Robert Zywicki v. Board of Education of the Township of Mount Olive, Morris County, 3/26/2024, (#142-24)

142-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Robert Zywicki,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Mount Olive, Morris County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, formerly Superintendent in the Mount Olive School District, challenged the March 2023
actions of the respondent Board, alleging that the Doctrine of Necessity was improperly invoked to
certify tenure charges against him. The Board contended that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction in this
matter, which should have been filed with the School Ethics Commission (SEC). 	Petitioner initially
sought emergent relief, which was denied by the Commissioner in May 2023; the case was returned to
the OAL at that time with a directive to bring the case to closure since the ALJ had issued an order
denying emergent relief and dismissing the matter for lack of jurisdiction instead of issuing an Initial
Decision as required under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.7.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: ethics matters are to be initiated by a complaint filed with
the SEC, not with the Commissioner, and the essence of petitioner’s allegations is that certain members
of the Board acted unethically by invoking the Doctrine of Necessity to manipulate which board
members could vote on whether to certify tenure charges against him. 	The ALJ concluded that the
Commissioner lacks jurisdiction here and petitioner should have brought this matter before the SEC;
since the case has been decided on jurisdictional grounds, there is no need to address the standards for
emergent relief. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the petition without considering additional submissions
from the parties.
Upon review, the Commissioner found that the ALJ advised the parties that they could file written
exceptions to the Initial Decision within thirteen days, and neither party has filed exceptions nor
otherwise objected to the dismissal of the case. 	Accordingly, the Commissioner concluded that the
petitioner has abandoned the prosecution of his appeal. 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.

142-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02655-23
Agency Dkt. No. 77-3/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Robert Zywicki,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Mount Olive, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner alleged that respondent Board improperly invoked the
Doctrine of Necessity to certify tenure charges against him and requested that the Board’s vote
be vacated. On April 14, 2023, following oral argument on petitioner’s motion for emergent
relief, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order denying emergent relief and
dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 25, 2023, the Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s Order dismissing the petition.
The Commissioner explained that, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.7, an ALJ’s disposition of a motion
which completely concludes a case shall be by Initial Decision. Here, because the ALJ had not
issued an Initial Decision, the parties were deprived of the opportunity to file exceptions
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4. Consequently, while the Commissioner found that petitioner

2
failed to demonstrate that irreparable harm would occur if the relief sought was not granted
and denied his motion for emergent relief, the Commissioner directed that the underlying
matter continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deemed necessary
to bring it to closure.
On February 20, 2024, without having considered any additional submissions from the
parties, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision denying emergent relief, dismissing the petition for
lack of jurisdiction, and concluding the matter. The Initial Decision restated the findings and
conclusions expressed within the ALJ’s April 14, 2023, order. It also advised the parties that
they could file written exceptions to the Initial Decision within thirteen days. Because the
parties have neither filed exceptions nor otherwise objected to the dismissal, the Commissioner
finds that petitioner has abandoned prosecution of the underlying petition of appeal.
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 26, 2024
Date of Mailing: March 27, 2024
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 77-3/23
ROBERT ZYWICKI,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF MOUNT OLIVE, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
Stephen J. Edelstein, Esq. for petitioner (Weiner Law Group, LLP, attorneys)
Joseph L. Roselle, Esq. for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LPP,
attorneys)
Record Closed: May 25, 2023 	Decided: February 20, 2024
BEFORE: JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Robert Zywicki filed a Verified Petition of Appeal and a Motion for
Emergent Relief with the Commissioner of Education’s Office challenging and seeking to
overturn two actions (i.e., votes) of the Mt. Olive Board of Education (hereinafter

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
2
MOBOE), which took place during the MOBOE’s March 13, 2023 meeting. 	In the first
action, the MOBOE voted to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity, and subsequently, in the
second action, the MOBOE voted to certify tenure charges against Robert Zywicki, the
Superintendent of Schools.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about March 22, 2023, the Petitioner, Robert Zywicki (hereinafter “Zywicki”
or the “Superintendent”), through his attorney, Stephen J. Edelstein, filed a Petition of
Appeal with an accompanying Motion for Emergent Relief. On March 23, 2023, Attorney
Edelstein filed his supporting Brief. On March 23, 2023, the Office of Controversies and
Disputes in the Department of Education (hereinafter the “DOE” or the “Commissioner”)
transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on March
24, 2023 as a contested case. 	The matter was then assigned to John P. Scollo, ALJ,
who ordered the parties to submit Opposition papers, Reply papers, Briefs and supporting
materials by March 30, 2023. Oral argument via Zoom was conducted on April 3, 2023
with concerned citizens and a member of the press1 in attendance.
