Board
meetings and her communications with W.M. to be straightforward and reasonable. Thus,
to the extent her testimony on these issues differs from that of W.M., I accept her
testimony as more reliable and more credible than W.M.’s.
Additional Findings
Having considered the testimony of the witnesses, and having observed their
demeanor at hearing, and further having reviewed the documentary evidence, I further
FIND as FACT:
J.M. admitted to making comments to C.D. about how much he weighed and about
his shoes being so big. 	The comments were insulting and demeaning and were not
isolated instances.
These comments were reasonably perceived as being motivated by actual or
perceived distinguishing characteristics of C.D.
C.D. and witnesses No. 1 and No. 2 confirmed these types of comments by J.M.
Witness No. 1 reported that J.M. said C.D.’s shoes were bigger than “sailboats.” See J-
1, HIB investigation report at pg. 6

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
17
C.D. also reported that J.M. made fun of his clothes and called his shoes “crap.”
These comments were confirmed by witnesses No. 1 and No. 2 who reported that J.M.
made fun of C.D.’s shoes and called them fakes. See J-1, HIB investigation report at pgs.
6 and 8.
C.D. also reported that J.M. would extend his arms and push him with his body at
recess. See J-1, HIB investigation report at p. 4.
Witness No. 2 also reported J.M. told C.D. that he reminded him of a rooster
because of his neck (double chin). See J-1, HIB investigation report at p. 8.
Witness No. 3 reported that J.M. called C.D. fat and a loser and said he was terrible
at recess. He also saw J.M. push C.D. See J-1, HIB investigation report at p. 9.
Witness No. 1 considered C.D. to be one of his best friends. He was not friends
with J.M. and he was involved in a November 27, 2018, incident in which he punched
J.M.
Witness No. 2 was a friend of J.M.
Witness No. 3 was not a friend of J.M. He is the twin brother of witness No. 1.
C.D. was upset by the demeaning and insulting comments made by J.M. 	He
stopped taking his medication for a period of time in hopes that he would lose weight. He
did not want to come to school or wear his clothes because he was worried that J.M.
would make fun of him. 	Witnesses No. 1 and No. 2 confirmed that C.D. was upset by
J.M.’s comments.
A reasonable person should have known, under the circumstances, that such
comments would have the effect of emotionally harming a student.
J.M. acknowledged at hearing that his comments to C.D. could be considered
offensive.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
18
J.M. claimed that boys at his lunch table engaged in trash talk. 	He attributed no
specific comments to C.D.
Gina Infante interviewed J.M. about HIB case #137 in her office. She reviewed his
statement with him and J.M. signed the statement in her office.
Infante had J.M. review and sign his statement in HIB case #138 by the doorway
of the cafeteria. The charges in that matter were not substantiated.
The Board exercised proper procedure in noticing and hearing HIB case #137 at
its next regular meeting on January 17, 2019.
Statements made by Infante to C.D.’s mother in response to her HIB complaint in
case #137, including that she was sorry the family was experiencing the incidents
complained of and that C.D. was a “great kid” did not demonstrate bias in favor of C.D.
or against J.M.
J.M. participated in several “talks”/counseling sessions with Infante. 	These
sessions were discontinued after W.M. advised that he did not want his children to meet
with Infante.
J.M. received no discipline in connection with HIB case No. 137.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Here, the issue to be decided is whether the Board’s determination that J.M.
committed a HIB violation was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act is designed “to strengthen the standards and
procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and responding to incidents of
harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in school and off school

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
19
premises.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). 	Under the Act, “[h]arassment, intimidation or
bullying” is defined as:
any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any
electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a
series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being
motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic,
such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender,
sexual 	orientation, 	gender 	identity 	and 	expression, 	or 	a
mental, 	physical 	or 	sensory 	disability, 	or 	by 	any 	other
distinguishing 	characteristic, 	that 	takes 	place 	on 	school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus,
or 	off 	school 	grounds 	as 	provided 	for 	in 	section 	16 	of
P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights
of other students and that:
a. 	a reasonable person should know, under the
circumstances, will have the effect of physically or
emotionally 	harming 	a 	student 	or 	damaging 	the
student’s property, or placing a student in reasonable
fear of physical or emotional harm to his person or
damage to his property;
b. 	has the effect of insulting or demeaning any
student or group of students; or
c. 	creates a hostile educational environment for
the student by interfering with a student’s education or
by 	severely 	or 	pervasively 	causing 	physical 	or
emotional harm to the student.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides “a
procedure for prompt investigation of reports of violations and complaints.” 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6). 	Once an alleged HIB incident is reported to the school principal, the
principal must initiate an investigation within one school day of the report. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6)(a). 	The investigation shall be conducted by a school anti-bullying
specialist, but “[t]he principal may appoint additional personnel who are not school anti-
bullying specialists to assist in the investigation.” 	Ibid. 	The investigation shall be
completed within ten days of the initial HIB complaint. Ibid.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
20
The results of the investigation shall then be reported to the superintendent of
schools, within two days of completion of the investigation, who may “decide to provide
intervention services, establish training programs to reduce [HIB] and enhance school
climate, impose discipline, order counseling as a result of the findings of the investigation,
or take or recommend other appropriate action.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(b)
The results shall also be reported to the board of education “no later than the date
of the board of education meeting next following the completion of the investigation, along
with information on any services provided, training established, discipline imposed, or
other action taken or recommended by the superintendent.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(c).
The parents of the students involved in any alleged HIB incident “shall be entitled
to receive information about the investigation . . . including the nature of the investigation,
whether the district found evidence of [HIB], or whether discipline was imposed or
services provided to address the incident of [HIB].” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). 	The
parents may request a hearing before the board, and the hearing must be held within ten
days of the request. Ibid. Any hearing shall be held in executive session to protect the
identity of any students involved. Ibid. And “[a]t the hearing the board may hear from the
school anti-bullying specialist about the incident, recommendations for discipline or
services, and any programs instituted to reduce such incidents[.]” Ibid.
A school board must issue a written decision at the first meeting after its receipt of
the investigation report. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e). 	The board may affirm, reject, or
modify the superintendent’s decision. Ibid. The board’s decision may be appealed to the
Commissioner of Education. Ibid.
The Commissioner of Education will not overturn the decision of a local board in
the absence of a finding that the action below was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 4, 2008)
(citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965),
aff’d, 	46 	N.J. 	581(1966)), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	7, 	2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. 	Further, the Commissioner will not substitute
his judgment for that of the board of education, whose exercise of its discretion may not

