302-25 | Omnilex

Full text

302-25
OAL Dkt. Nos. 14776-24, 14924-24, and 14925-24 (Consolidated)
Agency Dkt. Nos. 292-9/24, 293-9/24, and 294-9/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Dominic Pugliese,
Petitioner,
v.
Dr. 	Kim 	Gruccio, 	Superintendent, 	Board 	of
Education of the Township of Egg Harbor, Atlantic
County,
Respondent.
AND
Dominic Pugliese,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Egg
Harbor, Atlantic County,
Respondent.
AND
Dominic Pugliese,
Petitioner,
v.
Patrick 	Ireland, 	Board 	Member, 	Board 	of
Education of the Township of Egg Harbor, Atlantic
County,
Respondent.

2
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto filed by
respondents have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner operates a non-profit, Bags Against Bullies (BAB), that previously donated items to
the Egg Harbor Board of Education (Board) at no cost to the Board, in connection with a kindness or
empathy initiative implemented in some schools in the district.1 In 2024, the Board decided to no
longer accept donations from BAB. In response, petitioner sought a meeting before the Board
pursuant to Board Policy 9130, which states, “A matter that cannot be resolved informally may be
appealed at successive levels of authority, up to and including the Board of Education.” On August
22, 2024, the Board’s Business Administrator, Daniel Smith, informed petitioner that the Board had
responded to his appeal request. An appeal was scheduled before an ad-hoc committee. Petitioner
requested the names of the individuals on the ad-hoc committee and anyone else who would be
attending the meeting. Petitioner also inquired about remote attendance. Smith responded with
the name of the ad-hoc committee members, which included the superintendent of schools. On
August 29, 2024, petitioner sent an email to the Board informing them that he was abandoning his
appeal.
On September 6, 2024, Petitioner filed three petitions with the Office of Controversies and
Disputes, which were later consolidated at the OAL. Petitioner challenges the actions respondents
have taken regarding BAB. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, contending that petitioner has
failed to state a cause of action over which the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction.
Respondents further contended that, on its face, the petition does not set forth a basis for relief. The
1 There is no indication in the petition or Motion to Dismiss that Bags Against Bullies had a contractual
relationship with the Board.

3
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted respondents’ motion to dismiss, deeming the matter moot
given the lack of a clear and direct petition, and petitioner’s unrefuted statement that he had
abandoned his appeal before the Board.
Petitioner takes exception to the ALJ’s factual finding that “District administration made a
decision at some point to not accept the nonprofit’s donations in 2024, though the District continued
to implement its related initiatives.” Initial Decision at 3. Petitioner argues that the Board did not
permit the use of BAB’s donations or its related initiatives. Petitioner contends that the Initial
Decision failed to include important emails and information such as petitioner’s request that BAB
members be afforded remote access to the meeting before the ad-hoc committee. Petitioner further
contends that the Initial Decision should have included an explanation as to why petitioner
abandoned his appeal before the Board. Petitioner explains that he abandoned his grievance because
the Board denied (1) his request for remote access to the meeting to accommodate certain BAB
members and (2) his request that Superintendent, Dr. Kim Gruccio, be excluded from the appeal
process. Lastly, petitioner takes exception to the consolidation of the cases, which he alleges “may
have limited the ability to provide relief.” Petitioner requests a chance to speak with Board members
about issues concerning the school district.
In reply, respondents contend that petitioner’s exceptions have no bearing on the ALJ’s
ultimate conclusion that the matter was ripe for dismissal. Respondent further contend that
petitioner has advanced no cognizable claim against the Board or Dr. Gruccio. Respondents argue
that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the alleged ethical violations of respondent, Patrick
Ireland, and contend that petitioner should have pursued those issues through the School Ethics
Commission. Respondents also contend that the petitions were ripe for dismissal as untimely under
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 because petitioner became aware of Board’s decision to no longer accept BAB

