Salvatore Piarulli v. Board of Education of the Borough of Garwood, Union County, Board of Education of the Township of Clark, Union County, Tracey Roland, Timothy Ryan, Al DelConte, Christine Gurriero, Vincent Basciano, Adrienne Barnes, Jennifer Uva, April Farrell, Tina Simitz, Linda Koenig, and Maureen Crawford, 10/18/2023, (#309-23)

309-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Salvatore Piarulli,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Garwood,
Union 	County, 	Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the
Township of Clark, Tracey Roland, et al,
Respondents.
Synopsis
Petitioner – a member of the Garwood Board of Education (Garwood or Garwood BOE) – challenged the
respondent Board’s action replacing him as the Garwood BOE’s sending district representative (SDR) to the
Clark Board of Education (Clark or Clark BOE), claiming, inter alia, that his removal as SDR was ultra vires and
void. Petitioner had been appointed in January 2022 to serve as Garwood’s SDR on the Clark BOE, pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.2. Garwood voted on October 18, 2022 to remove petitioner as its SDR. Petitioner
subsequently served the Garwood BOE with a Notice of Claim seeking $10 million dollars in damages
based on an allegation that he was slandered and libeled as the result of his removal as SDR. The instant
petition was filed on January 24, 2023. The Garwood BOE filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the
petition is time-barred pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, and that the Board has the authority under
N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d) to appoint or remove any board member to / from the SDR position.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: Garwood had the legal authority to remove petitioner as SDR and did not
act ultra vires when it voted to do so; when petitioner filed his Notice of Claim, he was not protecting
any of the public’s rights but rather was asserting a monetary claim for his own benefit; and the petition
was filed beyond the allowable time limit. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss
the case as untimely under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the petition of appeal was untimely under
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) and adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL with modification to acknowledge that
petitioner’s claims regarding Garwood’s filing of a Superior Court lawsuit were timely, as they were
included in the petition of appeal and filed four days after the lawsuit was filed. However, all issues
regarding petitioner’s alleged conflict of interest and removal from the Garwood BOE were resolved
prior to the Commissioner’s consideration of the case herein and are therefore moot. Accordingly, the
petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. 01274-23
Agency Dkt. No. 11-1/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Salvatore Piarulli,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
Garwood, Union County, Board of Education
of the Township of Clark, Union County,
Tracey Roland, Timothy Ryan, Al DelConte,
Christine Gurriero, Vincent Basciano,
Adrienne Barnes, Jennifer Uva, April Farrell,
Tina Simitz, Linda Koenig, and
Maureen Crawford,
Respondents.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto by the
Garwood Board of Education (Garwood or Garwood BOE), have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner is a member of the Garwood BOE. Garwood sends its students to Clark
Township for high school. Pursuant to, Garwood is entitled to one representative on the Clark
Board of Education (Clark or Clark BOE). Petitioner was appointed as Garwood’s sending
district representative (SDR) on the Clark BOE in January 2022. On October 18, 2022, Garwood
voted to remove petitioner as its SDR.
309-23

2
On January 10, 2023, petitioner served Garwood with a Notice of Claim seeking $10
million dollars in damages based on an allegation that “[o]n October 18, 2022, Mr. Piarulli was
slandered and libeled”. On January 20, 2023, Garwood filed a complaint in Superior Court
seeking to remove petitioner from the Garwood BOE because the Notice of Claim created a
conflict of interest in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2. The Superior Court complaint was
dismissed to allow review by the Commissioner; Garwood then filed a petition of appeal
seeking petitioner’s removal from the Garwood BOE. That petition was transmitted to the OAL
as Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Garwood, Union Co. v. Salvatore Piarulli, Agency Dkt. No. 27-
2/23, EDU 01176-23. On February 13, 2023, petitioner agreed to withdraw his Notice of Claim,
and Garwood agreed to withdraw its petition.
In the meantime, petitioner filed the instant petition of appeal on January 24, 2023. The
petition sought relief relating to two issues. First, petitioner sought a determination that
Garwood’s removal of petitioner as SDR was ultra vires and void, and that, consequently, any
actions of the Clark BOE after October 18, 2022 were also null and void. Second, petitioner
sought a declaration that his Notice of Claim was primarily filed in the public interest, that
Garwood’s filing of the Superior Court lawsuit was ultra vires, and that petitioner may continue
to serve on the Garwood BOE provided that he recuses himself from any discussion regarding
his claim that occurs.
Following a motion to dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that
Garwood had the authority to remove petitioner as SDR and did not act ultra vires when it
voted to do so. The ALJ found that when petitioner filed his Notice of Claim, he was not
protecting any of the public’s rights but was asserting a monetary claim for his own benefit.

3
Finally, the ALJ concluded that the petition was filed beyond the 90-day time limit allowed by
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) and must be dismissed.
In his exceptions, petitioner argues that he was removed as SDR based on defamatory
allegations that he had violated the School Ethics Act, and that there is a factual dispute
regarding the issue of defamation which precludes summary decision. According to petitioner,
Garwood did not have the legal authority to remove him as SDR without filing a petition of
appeal, because only the Commissioner has jurisdiction over matters concerning the school
laws. Petitioner contends that the portion of his petition related to Garwood’s filing of the
Superior Court complaint was not untimely, because the petition was filed within 90 days of the
date the Board filed the Superior Court complaint. Petitioner also argues that his petition was
not untimely as to the rest of his claims, because Garwood engaged in a continuing tort and
was on notice of his claims prior to the expiration of the 90-day limitations period, based on his
January 10, 2023 Notice of Claim. Finally, petitioner argues that even if the 90-day limitations
period did expire, it should be tolled on equitable grounds.