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
21
be disturbed unless shown to be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div.
1960). New Jersey courts have held that “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action
is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even
though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” 	Bayshore
Sewage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131
N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974).
Here, petitioners argue that the Board’s determination was arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable because the investigation by Gina Infante was biased, flawed,
incomplete, and inconsistent with HIB standards. 	Despite these arguments, petitioners
have presented no credible or competent evidence that the Board acted in an arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable manner in concluding that J.M. committed a HIB violation
under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act. Rather, the evidence, including the statement
and hearing testimony of J.M., as well as the statements of the victim and of the three
witnesses, demonstrate that J.M. made a series of insulting and demeaning comments
concerning C.D. based on perceived distinguishing characteristics including his weight,
shoe size, and clothing. Additionally, the evidence including the statements of the victim
and witness No. 3 demonstrates that Infante, and ultimately the Board, reasonably
concluded that J.M.’s comments/actions were motivated by athletic ability.
C.D. was insulted and demeaned by the comments made by J.M. and they had
the effect of disrupting his education by causing him to stop taking his medication in the
hope that he would lose weight and by causing him not to want to go to school for fear of
being made fun of by J.M. 	Further, petitioners’ arguments that Infante should have
interviewed adult teachers and staff who may have witnessed the alleged incidents do
not render the investigation as flawed or incomplete. 	Particularly as the statements of
C.D., the three witnesses, and of J.M. demonstrated that the HIB criteria had been
established, and further because, no specific dates for the incidents were given—instead
the incidents were alleged to have occurred throughout the year. 	Finally, as previously
indicated, petitioners point to no statute, regulation, model policy, or procedure to
demonstrate that Infante’s investigation of HIB #137 was biased, flawed, incomplete or
otherwise improper.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
22
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, I CONCLUDE that petitioners have
failed to meet their burden of proof that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable 	manner 	in 	concluding 	that 	J.M.’s 	actions 	constituted 	harassment,
intimidation or bullying under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I hereby ORDER that the decision of the Board is
AFFIRMED and that 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.

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
23
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 15, 2022
DATE 	SUSAN L. OLGIATI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
SLO/as

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
24
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner
W.M.
J. M.
Raymond Bauer
For respondent
Gina Infante
Jennifer Giordano
EXHIBITS
Joint exhibits
J-1 	Initial Harassment Reporting Form - Case #137 — Attached emails,
December 2, 2018 (6 pages)
J-2 	Case #137 Investigation Report of Gina Infante (15 pages)
J-3 	Initial Harassment Reporting Form - Case #138, December 20, 2018 (2
pages)
J-4 	Case #138 Investigation Report of Gina Infante (23 pages)
J-5 	Bedminster Board of Education Executive Session Minutes — January 17,
2019 (1 page)
J-6 	Bedminster Board of Education Executive Session Minutes — February
21, 2019 (1 page)
J-7 	Bedminster Township Correspondence to Parents of J.M. advising Case
#138 unsubstantiated, January 21, 2019 (1 page)
J-8 	Bedminster Township Correspondence to Parents of J.M. advising Case
#137 substantiated — February 25, 2019 (1 page)
J-9 	HIB Certification of Gina Infante HIB Investigation Cases #137 and No.
138 (9 pages)
J-10 	Bedminster School District Report — November 27, 2018 (1 page)
J-11 	Not admitted

OAL DKT NO. EDS 07337-19
25
J-12 	Bedminster Twp. School Cafeteria Lunch Duty Schedule — 2018–2019
(1 page)
J-13 	Curriculum Vitae of Raymond Bauer (5 pages)
J-14 	Expert Report of Raymond Bauer with exhibits (33 pages)
J-15 	Resume of Gina Infante (Pecorello) (3 pages)
J-16 	Not Admitted
J-17 	Bedminster Twp. correspondence to Parents of J.M., dated January 21,
2019, delivering HIB #137 substantiated (2 pages)
J-18 	Bedminster Twp. correspondence to Parent of J.M., dated February 25,
2019, advising HIB #137 substantiated (2 pages)