4
donations in February or March of 2024, and the petitions were filed in September of 2024. Lastly,
respondents argue that consolidation saved petitioner’s claims against Dr. Gruccio and Mr. Ireland
from dismissal from failing to name the Board as an indispensable party.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ – for the reasons stated in the Initial
Decision – that given the unrefuted statement that petitioner abandoned his appeal before the Board
and considering the lack of a clear and direct petition, respondents’ request for dismissal should be
granted. The Commissioner is not persuaded by petitioner’s exceptions. To start, Petitioner does
not challenge the ALJ’s finding that he abandoned his appeal before the Board; rather petitioner takes
exception to the ALJ’s omission of the reasons why petitioner made said choice. Petitioner fails to
show how including this information in the ALJ’s fact findings would have impacted the ALJ’s decision
to grant dismissal. Furthermore, petitioner alleges that the consolidation of the matters may have
limited the ability to provide relief but offers no further explanation or facts to support his claim. As
the ALJ correctly noted, petitioner’s contention in these matters is not clear. Petitioner advances no
cognizable claim under the school laws and as such, the matter should be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition
of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: June 13, 2025
Date of Mailing: June 16, 2025
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION TO DISMISS
DOMINIC PUGLIESE, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14776-24
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 292-9/24
v.
DR. KIM GRUCCIO, SUPERINTENDANT,
AND THE TOWNSHIP OF EGG HARBOR,
BOARD OF EDUCATION, ATLANTIC COUNTY,
Respondents,
AND
DOMINIC PUGLIESE, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14924-24
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 294-9/24
v.
TOWNSHIP OF EGG HARBOR BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ATLANTIC COUNTY,
Respondent,
AND
DOMINIC PUGLIESE, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14925-24
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 293-9/24
v.
PATRICK IRELAND, BOARD MEMBER,
TOWNSHIP OF EGG HARBOR BOARD OF 	(CONSOLIDATED)
EDUCATION, ATLANTIC COUNTY,
Respondents.
Dominic Pugliese, petitioner, pro se

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
2
Amy Houck Elco, Esq., for respondents, Patrick Ireland, Dr. Kim Gruccio, and
Township of Egg Harbor, Board of Education (Cooper Levinson, P.A.,
attorney)
Record Closed: January 22, 2025 Decided: March 21, 2025
BEFORE CARL V. BUCK III, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Dominic Pugliese (Pugliese or petitioner), challenges the action(s) of
respondents Dr. Kim Gruccio, Superintendent (Gruccio or Superintendent), Patrick
Ireland, Board Member (Ireland or Member) and Township of Egg Harbor Board of
Education (Board or BOE), in their individual capacities taken in regard to what is
characterized as a “local anti-bullying charity”. Petitioner filed three actions as captioned
above with the State of New Jersey, Department of Education (DOE or State). As these
matters arise from similar facts and circumstances, the matters were consolidated by
ORDER issued March 21, 2025.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The matters stem from three complaints the petitioner filed with the DOE; all filed
on September 6, 2024. DOE transmitted the matters to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13, where they
were filed on October 8, 2024, and October 9, 2024, respectively, for determination as
contested cases. Prehearing conferences were held with the parties during which,
counsel for respondents indicated they wished to file a motion to dismiss petitioner’s
complaints. Pursuant to a briefing schedule established with the parties, respondents’
motion was filed on December 20, 2024. Petitioner’s response to respondents’ motion
was received. The parties requested oral argument on the motion which was held via the
ZOOM platform on January 14, 2025. After oral argument on the motion, the parties were

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
3
afforded the opportunity to make a supplemental submission. Respondents made such
submission on January 21, 2025. Petitioner made such submission on January 21, 2025.
The record then closed on January 22, 2025.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
As the following facts are undisputed, I FIND the following FACTS:
1. Petitioner operates a non-profit that previously donated items to the District (at no
cost for to the District) in return in connection with a kindness or empathy initiative
implemented in some District schools.
2. District administration made a decision at some point to not accept the nonprofit’s
donations in 2024, though the District continued to implement its related initiatives.
3. After the administration’s decision not to accept his donations, petitioner sought a
meeting before the Board pursuant to Board Policy 9130.
4. Board Policy 9130 provides, in relevant part: “A matter that cannot be resolved
informally may be appealed at successive levels of authority, up to and including
the Board of Education.”
5. On August 22, 2024, the Board’s business administrator, Daniel Smith, advised
petitioner that the Board responded to petitioner’s appeal request. An appeal was
scheduled before an ad-hoc committee.
6. In a response, dated August 23, 2024, petitioner asked for the names of the
members of the ad-hoc committee who would be hearing his appeal, and whether
anyone else would be attending the meeting and those attending remotely.