In reply, Garwood argues that the ALJ correctly concluded that Garwood had the
authority to remove petitioner as SDR and that the petition of appeal was untimely.
Accordingly, Garwood urges the Commissioner to adopt the Initial Decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner’s claims regarding
his removal as SDR are untimely. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(d), the 90-day period for the
filing of an appeal to the Commissioner begins when the affected individuals have received
adequate notice. For the notice to be adequate, the individuals must have been alerted to the
existence of facts which gave rise to a cause of action. Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp.,

4
131 N.J. 572, 586-587 (1993). Petitioner was clearly on notice as of October 18, 2022, that he
had been removed as SDR. Accordingly, any petition related to that action should have been
filed on or before January 16, 2023, but the petition of appeal in this matter was not filed until
January 24, 2023.
The Commissioner rejects petitioner’s argument that Garwood was on notice that
petitioner intended to challenge his removal as SDR based on the January 10, 2023 Notice of
Claim. The Commissioner has previously held that the timeliness of a complaint in another
forum, in and of itself, has no bearing upon the timeliness of a petition under the Department
of Education’s regulations. A.S., o/b/o minor child, P.P. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Pinelands Regional
Sch. Dist., Ocean Cty., Commissioner Decision No. 411-09 (December 16, 2009). The purpose of
the time limitation is, in part, to serve as a measure of repose through which a board of
education can be secure, after the 90 days have elapsed, that its decisions will not be
challenged before the Commissioner. See, e.g., Kaprow, supra. This requirement cannot be
circumvented by serving a Notice of Claim, which is governed by rules that are completely
distinct from those governing controversies and disputes arising under the school laws over
which the Commissioner has jurisdiction.
The Commissioner also rejects petitioner’s argument that Garwood engaged in a pattern
of tortious conduct and therefore the 90-day limitations period runs from the latest action.
Initially, the action that petitioner claims continued the pattern was Garwood’s filing of the
Superior Court complaint. That filing occurred on January 20, 2023, after the time limit for
petitioner to challenge the October 18, 2022 vote that removed him as SDR had expired.
Moreover, the Commissioner finds that Garwood’s action in seeking petitioner’s removal from

5
the Board is separate and apart from its actions in removing him as SDR. Each action triggers
the start of its own 90-day limitations period, and any claims regarding the Superior Court
complaint cannot be used to excuse the late filing of petitioner’s claims regarding his removal
as SDR. Finally, the Commissioner concludes that there are no circumstances present that
warrant the relaxation of the 90-day rule. Accordingly, the Commissioner concludes that
petitioner’s claims regarding his removal as SDR are untimely and must be dismissed.1
However, the Commissioner finds that petitioner’s claims regarding Garwood’s filing of
the Superior Court lawsuit are timely, as they were included in the petition of appeal which was
filed only four days after the lawsuit was filed. Nonetheless, the Commissioner concludes that
these claims must be dismissed as moot. “Mootness is a threshold justiciability determination
rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be exercised only when a party is immediately
threatened with harm. A case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been
resolved, at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation. To restate, an issue is
moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the
existing controversy.” Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
The record reflects that the Superior Court complaint seeking petitioner’s removal from
the Garwood BOE has been dismissed, petitioner has withdrawn his Notice of Claim against
Garwood, and Garwood has withdrawn the petition of appeal seeking petitioner’s removal from
the Garwood BOE. Therefore, all issues regarding petitioner’s alleged conflict of interest and
1 Because the Commissioner has dismissed the claims related to petitioner’s removal as SDR based on
N.J.A.C. 6A:1-1.3(i), she does not reach the issue of whether Garwood’s actions in removing petitioner were
proper.

6
removal from the Garwood BOE have been resolved. Any opinion from the Commissioner
regarding the propriety of the parties’ actions would be merely advisory, with no practical
effect. These issues are, therefore, moot.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, as
modified herein. The petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 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.