After the hearing, the judge ordered the attorneys to submit their written summation
Briefs by April 5, 2023 with clarifications of their arguments and additional materials.
On May 25, 2023, Acting Commissioner of Education, Angelina Allen-McMillan,
Ed.D. sent her Order on Emergent Relief to Judge Scollo stating that his May 14, 2023
Order was an improper way to resolve this matter. She directed Judge Scollo that when
dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction he should issue an Initial Decision. Therefore,
on this date, the undersigned is issuing this Initial Decision which concludes the matter.
1 The Tribunal welcomes the participation of the press in this matter. While this Judge does not know the
parties, their histories, their affiliations, their personal biases or prejudices, or their feelings towards each
other, it is evident that these parties have engaged in multiple actions and lawsuits against each other over
matters which directly or indirectly affect the schools. The taxpayers will likely bear the costs of these legal
matters. 	The newspaper’s thorough and objective investigation, probing into the origins and causes of
these multiple actions, would render a great service to the people of Mt. Olive.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
3
BACKGROUND 	INFORMATION 	ASCERTAINED 	FROM 	THE 	PARTIES’
SUBMISSIONS
In support of Petitioner Zywicki’s position, Attorney Edelstein first explained what
the Doctrine of Necessity is. 	He noted at the outset that of the nine people who
constituted the MOBOE on March 13, 2023, four of them were conflicted on the issue of
voting on tenure charges against Zywicki due to their involvement in pending litigation
with Zywicki (who initiated the litigation is not entirely clear to this Tribunal). 	The four
BOE members claimed to be conflicted by Edelstein are: 	Mr. Antoine Gayles, Mr.
Anthony Strillacci, Ms. Elizabeth Ouimet, and Dr. Anthony Giordano. Attorney Edelstein
also noted that the Doctrine of Necessity could only be invoked if there were at least five
BOE members who were genuinely conflicted. Edelstein claims that enemies of Zywicki
(including the above four people and Christopher Zeier and the MOBOE’s attorney, Marc
Zitomer), improperly and in bad faith manipulated the issue of conflicts in order to bring
the number of purportedly “conflicted” BOE members to at least five so that all MOBOE
members, including the four previously listed above, would be able to vote on the tenure
charges thus making it virtually certain that said charges would be certified. 	Edelstein
argued that if the machinations of Zywicki’s “enemies” in manipulating the number of
“conflicted” people had not been successful, then there would have still been a quorum
(five people) available to vote on the tenure charges and that the effort to certify the tenure
charges against Zywicki would have failed. Attorney Roselle argued to the contrary.
ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS
The following is not a verbatim account of the arguments and documents
presented, but rather it encompasses points that the Tribunal found to be most important.
Petitioner’s and Respondent’s Arguments Regarding Emergent Relief
Attorney Edelstein argued that the MOBOE’s improper invocation of the Doctrine
of Necessity and its improper certification of tenure charges against Zywicki, and its
concomitant suspension of Zywicki’s salary and benefits calls for emergent relief. 	He
argued that Zywicki meets the standards (i.e., the four prongs) set forth in Crowe v.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
4
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) and thus qualifies for emergent relief. 	Attorney Roselle
argued to the contrary claiming that emergent relief would not be justified and that Zywicki
meets none of the criteria for emergent relief as set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J.
126 (1982). This will be addressed further below.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
5
The Parties’ Arguments Regarding Jurisdiction
Both sides agree that the threshold issue before me is the question of whether the
OAL has jurisdiction over this matter.
The Parties’ jurisdictional arguments with respect to the Commissioner’s decision to refer
the matter to the OAL
Zywicki’s Petition of Appeal and Motion for Emergent Relief were filed with the
Commissioner of Education, who immediately referred the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law.
Attorney 	Edelstein 	notes 	that 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Education 	could 	have
dismissed the Petition of Appeal and the Motion if she believed that she lacked
jurisdiction. 	Therefore, he argues that the very fact that the Commissioner referred the
matter to the OAL demonstrates that the Commissioner believes she has jurisdiction.