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
4
7. 	Smith replied, naming the members of the committee and additional individuals
who would be in attendance, including himself, the superintendent of schools, and
the Board’s attorney.
8. 	Smith also notified petitioner that the committee would report back to the full Board
at the September 17, 2024, Board meeting.
9. 	By email, dated August 29, 2024, petitioner advised the full Board that he was
abandoning his grievance.
10. On or about September 6, 2024, petitioner filed three appeals with OCD each
stating a basis for the appeal.
11. EEC 14776-24 states:
It seems the EHT school district didn’t like that we were
offering to talk to parents about bullying. 	Since then we’ve
been targeted for the last 6 months, private communication
was distributed, and now I have a frivolous harassment
charge from a school board member. 	The school district is
trying to use a lawsuit to silence us and get us to back down
(bullet points in attachment).
We’re still requesting a timeline and specific reasoning for the
‘partnership’ being terminated. They took our donations after
saying this would be a long standing arrangement then
immediately told the principals to disseminate to the staff not
to use them. 	Additionally the school superintendent should
not be divulging information from a private meeting with a
school board member who then files a harassment charge the
same day. The schools should be better than this.
12. EEC 14924-24 states:
The EHT Board of Education is not currently acting in the best
interest of the community. We’ve had an ongoing dispute with
the school district (as documented in a separate petition of
appeal) to which they’ve been made aware. 	I requested
multiple meetings per a policy we have and once one was
granted they refused to meet without the superintendent

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
5
present which seems counterintuitive to the whole purpose of
the appeal since her lack of actions are what was to be
discussed. 	Our 	initial 	intent 	to 	be 	heard 	by 	the board
members that the community elects would be great. 	The
school district is going to great lengths to keep us silent
regarding concerns around bullying in the district. Hearing out
these 	issues, 	along 	with 	providing 	direction 	to 	the
superintendent to respond to our complaint and resolution
regarding 	our 	donations 	would 	be 	awesome 	for 	our
organization.
13. EEC 14925-24 states:
Mr. Ireland is using his position as an EHT BOE member to
take action against our 	organization and file 	a frivolous
harassment complaint. 	In addition he was given information
by our superintendent from a private meeting that he then took
and filed a harassment charge the same day. 	He’s used his
“authority” as a board member to have me escorted away from
a public board meeting even though I had no communication
with him, sat in the back, and didn’t speak at the meeting. Mr.
Ireland should be removed from the Board of Education both
in EHT and Atlantic County due to his actions. He’s subjected
himself to numerous code of ethics violations (which will be in
a separate complaint with the NJ School Ethics Commission)
in 	his 	dealings 	with 	the 	school 	administration 	by 	taking
personal action to compromise the board, getting directly
involved with activities/ functions that are the responsibility of
school personnel, and filing police reports in attempts to
silence our organization from looking into school issues.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The first issue is whether the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and the
OAL have jurisdiction to rule on school board controversies challenging the actions of a
board administrator or a member of a board and actions they may or may not have taken.
The Commissioner has jurisdiction over all disputes arising under school laws.