October 18, 2023
October 19, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
AGENCY REF. NO.:11-1/23
SALVATORE PIARULLI,
Petitioner,
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF GARWOOD, UNION COUNTY,
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF CLARK, UNION COUNTY,
TRACEY ROLAND, ET ALS.,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
Ronald A. Berutti, Esq. for Petitioner ((Murray-Nolan, Berutti, LLC, attorneys)
Robert E. Levy, Esq. for Respondent (Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys)
BEFORE: JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Record Closed: April 21, 2023 	Decided: July 27, 2023
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In EDU 01274-23, Petitioner, Salvatore Piarulli (hereinafter “Piarulli”), challenges
Respondent, Garwood Board of Education’s (hereinafter the “Garwood BOE”) action

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
2
replacing 	him 	as 	Garwood 	BOE’s 	(a 	sending 	school 	district) 	Sending 	District
Representative (hereinafter, “SDR”) to the Clark Board of Education (hereinafter “Clark
BOE”, which is a receiving school district). 	Piarulli’s January 21, 2023, Petition to the
New Jersey Commissioner of Education is in two Counts and seeks the following relief:
(1) a determination that a resolution passed on October 18, 2022 by Board-I (a term
Piarulli uses to designate the Garwood BOE as constituted as of January, 2022)
removing him as Garwood’s SDR was ultra vires and void ab initio; (2) a determination
that after his 10/18/22 removal from the position of SDR, all actions of the Clark BOE
were null and void; (3) a declaration that Piarulli’s filing and service of a Notice of Tort
Claim on January 11, 2023 was primarily in the public interest; (4) a determination that
the lawsuit filed by Board-II (a term Piarulli uses to designate the Garwood BOE as
constituted after the November, 2022 Board of Education election) for the purpose of
removing him from membership on the Garwood BOE is ultra vires; (5) an award of
legal fees and costs; and (6) other further and reasonable relief.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 2, 2023, Mark Chiarocca, J.S.C., the Presiding Judge of the
Chancery 	Division, 	Union 	County, 	issued 	an 	Order 	dismissing 	without 	prejudice
Garwood BOE’s Verified Complaint (which had been filed on January 20, 2023) so as to
allow the Commissioner of Education to review the matter.
The 	Department 	of 	Education’s 	Office 	of 	Controversies 	and 	Disputes, 	on
February 	7, 	2023 	transmitted 	a 	matter 	filed 	by 	Garwood 	BOE 	to 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative Law, where it was filed on February 7, 2023 as a contested case
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13. It was captioned
Board of Education of the Borough of Garwood, Union County v. Salvatore Piarulli and
assigned OAL Docket Number EDU 01176-23. 	Later, by the agreement of the parties,
whereby Piarulli agreed to withdraw his Tort Claim Notice and the BOE agreed to
withdraw 	its 	petition 	in 	EDU 	01176-23, 	that 	matter 	was 	withdrawn 	during 	a
teleconference on Monday, February 13, 2023.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
3
On February 8, 2023, the Department of Education transmitted another matter,
this one filed by Piarulli, to the Office of Administrative Law, where it was filed on
February 8, 2023. This matter was assigned OAL Docket Number EDU 01274-23 and
captioned Salvatore Piarulli v. Borough of Garwood, Board of Education of the Borough
of Clark, Tracey Roland, Timothy Ryan, Al DelConte, Christine Gurriero, Vincent
Basciano, Adrienne Barnes, Jennifer Uva, April Farrell, Tina Simitz,Linda Koenig, and
Maureen Crawford.
On February 9, 2023 EDU 01176-23 and EDU 01274-23 were assigned to John
P. Scollo, ALJ. As noted above, during the February 13, 2023 telephone Conference,
EDU 01176-23 was withdrawn.
The matter now under consideration is a Motion, which Garwood BOE filed on
February 10, 2023. Garwood BOE seeks to dismiss Piarulli’s Petition filed under OAL
Docket Number 01274-23 (Agency Number 11-1/23). Garwood BOE bases it’s Motion
to Dismiss on two points. 	First, it contends that the Petition which Piarulli filed with the
Commissioner of Education on January 24, 2023 was filed beyond the 90-day time limit
allowed by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 and therefore is time-barred. Second, Garwood BOE also
contends that it has the authority to appoint or to remove any board member to / from
the position of Sending District Representative to the Clark BOE. 	Its vote on a
resolution to replace Piarulli as SDR took place on October 18, 2022 and was done
within its authority under N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d). 	Garwood BOE notes that not only was
the BOE’s October 18, 2022 action legal, but Piarulli does not cite any statutory or
regulatory basis on which to challenge the BOE’s action.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
In Piarulli’s Sur-Reply he provided a useful Timeline, which the Tribunal will
utilize, along with other chronological references in the parties’ submissions, to illustrate
the matter at hand. The chronology set forth below is not a verbatim account, but it sets
forth 	events, 	which 	the 	Tribunal 	deems 	particularly 	significant. 	The 	Tribunal 	will
intersperse pertinent facts and also the parties’ contentions / positions / interpretations
of laws and regulations throughout the following discussion.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
4
Timeline
November, 2021 and January, 2022
Piarulli was elected to the Garwood BOE in the November, 2021 election, he was
sworn-in in January, 2022. 	At the BOE’s reorganization meeting, the BOE appointed
him as Garwood’s Sending District Representative to the BOE of Clark pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2. 	Clark is where Garwood sends its high school students.
Throughout the course of this Initial Decision Garwood will be referred to as a “sending
district” and Clark will be referred to as a “receiving district”.
October 18, 2022
On October 18, 2022, Garwood BOE voted in favor of a resolution to replace
Piarulli as its SDR to the Clark BOE with another board member. Piarulli contends that
this was the result of defamatory statements and retaliation by the BOE’s president,
whom he claims is a “political rival”.
Piarulli states that sometime after the vote that replaced him as SDR he had a
conversation 	with 	Garwood 	BOE’s 	attorney 	(John 	G. 	Geppert). 	During 	that
conversation, he inquired about the legal basis for the BOE’s action. Piarulli states that
during that conversation Geppert responded by citing N.J.S.A. 18A: 38-8.1 and also
“Robert’s Rules of Order”. Piarulli believes that these authorities were insufficient bases
for replacing him and he concluded that the vote to replace him was therefore illegal.
N.J.A.C.. 6A:3-1.3 (i) sets forth a 90-day time limit for the filing of a Petition with
the Office of the Commissioner of Education, wherein a Petitioner seeks relief from an
action taken by a board of education. 	Thus, if Piarulli wanted to contest the BOE’s
October 18, 2022 action that removed him as the position of SDR, the 90-day limit for
filing a Petition, as measured from October 18, 2022, would expire on January 16, 2023.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
5
January 11, 2023
On January 11, 2023, Piarulli filed a Notice of Claim in which he seeks monetary
and non-monetary relief from the Garwood BOE. Piarulli maintains that his $10,000,000
monetary claim was a “placeholder” on the Notice of Claim form, but he admits that the
Notice of Claim does indeed seek monetary compensation for the tort of defamation.
However, he claims that his primary reason for filing the Notice of Claim was the public
interest. 	He claims that the public interest was violated on October 18, 2022 when the
BOE removed the people’s duly-elected Board member from the position of SDR to the
Clark BOE.
January 16, 2023, January 20, 2023 and January 24, 2023
January 16, 2023 marked ninety days from the date (October 18, 2022) that the
Garwood BOE voted to replace Piarulli as the SDR to the Clark BOE.
On January 20, 2023, the Garwood BOE filed a Verified Complaint and Order to
Show Cause in the Superior Court seeking to prevent Piarulli from serving on the
Garwood BOE in any capacity, i.e., to remove Piarulli from membership on the Garwood
BOE. 	The BOE’s reason for filing these papers was that Piarulli’s filing of the Notice of
Claim on January 11, 2023 put him into a conflict of interest with his BOE obligations
and thus mandated either his resignation from the BOE or his removal from the BOE
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 is entitled “Inconsistent Interests or
Office Prohibited”. 	It encompasses situations where a board member may have a
conflict of interest. 	On January 20, 2023, Judge Thomas Walsh granted the BOE’s
application for relief, issuing a Temporary Restraining Order against Piarulli, with the
proviso that Piarulli could move to vacate the restraints on two days’ notice.
On January 24, 2023, Piarulli filed his Petition with the Commissioner in which he
sought to overturn the resolution of October 18, 2022. 	January 24 th was eight days
beyond January 16th. 	Based on this fact, the BOE contends that Piarulli was late in
filing his Petition and therefore his Petition is time-barred and, as such, should be
dismissed. 	However, Piarulli contends that his Petition complains not only about the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
6
BOE’s action dated October 18, 2022, but also complains about the BOE’s continuing
tortious and illegal actions taken against him up to and including January 20, 2023 when
Garwood BOE filed a Verified Complaint and Order to Cause in Superior Court seeking
to oust Piarulli from membership on the Garwood BOE. Thus, Piarulli’s response to
Garwood BOE’s time-limit argument is that the ninety-day time limit actually started to
run from January 20, 2023 (with a consequent ninety-day time limit ending on April 20,
2023). 	Piarulli 	notes 	that 	the 	January 	24, 	2023 	filing 	of 	his 	Petition 	with 	the
Commissioner would be well within the time limit.
Piarulli, 	citing 	New 	Jersey’s 	acceptance 	of 	the 	Continuing 	Tort 	Doctrine,
contends that Garwood BOE has engaged in continuing tortious conduct against him,
which culminated on January 20, 2023 when it filed the Verified Complaint and Order To
Show Cause to have him removed from his membership on the BOE. 	The Garwood
BOE points out that Piarulli filed a Notice of Claim on January 11, 2023 in which he
sought $10,000,000 from the BOE as compensatory damages for alleged defamation.
The BOE contends that it filed the Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint on
January 20, 2023 because, if Piarulli were to remain on the Garwood BOE while the
question of his conflict of interest remained an open question, his presence would
interfere with the BOE’s ability to function. 	Thus Garwood BOE contends that it was
required by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 to take immediate action. 	Both sides agree that the text
of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 states that no member of a Board of Education may serve or
continue to serve on a BOE if he has a direct or indirect interest in a claim against the
BOE. 	Thus, Garwood BOE contends that Piarulli refused to resign and that its filing of
the January 20, 2023 Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause was a necessity
required by the law and was not a tortious act.
Piarulli admits that he filed the Notice of Claim on January 11, 2023 in which he
seeks non-monetary relief and a claim for money damages from the BOE. While Piarulli
admits that his $10,000,000 claim does indeed say that he seeks compensation for the
tort of defamation, the $10,000,000 figure was a mere placeholder on a form and that
his primary reason for filing the Notice of Claim was to protect the public’s 	interest in
having its duly-elected BOE member continue to serve in a capacity to which he was
appointed by the BOE (i.e., serving as the BOE’s SDR).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
7
January 24, 2023
On January 24, 2023 Piarulli, responding to Garwood BOE’s Verified Complaint
and Order to Show Cause, filed his own Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause in
Superior Court, Union County, Chancery Division alleging that the BOE’s actions were
illegal and seeking to vacate the January 20, 2023 Temporary Restraining Order issued
by Judge Walsh and to dismiss Garwood’s Verified Complaint.
February 2, 2023
On February 2, 2023, Mark P. Ciarrocca,, P.J. Cv., Union County Superior Court,
observing 	that 	neither 	N.J.S.A. 	18A: 	6-9 	nor 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-2 	state 	that 	the
Commissioner of Education has the exclusive jurisdiction [to decide the controversy], an
administrative remedy was nevertheless available. Judge Ciarrocca therefore dissolved
the temporary restraints set forth in Judge Walsh’s January 20, 2023 Order and
dismissed 	Garwood 	BOE’s 	Verified 	Complaint 	so 	as 	to 	allow 	review 	by 	the
Commissioner of Education, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.
The above-stated timeline of events and the recitation of the facts as set forth
above is consistent with the parties’ submissions. The Tribunal, having read all the
submissions thoroughly, believes it has set forth all the facts of consequence and
considers additional nuances and interpretations of facts as inconsequential.
EXPOSITION OF THE ISSUES, ANALYSIS OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS, and
FINDINGS OF FACT
The analysis of the parties’ positions in this matter must begin with an exposition
(in the form of questions) of the issues presented.
The questions presented in this matter are as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
8
(1) 	Under all relevant legal authorities, did the Garwood BOE have the authority to
appoint, 	remove, 	or 	replace 	one 	of 	its 	members 	as 	its 	Sending 	District
Representative?
(2) 	Was the Garwood BOE’s removal of Piarulli as Sending District Representative
and its replacement of Piarulli with another BOE member legal?
(3) 	Was Piarulli’s filing of his Petition to the Commissioner of Education on January
11, 2023 timely?
Question Number 1: Under all relevant legal authorities, did the Garwood BOE have the
authority to appoint, remove, or replace one of its members as its Sending District
Representative?
Piarulli’s Position
It is Piarulli’s position that Garwood BOE lacked the authority to remove him from
the position of Sending District Representative and did not have the authority to replace
him as the SDR. 	Piarulli contends that he could only be removed from the position of
SDR by the Commissioner and then only after he is afforded a hearing. 	Piarulli
contends that the BOE’s action on October 18, 2022 was politically motivated and /or
done for unethical reasons.
Piarulli also contends that his filing of the Notice of Claim was done primarily to
protect the public interest. His argument is that this is the type of situation that calls for
the type of “close factual analysis” mentioned in Board of Education of Sea Isle City v.
Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1 (2008) and which should not require his removal from office.
Comment by the Tribunal
The Statute that gives a BOE the authority to appoint one of its members to the position
of SDR is N.J.S.A. 18A:38.1 and 38.2. (See APPLICABLE LAW section for text.) 	The
statutes state that the local BOE has the authority to appoint one of its members to the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
9
position of SDR, that it should do so at its organizational meeting, and that the
appointment is limited to one year. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:38.1 and 38.2 are silent about the
subject of removing or replacing the SDR. 	Nothing in the statute states or implies that
the local BOE is unable to remove or replace the person it has appointed as SDR.
The BOE’s Position
The Garwood BOE recognizes that the Commissioner, per N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, has
jurisdiction over all controversies and disputes arising under the school laws. 	The
Garwood BOE’s position is that N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 gives local BOE’s certain powers and
authority regarding self-governance. 	In particular, Garwood cites 18A:11-1 (d) as
granting a local BOE the authority to “Perform all acts and do all things consistent with
law and the rules of the state board, necessary for the lawful and proper conduct … of
the public schools of the district.” 	Thus, a BOE may remove a member whom it
previously appointed as SDR from the position of SDR in its discretion.
Comment by the Tribunal
Garwood’s point would be that just as the local board has the authority to enact,
amend, or repeal its own by-laws, or to hire, replace or discharge providers of goods or
professional services, etcetera, it has the right to appoint, in its own discretion, which
member shall represent the BOE in the position of SDR. 	Although N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.2
states that the SDR’s term is limited to one year, companion statutes demonstrate
circumstances where the SDR serves less than a full year. 	An instance of such a
situation is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A: 38-8.2(c) which provides for the “rotation” of people
in the position of SDR.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO QUESTION ONE
I agree with Judge Ciarrocca’s observation, as stated in his February 2, 2023
Order, that neither N.J.S.A. 18A: 6-9 nor N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 confer exclusive jurisdiction
on the Commissioner of Education over the present controversy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
10
I FIND that the Statutes that give a BOE the authority to appoint one of its
members to the position of SDR are N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2. (See APPLICABLE
LAW section for text.) I FIND that these statutes state that the local BOE has the
authority to appoint one of its members to the position of SDR, that it should do so at its
organizational meeting, and that the appointment is limited to one year. 	I FIND that
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 38.2 are silent about the subject of removing or replacing an
SDR. Nothing in the statutes state or imply that a local BOE is unable to remove or
replace a person it has appointed as an SDR. 	I FIND that this silence means that the
power to appoint implies a correlative power to remove or replace.
This Tribunal recognizes that local BOEs are creatures of the State and may
exercise 	only 	those powers 	granted 	to 	it by 	the 	Legislature either 	expressly, by
necessity, or by fair implication. Atlantic City Educational Ass’n v. Board of Educ. of the
City of Atlantic City, 299 N.J. Super. 649, 691 (App. Div. 1997), certification denied, 152
N.J. 192. 	I FIND that the principle of self-governance set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 is
obviously a grant of authority from the Legislature.
I FIND that there is no disagreement between the parties that BOE members are
elected by the voters of the school district. 	In regard to the provisions contained in
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2, I FIND that committee assignments, chairmanships, and
other designations are made by the BOE members themselves, not by the voters.
I FIND that the elected position of Board Member differs from the appointed
position of SDR. I FIND that the appointment of a BOE member to the position of SDR
is not something that the voters decide; it is one that the BOE members themselves
decide collectively as a board in the exercise of their own discretion.
Piarulli’s argument appears to be that his filing of the Notice of Claim protected
the public’s right to have him complete his one-year term as SDR, and as such should
be afforded a fact-sensitive analysis under Kennedy. 	I FIND that there is no such right
because N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2 clearly demonstrate that the BOE, not the voters,
appoint the SDRs.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
11
The Tribunal is aware of Piarulli’s claim that the BOE’s action on October 18,
2022 was politically motivated and / or was done for unethical reasons. 	I FIND that
these are allegations of unethical conduct by BOE members. As such, I FIND that they
are not matters arising under the school laws.
Question Number 2: 	Was the Garwood BOE’s removal of Piarulli as Sending District
Representative and its replacement of Piarulli with another BOE member legal?
(See Analysis and Findings set forth for Question One.)
Question 	Number 	3: 	Was 	Piarulli’s 	filing 	of 	his 	Petition 	to 	the 	Commissioner 	of
Education on January 11, 2023 timely?
Piarulli’s Position
The vote to remove Piarulli as SDR was taken on October 18, 2023. Ninety days
later would be January 16, 2023. 	Piarulli filed his Petition on January 24, 2023.
January 24, 2023 was eight (8) days beyond the allowable time limit as measured from
the October 18, 2023 vote. However, Piarulli contends that Garwood BOE’s filing of the
Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause on January 20, 2023 was a tortious act.
Piarulli’s argument is based on the Continuing Tort Doctrine. 	The Continuing Tort
Doctrine is recognized in New Jersey. As stated in Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 158 N.J.
263, 272 (1999),
When an individual is subject to a continual, cumulative
pattern of tortious conduct, the statute of limitations does not
begin to run until the wrongful action ceases.
Thus, the Continuing Tort Doctrine is a principle of law that recognizes that when
tortious behavior continues or repeats over a prolonged period of time, that course of
conduct should be treated as a whole such that the statute of limitations will not begin to
run until the course of conduct ends.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
12
Piarulli contends that Garwood BOE’s tortious act on January 20, 2023 (the filing
date of the Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause) was part and parcel of the
BOE’s earlier unethical and tortious conduct on October 18, 2022. 	Therefore, Piarulli
argues, 	under 	the 	Continuing 	Tort 	Doctrine 	the 	“clock”, 	the 	ninety-day 	limit 	of
N.J.A.C.6A:1-1.3(i), must be re-set from October 18, 2022 to April 20, 2023. 	Since the
clock was re-set by Garwood’s continuing tortious action, his filing of his Petition on
January 24, 2023 was well within the ninety-day time limit and therefore cannot be
adjudicated to have been filed late.
Piarulli contends that Garwood BOE’s filing of a Verified Complaint and Order to
Show Cause on January 24, 2023 to remove him from the BOE was part of a continuing
series of tortious actions instigated by people with unethical and political motives.
Garwood BOE’s Position
In its argument, Garwood BOE looks to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2, which provides that
no BOE member shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in a claim against the BOE.
Garwood BOE maintains that the meaning of this statute is that when a BOE member
has a conflict of interest with the BOE, he cannot continue to serve on the BOE. 	He
must choose between discontinuing the claim or resigning from the BOE. 	The statute
also means that if he does not discontinue the claim, and will not resign from the BOE,
then the BOE must remove him.
Garwood BOE contends that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Claim against the
BOE on January 11, 2023, his own monetary interest (his assertion of a claim for money
damages 	against 	Garwood 	BOE) 	instantly 	conflicted 	with 	his 	duty 	to 	uphold 	the
interests of Garwood BOE. Garwood BOE stated that Piarulli refused to resign from the
BOE, thus forcing it to take action to remove him from the BOE. 	So, Garwood argues
that when it filed its Verified Petition and Order to Show Cause to remove Piarulli from
Garwood BOE, it was actually fulfilling its duty to protect the interests of the BOE and
was not engaging in any unethical, tortious, or illegal activity. That is to say, its filing of
the Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause was not even a tortious act.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
13
So, logically, there can be no continuing tortious activity. 	Therefore, argues Garwood,
the Continuing Tort Doctrine is not applicable to the matter at bar.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACTS AS TO QUESTION THREE
On the issue of timeliness, I FIND that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 requires that when a
BOE member is in a conflict situation, he must either abandon the claim that has placed
him into a conflict with his BOE duties or he must either resign or face removal. I FIND
that Garwood BOE filed the Verified Complaint and Order To Show Cause on January
20, 2023 because Piarulli refused to resign and because it was indeed duty-bound
under the statute to take immediate action to remove him from the BOE due to the
conflict of interest created by his filing of the Notice of Claim on January 11, 2023.
As noted above, Piarulli alleges that Garwood BOE’s filing of the Verified
Complaint and Order to Show Cause on January 20, 2023 was a tortious act. 	I FIND
that Garwood BOE’s filing of the Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause on
January 20, 2023 was not a tortious act. The only other tortious acts Piarulli alleges are
(1) defamation (which allegedly occurred on or before October 18, 2022, for which
Piarulli has presented no evidence beyond his mere allegation, and which is an issue
beyond the jurisdiction of the OAL) and (2) Garwood BOE’s vote to remove Piarulli as
the SDR on October 18, 2022. 	I FIND that there was no other tortious act that would
support the application of the Continuing Tort Doctrine. 	Since the October 18, 2022
vote was the only other act on which Piarulli could base his Petition, then the N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3(i)’s ninety-day time limit applies. 	The vote to remove Piarulli as SDR was
taken on October 18, 2022. 	Ninety days later would be January 16, 2023. 	Piarulli filed
his Petition on January 24, 2023. 	January 24, 2023 was eight (8) days beyond the
allowable time limit. 	I therefore FIND that Piarulli’s Petition was filed beyond the
allowable time limit.
APPLICABLE LAW
For the matter at bar the applicable Statutes and Regulations are:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
14
(1) 	N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9;
(2) 	N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2;
(3) 	N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d);
(4) 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2;
(5) 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-3; and
(6) 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 (i).
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 states, in applicable part,
The 	commissioner 	shall 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
determine, without cost to the parties, all controversies and
disputes 	arising 	under 	the 	school 	laws, 	excepting 	those
governing higher education, or under the rules of the state
board or of the commissioner. For the purposes of this Title,
controversies and disputes concerning the conduct of school
elections shall not be deemed to arise under the school
laws.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 states, in applicable part,
In addition to the members of the board of education of a
Type I and Type II school district provided by law, in a school
district which is receiving pupils from 	another district or
districts pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8, there shall be an
additional member as provided pursuant to section 2 of this
act, to represent the board of education of each sending
district. Any additional member shall be a member of the
board of education of a sending district designated annually
by the board of that district and shall be eligible to vote on
the following matters before the receiving district board of
education:
(The four types of matters set forth as “a” through “d”, have
been omitted as irrelevant to the matter before this Tribunal.)
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.2 states, in applicable part,
A school district which is sending pupils to another school
district 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:38-8 	shall 	have
representation on the board of education of the receiving
school district as follows:
(a) 	[omitted by the Tribunal];

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
15
(b;c) 	[omitted by the Tribunal, except to note that these
sections provide for the rotation of SDRs]
(d) 	A representative of a sending board of education shall
be designated at the meeting of the board which is closest in
time to the annual organizational meeting of the receiving
district board of education and shall serve a one-year term
beginning with the organizational meeting of the receiving
district board. The representative shall be subject to the
rules 	and 	procedures 	of 	the 	receiving 	district 	board 	of
education.
(e) 	[omitted by the Tribunal].
N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d) states:
The board shall –
a. 	Adopt an official seal;
b. 	Enforce the rules of the state board;
c. 	Make, amend and repeal rules, not inconsistent with his title
or with the rules of the state board, for its own government
and the transaction of its business and for the government
and management of the public schools and public school
property of the district and for the employment, regulation of
conduct and discharge of its employees, subject, where
applicable, to the provisions of Title 11, Civil Service, of the
Revised Statutes; and
d. 	Perform all acts and do all things, consistent with law and
the rules of the state board, necessary for the lawful and
proper conduct, equipment and maintenance of the public
schools of the district.
N.J.S.A. 18a:12-2 states:
No member of a board of education shall be interested
directly or indirectly in any contract with or any claim against
the board, nor, in the case of local and regional school
districts, shall he hold office as mayor or as a member of the
governing body of a municipality, nor in the case of county
special 	services 	school 	districts 	and 	county 	vocational
school districts, shall he hold office as a member of the
governing body of a county.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
16
N.J.S.A. 18a:12-3 states, in applicable part:
Whenever 	a 	member 	of 	a 	local 	or 	regional 	board 	of
education shall cease to be a bona fide resident of the
district, or of any constituent district of a consolidated or
regional district which he represents, or shall become mayor
or a member of the governing body of a municipality, his
membership in the board shall immediately cease; and, any
member who fails to attend three consecutive meetings of
the board without good cause may be removed by it.
N.J.A.C.6A:3-1.3 (i) states, in applicable part,
The petitioner shall file a petition no later than the 90 th day
from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling,
or other action by the district board of education, individual
party, 	or 	agency, 	that 	is 	the 	subject 	of 	the 	requested
contested 	case 	hearing. 	This 	rule 	shall 	not 	apply 	in
instances where a specific statute, regulation, or court order
provides for a period of limitation shorter than ninety days for
the filing of a particular type of appeal.
In Board of Educ. of Sea Isle City v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1 (2008) a Board of
Education member (the President of the BOE) and his wife had an autistic child for
whom they sought an IEP. 	Litigation ensued between the Kennedys and the school
district. Kennedy voluntarily resigned from the BOE. The parties reached a settlement.
The following year, Kennedy was again elected to the BOE. Claiming that the school
district 	had 	violated 	the 	settlement 	agreement, 	Mrs. 	Kennedy 	filed 	applications
requesting a due process hearing and an emergent hearing seeking various relief,
including payment for services which Mrs. Kennedy provided for her son, attorney’s
fees, expert’s fees, costs, and expenses. The school district sought a declaratory ruling
from the Commissioner that the applications created a conflict of interest, which was
incompatible with Mr. Kennedy’s continued BOE membership. The matter was referred
to the Office of Administrative Law, where an ALJ issued a decision finding that Mr.
Kennedy’s conduct was permissible under the School Ethics Act (N.J.S.A. 18A: 12-21 to
-34 because Kennedy’s due process request was designed to protect the educational
rights of his child and was permitted by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(j), which allows a school
official to represent himself or his immediate family member concerning his / their own

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
17
interests. 	Nonetheless, 	the 	Commissioner 	rejected 	the 	ALJ’s 	recommendation,
determined that Kennedy’s actions created a disqualifying conflict of interest under
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 and ordered Kennedy’s removal from the BOE. 	The State Board of
Education affirmed the removal. The Appellate Division also affirmed the removal.
The Supreme Court undertook the task of harmonizing the N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2
and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A: 	12-24j. 	In 	Kennedy, 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	held 	that 	not 	all
controversies and disputes between parents and school districts should require a sitting
board member’s removal from office. 	The Court emphasized that what was needed
was a fact-sensitive analysis in each individual case to determine whether the BOE
member’s interest constitutes a substantial conflict requiring his removal from office as
the sole remedy. 	The Court noted that not all claims result in a substantial conflict.
Because of this, the Court considers all factors such as whether the BOE member is
pursuing a claim in the public interest or whether he is pursuing a claim for his own
aggrandizement or financial gain. 	The Court expressed its concern that BOE members
who have handicapped children should not have to fear the loss of their elected office in
the event that they question or challenge the appropriateness of their own children’s
education. 	The Supreme Court concluded that a BOE member should not be removed
from office merely because he has advanced any claim “in a proceeding” against a
school district involving the member’s or an immediate family member’s interests.
However, in the Kennedy case, because the due process claim included a request for
monetary relief, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division, as
modified therein.
The upshot of Kennedy case is that the Supreme Court held that removal should
not be automatic, but rather should be appraised on a close factual analysis on a case-
by-case basis. 	The Court would consider whether there is a substantial, disqualifying
conflict of interest identified by the type of claim (one motivated by the desire to
advance the benefit of the public at large versus one motivated, even in part, for
personal aggrandizement or for financial reasons) or by the type of proceeding, i.e.,
whether it was brought under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 or under the School Ethics Act,
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 to -34. 	The Court made it clear in Kennedy, that when the Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
18
member has a financial interest in the claim, then he has a conflict of interest.
Therefore, he cannot continue to remain on the BOE and he can be removed.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING QUESTION ONE
Having found that N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2 authorize a local BOE to appoint,
remove and replace SDRs, I CONCLUDE that Garwood BOE had the authority to
remove someone it had previously appointed from the position of SDR.
Having found that N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d) grants self-governance to local BOEs, it
follows, and I CONCLUDE , pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2
and of N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d) and of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-3, that Garwood BOE had the
authority, in its discretion, to appoint, remove, and replace any member serving as an
SDR. 	I CONCLUDE that Garwood BOE did not act ultra vires when it voted to remove
Piarulli from the position of SDR. I CONCLUDE that Garwood BOE’s removal of Piarulli
from the position of SDR was legal. 	Having been legally removed from the position of
SDR, I CONCLUDE that Piarulli has no further right to serve as SDR.
Having found that inasmuch as the position of SDR is a position that the BOE
makes in its own discretion, I CONCLUDE that a BOE does not need “cause” to remove
the SDR from that position. I further CONCLUDE that Piarulli did not have a right, in the
name of the public interest, to continue to serve the entire full year of his appointment
as SDR, but only served as SDR at the discretion of the Garwood BOE.
I CONCLUDE that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Claim he was not protecting
any of the public’s rights. 	I CONCLUDE that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Claim he
asserted a monetary claim for his own benefit.
Having found that Piarulli’s allegations that Garwood BOE’s vote on October 18,
2022 was the result of political chicanery (i.e., unethical conduct), I CONCLUDE that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01274-23
19
primary jurisdiction over such matters would not lie with the Commissioner of Education,
but with the School Ethics Commission.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING QUESTION TWO
Having CONCLUDED that Garwood has the authority to appoint, remove, and
replace members to and from the position of SDR, it follows, and I CONCLUDE that
Garwood’s removal of Piarulli from the position of SDR was legal and I CONCLUDE
that its appointment of another of its members to the position of SDR was legal.
CONCLUSION REGARDING QUESTION THREE
Having found that Piarulli’s Petition was filed beyond the allowable time limit, I
CONCLUDE that his Petition must be dismissed pursuant to the time limit set forth in
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
ORDERS
Pursuant to the foregoing conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition
filed by Piarulli on January 24, 2023 is time-barred and must be DISMISSED with
prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that this ORDER shall be served upon the parties
via email and said parties shall acknowledge receipt of same within seven (7) days.
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. EDU 01274-23
20
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.
July 27, 2023
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db