Attorney Roselle, the Respondent’s counsel, notes that jurisdiction properly lies
with the School Ethics Commission and that the Commissioner of Education’s acceptance
of Zywicki’s papers does not automatically mean that she acknowledged that jurisdiction
was proper and was no longer an issue. Attorney Roselle argues that issues dealing with
Board member conflicts of interest or the proper invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity
belong before the School Ethics Commission. 	The Respondent relies on previous OAL
rulings in Gilliam Gardner v. Board of Education of the City of Hackensack, Bergen County
and James Montesano, Patricia Aquino-Lozano and Celso King, Intervenors, OAL Docket
No.: EDU 09421-12 (2013) and Castriotta v. Board of Education of the Township of
Roxbury, Morris County, OAL Docket No. : EDU 09217-10 (2011), reversed on other
grounds, 427 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2012)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
6
The Parties’ jurisdictional arguments with respect to whether this matter arises under the
School Laws or under the School Ethics Act (N.J.S.A.18A:12-21, et seq.)
Attorney Edelstein argues that this case contains a valid and important issue which
arises under the school laws and therefore jurisdiction belongs to the Commissioner of
Education and thus to the OAL. 	For support, he points to the wide scope of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9, where is says:
The 	commissioner 	shall 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
determine, without cost to the parties, all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws….
That being so, Edelstein argues, the case clearly belongs under the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Education.
The issue Edelstein refers to is whether or not the MOBOE failed to follow Board
Policy 0163, a bylaw, when on March 13, 2023 it allegedly failed to post notice of its intent
to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity. Attorney Edelstein maintains that this is a school law
issue and therefore it brings this matter into the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Education. 	He concludes that the Board’s invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity fails
because the Board did not announce (by posting, as required by the bylaw) its intention
to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity.
Attorney Edelstein’s other argument is that when the Board ignored one of its own
bylaws, it was acting beyond the scope of its bylaws when it went ahead with the vote to
invoke the Doctrine of Necessity and when it went ahead with the vote on the tenure
charges. The bylaw (Board Policy number 0163) covers the invocation of the Doctrine of
Necessity and says:
“When the Board announces the Doctrine of Necessity is
being invoked, the details, parameters and / or other pertinent
facts of the matter to be voted should be revealed on an
agenda for the public meeting in which the matter is to be
voted upon.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
7
Edelstein argues that the ignoring of a bylaw raises a school law issue because
boards of education must follow procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(for making,
amending, or repealing bylaws) if they intend to act outside the bounds of their present
bylaws. Attorney Edelstein argues that the Board was only empowered to make, amend
or repeal its bylaws by following N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 and that any such changes must
appear in the Board’s minutes. Edelstein says, “That did not occur” on March 1, 2023.
The Respondent does not concede that the Board acted beyond the scope of its
bylaws because it simply did not ignore or set aside the bylaw. 	Instead, the MOBOE
acted within the scope of its bylaws. 	It concedes that advance posting of its intent to
invoke the Doctrine of Necessity did not take place before the March 13, 2023 Board
meeting. 	However, the Respondent argues that no advance posting could possibly be
made of its decision to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity because the MOBOE only
received advice regarding the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity from its attorney
during the actual Board meeting of March 13, 2023. Moreover, the Board did announce
that it was invoking the Doctrine of Necessity during the Board Meeting. The Respondent
argues that its action was fully in keeping with the wording of Board Policy 0163 for the
following reasons
because it did announce its decision to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity at its earliest
opportunity to do so at the Board meeting to those in attendance;
because the announcement itself constituted the required posting of an agenda;
because there is no requirement in the bylaw for any minimum amount of posting time
that must pass before the Board may vote on a matter under the Doctrine of Necessity;
and
because the very wording of the bylaw allows a posting to be simultaneous with the vote,
as demonstrated by the words “for the public meeting in which the matter is to be voted
upon.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
8
APPLICABLE LAW
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 provides
The 	commissioner 	shall 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
determine, without costs to the parties, all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws ….
The New Jersey School Ethics Act
The New Jersey School Ethics Act is found at N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 through N.J.S.A.
18A:12-34. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 sets forth prohibited conduct pertaining to all school
officials. The Code of Ethics for School Board Members is found therein at N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1. In addition to the requirements of the School Ethics Act, it imposes
additional rules governing the conduct of School Board Members. The establishment of
the School Ethics Commission is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-27. 	The School Ethics
Commission’s (or “S.E.C.’s”) powers and duties are set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28 and -
29. 	The jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29
where the statute says that the S.E.C. accepts complaints alleging a violation of the
School Ethics Act or of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The S.E.C. then
determines whether or not probable cause exists to credit the allegations of the complaint.
If the S.E.C. determines that probable cause does not exist, then it shall dismiss the
complaint. 	If the S.E.C. determines that probable cause exists, then it shall refer the
matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). 	Once the OAL hears the matter, the
S.E.C. determines by majority vote whether the conduct complained of constitutes a
violation of the School Ethics Act (i.e., it decides whether to accept or reject the ALJ’s
Initial Decision). If the S.E.C. finds that a violation has occurred, it shall, by majority vote,
recommend 	a 	sanction 	(reprimand, 	censure, 	suspension, 	or 	removal) 	to 	the
Commissioner of Education, who then shall act on the S.E.C.’s recommendation
regarding the sanction.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
9
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Decision on whether the Commissioner of Education’s decision to refer the matter to the
OAL manifests a decision on his part that jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner rather
than with the School Ethics Commission
While that is true that the Commissioner could have dismissed the Petition of
Appeal and the Motion for Emergent Relief if she believed she lacked jurisdiction, the
Commissioner was not under any obligation to do so. Her decision to refer the matter to
the OAL was proper and, in most cases, the usual course; but her referral does not
necessarily decide the question of jurisdiction. To believe otherwise would mean that the
issue of determining jurisdiction can never be decided by the OAL. Obviously, that is not
true. 	The parties, in their arguments, have not taken such a position and they have
vigorously argued the pros and cons of jurisdiction.
I CONCLUDE that the Commissioner of Education’s referral of the matter to the
OAL does not manifest a decision on her part that jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner
of Education’s Office.
Decision as to whether the bylaw’s (Board Policy 0163’s) requirement for a posting is or
is not a school law issue
I have evaluated the arguments of both counsel. Attorney Edelstein’s argument is
that the Board’s alleged ignoring of its own bylaw raises a school law issue because
boards of education must follow procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 (for making,
amending, or repealing bylaws) if they wish to act outside the bounds of their present
bylaws. 	This, he argues, is a matter of school law. 	His purpose is to characterize this
matter as a school law case. 	The Respondent’s position is that the thrust of Attorney
Edelstein’s allegations, indeed his entire case, is that the Board “improperly and in bad
faith” invoked the Doctrine of Necessity in order to certify tenure charges against Mr.
Zywicki. The Respondent argues that Zywicki’s allegations are all School Ethics issues,
which belong under the jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
10
The applicable law was stated by Margaret Monaco, ALJ in Clarissa Gilliam
Gardner v. Board of Education of the City of Hackensack, Bergen County and James
Montesano, Patricia Aquino-Lozano and Celso King, Agency Docket No. 146-5/12 (2013)
“The Commissioner’s jurisdiction is defined by statute and is
limited to controversies and disputes arising under the school
laws.” N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	Our courts have held that, “[w]here
the controversy does not arise under the school laws, it is
outside the Commissioner’s jurisdiction even though it may
pertain to school personnel.” Bd. of Educ. Of E. Brunswick
v.Twp. Council of E. Brunswick , 48 N.J. 94, 102 (1966). It is
recognized that “the sweep of the Department’s interest and
the Commissioner’s jurisdiction does not extend to all matters
involving boards of education.” Archway Programs, Inc. v.
Pemberton Twsp. Bd. of Educ., 352 N.J. Super. 420, 424-425
(App. Div. 2002).
In my analysis, Attorney Edelstein’s words tell it all. 	By his use of the words,
“improperly and in bad faith”, Attorney Edelstein makes it clear that he is arguing that the
members of the MOBOE engaged in unethical conduct. 	The issue of whether the
MOBOE ignored the bylaw is only part and parcel of the larger ethical claims. Therefore,
I CONCLUDE that the allegation that the MOBOE ignored its bylaw does not transform
the matter into a school law case.
Decision Regarding Jurisdiction
The Petitioner, Robert Zywicki, submitted his Petition of Appeal and Motion for
Emergent Relief and later submitted his supporting Brief and Exhibits to the Office of
Controversies and Disputes in the New Jersey Department of Education. Zywicki did not
file his papers with the School Ethics Commission (the “S.E.C.”).
While the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over “all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws”, it is also clear that jurisdiction over School Ethics
matters belongs with the School Ethics Commission (i.e., that ethics matters are to be
initiated by a complaint filed with the S.E.C., not with the Commissioner, and then the
S.E.C. decides the threshold issue of probable cause). Zywicki’s allegations are that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
11
MOBOE “improperly and in bad faith” invoked the Doctrine of Necessity in order to
“manipulate” the vote on the certification of the tenure charges against him. The essence
of Zywicki’s allegations (bad faith manipulation of who was or was not “conflicted” in order
to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity, and bad faith manipulation of the vote certifying
tenure charges) is that certain members of the MOBOE acted unethically and conspired
to strip him of his position, his compensation and his family’s health benefits. Therefore,
by his own words, Zywicki states that the matter presents ethical issues rather than school
law issues.
Since it is clear that Zywicki himself has characterized this matter as an ethics
matter, it follows that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28 and 29, jurisdiction lies with the
S.E.C. rather that the Commissioner of Education. 	See Castriotta v. Bd. of Educ. Of
Roxbury, 	EDU-09217-10, 	Final 	Decision 	(May 	18, 	2011),
http://www.nj.gov/education/legal/, rev’d on other grounds, 427 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div.
2012), 	where 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Education 	re-affirmed 	that 	the 	“review 	and
adjudication of allegations of Code of Ethics For School Board Members violations is
solely within the purview of the School Ethics Commission.”
In his filed papers, Zywicki does not raise a valid school law issue; the issues he
raises are ethical issues. 	If this were a matter arising under the school laws, then the
Commissioner (and subsequently, at his discretion, the OAL) would have jurisdiction.
However, the nature of the allegations, set forth in Zywicki’s own words, demonstrates
that they are ethical matters and not matters arising under the school laws. 	As stated
above, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28 and -29 provide that complaints regarding ethical matters fall
within the jurisdiction of the S.E.C. rather than the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Education. 	I CONCLUDE that jurisdiction belongs with the S.E.C. and Zywicki should
have brought his grievance by way of a Complaint filed with the S.E.C. It follows, and I
CONCLUDE 	that 	this 	OAL 	matter, 	having 	been 	transmitted 	to 	the 	OAL 	by 	the
Commissioner of Education, who lacked jurisdiction, cannot be maintained, and must be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Analysis Of The Arguments Concerning The Crowe Factors

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
12
Since the matter has been decided on jurisdictional grounds, there is no need for
this Tribunal to make an analysis of the Crowe factors.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Zywicki’s Petition of Appeal is DISMISSED and his
Motion for Emergent Relief seeking an Order immediately vacating the MOBOE’s vote to
invoke the Doctrine of Necessity and immediately vacating the MOBOE’s certification of
the tenure charges brought against Zywicki must be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED 	that a copy of this Initial Decision shall be transmitted by email from
the OAL to both attorneys, Stephen J. Edelstein and Joseph L. Roselle.
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 02655-23
13
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.
February 20, 2024
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
14
APPENDIX
List of Exhibits
Court Exhibit
Acting Commissioner’s May 25, 2023 Order on Emergent Relief
For Petitioner
P-1 	Petitioner 	Zywicki’s 	(per 	Attorney 	Edelstein) 	March 	31, 	2023 	submission
containing Brief (supplementing his March 23, 2023 Letter Brief to the Commissioner of
Education, attached as “#1”); and also attaching as “#2”, Board Policy 0131; and also
attaching as “#3”, the Minutes of the MOBOE meeting of 3/13/23.
P-2 	Petitioner Zywicki’s April 5, 2023 supplement / summation of the April 3, 2023 oral
argument, with an attached Exhibit “A” (a copy of the OAL Transmittal Sheet)
P-3 	Copies of Statutes, Regulations, Rules and Cases relied upon by the Petitioner
For Respondent’s
R-1 	Respondent MOBOE’s March 30, 2023 submission containing Brief; Outline of
Factual Background; Certification of Christopher Zeier, attaching Exhibits “A” through “L”;
and an Index of Cases with cases.
R-2 	Respondent’s April 5, 2023 supplement / summation of the April 3, 2023 oral
argument with an attached “Exhibit “A” (a copy of the 3/13/23 Resolution to Invoke the
Doctrine of Necessity); Exhibit “B” (a copy of Zywicki’s Answer to the Tenure Charges,
Agency Docket Number 70-3/23, dated March 31, 2023); Exhibit “C” (a copy of a 3/31/23

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
15
letter from Jennifer Killough-Herrera of the Department of Education to Attorney LaPira
and Attorney Edelstein; and, an Index of Cases with cases).
R-3 	Copies of Statutes, Regulations, Rules and Cases relied upon by the Respondent.