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
6
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.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.]
Respondents seek dismissal of petitioner’s appeals as “the petitioner has
advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner’s factual allegations are accepted as
true or for lack of jurisdiction, failure to prosecute, or other good reason.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.5(g); N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. Further, “the petition on its face fails to set forth a basis for
relief”. Sloan ex rel. Sloan v. Klagholtz, 342 N.J. Super. 385, 394 (App. Div. 2001).
The School Ethics Act (SEA) (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq.) is intended to ensure
that the conduct of school officials holds the respect and confidence of the people. SEA
defines “school officials” as school board members, school administrators, charter school
trustees, charter school administrators, and New Jersey School Boards Association
officers and professional staff. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23 and 23.1. Through the SEA, the
Legislature declared that school officials must avoid conduct which is in violation of their
public trust or which creates a justifiable impression that the public trust is being violated.
Fisher v. Hamilton, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS at *11-12 (App. Div. July 12, 2013).
Additionally, the Legislature determined that school administrators should “have the
benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct and of some disciplinary mechanism
to ensure the uniform maintenance of those standards among them.” N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
22(b). To accomplish its objectives, the Legislature established standards for conflicts of
interest, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24, and of ethical conduct, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1, by which all
school officials must abide. Among these standards, the SEA sets forth a Code of Ethics
(N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) through (j)), which applies to school Board members and charter
school trustees.
A pro se petition for appeal with the Commissioner of Education must include “a
statement of the specific allegation(s) and essential facts supporting the specific
allegation(s) that have given rise to a dispute pursuant to the school laws.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.4(a)-(b) (emphasis added); Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
7
N.J. 739, 746, 768 (1989) (“[T]he law is clear that the complaint must state ‘the facts on
which the claim is based,’ R. 4:5-2, rather than relying on conclusory allegations.”); Bd.
Of Educ. v. Repollet, No. A-1568-19, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1955, at *16-17
(App. Div. Sep. 1, 2021) (“The standards governing the grant or denial of a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim in the administrative context are identical to those
governing a similar motion in the Superior Court.”).
A respondent may file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer to a petition if “the
petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner’s factual allegations are
accepted as true or for lack of jurisdiction, failure to prosecute, or other good reason.”
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g); N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. 	The Commissioner should grant the motion
when may “the petition on its face fails to set forth a basis for relief” and when the
“petitioners have failed to provide any factual support for the general allegations of their
petition.” Sloan ex rel. Sloan v. Klagholtz, 342 N.J. Super. 385, 394 (App. Div. 2001); see
also State v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, 439 N.J. Super. 462, 467 (App. Div. 2015) (“Dismissal
is the appropriate remedy where the pleading does not establish a colorable claim and
discovery would not develop one.”); Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 100, 106
(App. Div. 2005) (“[A] court must dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint if it has failed to articulate
a legal basis entitling plaintiff to relief.”); Tanner v. Cmty. Charter Sch. of Paterson,
Passaic Cty., EDU 14408-15, initial decision (Mar. 23, 2016) (holding motion to dismiss
should be granted when “the petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the
petitioner’s factual allegations are accepted as true”).
Review of a motion to dismiss “is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the
facts alleged on the face of the complaint.” L.P. v. Bd. of Educ., No. A-0161-16T4, 2018
N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1928, at *15-17 (App. Div. Aug. 15, 2018); Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). 	A reviewing court must
“search[] the complaint in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of
a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim.” If it cannot,
dismissal is warranted. Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 451 (2013); Rezem Family
Assocs., L.P. v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, 113 (App. Div. 2011); see
also Sterling Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Sterling Reg’l Sch. Dist., EDU 295-19, initial

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
8
decision (March 14, 2019) (noting Commissioner may dismiss petition prior to referring
matter to OAL or transfer determination of motion to OAL).
When there is no meaningful relief that the Commissioner may grant a petitioner
as a result of the petition, the petition must be dismissed. Parisi v. Bd. of Educ. of Saddle
Brook, EDU 3673-99, Agency Dkt. No. 51-3/99, Final Decision (Jan. 3, 2020).
The contention of petitioner in these matters is not clear. His actions against the
Board, Gruccio and Ireland appear to arise out of a situation where the District decided
to no longer accept materials from petitioner’s organization. Petitioner also states that
his complaint against Ireland is related to a police action brought by Ireland. Further, on
September 6, 2024, petitioner told District that he was abandoning his challenge to the
District’s actions.
Considering the lack of a clear and direct complaint, and unrefuted statement that
petitioner abandoned his appeal on September 6, 2024, I CONCLUDE that this matter is
moot and that respondents’ request for dismissal should be GRANTED.
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that respondents’ motion to dismiss all three actions as
detailed above are hereby GRANTED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
9
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	EDUCATION. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
March 21, 2025
DATE 	CARL V. BUCK III ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
CVB/tat

OAL DOCKET NOS. EDU 14776-24, EDU 14924-24 AND EDU 14925-24 (consolidated)
10
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
Pro se petitions of appeal
Exhibits A - U
For respondents
Brief in support of motion to dismiss with exhibits

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude