Antoine Gayles v. Board of Education of the Township of Hillside, Union County, 8/3/2020, (#157-20)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Antoine Gayles,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Hillside, Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner began working as Superintendent of Schools in July 2016 under a four-year contract
expiring in June 2020. Following an election in 2018, which significantly altered the composition of
the Board of Education, the “lame duck” board rescinded petitioner’s original contract and approved
a successor contract that increased petitioner’s salary and expired in June 2023. 	When the newly-
elected Board took office in January 2019, petitioner was suspended with pay pending the resolution
of questions regarding the validity of the successor contract. 	Petitioner sought reinstatement under
the terms of the successor contract, while the Board sought to have the successor contract declared
void.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	petitioner still had 18 months left in his term as Superintendent
when the “lame duck” board voted on the successor contract; 	there was no compelling reason to
modify the original contract other than what amounted to unilateral action by the outgoing board
president; the “lame duck” board failed to comply with the public notice and comment requirements
of N.J.S.A.18A:11-11 and N.J.A.C. 6A23A-3.1; the Board’s suspension of petitioner was invalid; the
petitioner’s suspension was, in essence, a termination; and the Board failed to comply with any of the
requirements of N.J.S.A.18A:17-20 and N.J.A.C. 6A23A-3.2. 	The ALJ ordered that petitioner be
reinstated to his position as superintendent from the date of the suspension through the expiration of
the original contract on June 30, 2020, together with all salary, benefits, and seniority credit for that
period of time.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that both the successor contract and the
rescission of the original contract are void. In so deciding, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that
the rescission of an existing contract well in advance of its expiration in order to increase the salary
and 	extend 	the 	term 	is 	exactly the 	type 	of 	situation 	contemplated 	in 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:11-11.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter.
Petitioner is entitled to his salary and benefits under the terms of the original contract, through its
expiration on June 30, 2020.
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.
August 3, 2020
157-20

157-20
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
Agency Dkt. No. 45-2/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Antoine Gayles,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Hillside, Union County,
Respondent.
Board of Education of the Township of
Hillside, Union County,
Petitioner,
v.
Antoine Gayles,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), the exceptions filed by Antoine Gayles (Gayles) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the
reply thereto by the Hillside Board of Education (Board) have been reviewed.
This 	matter 	concerns 	the 	validity 	of 	two 	contracts 	between 	Gayles 	and
the Board. Gayles began working as the superintendent in Hillside on July 1, 2016, under a four-

2
year contract expiring June 30, 2020 (original contract). In late 2018, following an election that
significantly changed the membership of the district’s board of education, the “lame duck” board
rescinded the original contract and approved a new contract (successor contract) that increased
Gayles’ salary and expired in June 2023. In January 2019, the newly-elected board of education
(Board) suspended Gayles until questions regarding the validity of the successor contract were
resolved. The Board stipulated that the suspension was not based on performance, impropriety,
or any allegations of wrongdoing.
The ALJ concluded that the successor contract was void and, consequently, the
rescission of the original contract – done solely to allow for the parties to enter into the successor
contract – was also void. The ALJ reasoned that Gayles still had 18 months left in his term at the
time the “lame duck” board voted on the successor contract, and there was no compelling reason
to modify it other than what amounted to unilateral action by the outgoing board president.
Moreover, the “lame duck” board failed to comply with the public notice and comment
requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11 and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.1. The ALJ also concluded that the
Board’s suspension of Gayles was invalid. The resolution regarding the suspension was not part
of the agenda for the meeting in which it occurred, again circumventing the public notice and
comment requirements, and Gayles did not receive a Rice notice sufficiently in advance of the
meeting. The ALJ found that the suspension was, in essence, a termination, and that the Board
failed to comply with any of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20 and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.2.
The ALJ ordered that Gayles be reinstated to his position as superintendent from the date of the
suspension through the expiration of the original contract on June 30, 2020, together with all
salary, benefits, and seniority credit for that time.

3
In his exceptions, Gayles argues that the successor contract was valid and binding
because it was reviewed by the “lame duck” board’s attorney, approved by the Executive County
Superintendent (ECS), and voted on by the “lame duck” board during a meeting in which it was
placed on the agenda and discussed during the public comment period. 	Gayles notes that the
ECS testified that he was aware that the successor contract was entered into by the “lame duck”
board and contends that if the ECS had required a resolution of this issue, he could have
requested more information. 	According to Gayles, N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11 gives the “lame duck”
board the authority to perform all acts and do all things necessary for the lawful and proper
conduct of the schools, including modifying the terms of his contract by entering into the
successor contract. Gayles argues that the Board’s reliance on Wall Twp. Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of
Educ. of Wall Township, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 575 (App. Div. Mar. 14, 2019) is
misplaced because the decision postdates the acts at issue in this case and does not specifically
state that its requirements are retroactive.
In reply, the Board argues that the ALJ appropriately found that the “lame duck”
board’s decision to bind the Board to the successor contract violated well-established principles
regarding board authority. 	Moreover, the Board argues that the record demonstrates that the
outgoing president acted unilaterally and without the knowledge of the full “lame duck” board.
The Board notes that the ECS was not aware of the procedural shortcomings related to the
successor contract and that his approval cannot, therefore, render the successor contract
enforceable. 	The Board also argues that the Wall Twp. decision does not create new
requirements, but rather confirmed existing requirements, and that the holding in that matter
should be applied to this case.

4
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that both the successor
contract and the rescission of the original contract are void. 	Initially, the Commissioner notes
that the Board did not take exception to the ALJ’s conclusion that the rescission of the original
contract 	was 	void, 	and 	the 	Commissioner 	finds 	no 	reason 	to 	disturb 	that 	conclusion.
Accordingly, Gayles is entitled to his salary and benefits under the terms of the original contract,
through its expiration on June 30, 2020.
As to the successor contract, the Commissioner does not find Gayles’ exceptions,
which 	largely 	reiterate 	arguments 	made 	before 	the 	ALJ, 	to 	be 	persuasive. 	First, 	the
Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that extending Gayles’ contract term by two years and
increasing his salary exceeds the authority of the “lame duck” board. 	The position of
superintendent was not vacant at the time the “lame duck” board took action, and it would not be
vacant for more than 18 months. The “lame duck” board “had no statutory authority to bind its
successor Board by issuing individual contracts to [its continuing employees].” Nowak v. Bd. of
Educ. of the Borough of Manville, Somerset Cty., 1976 S.L.D. 43. 	See also Gonzalez v. Bd. of
Educ. of Elizabeth School Dist., Union Cty., 325 N.J. Super. 244 (App. Div. 1999) (concluding
that “[s]uch an appointment usurps the will and power of a future board to fill a vacancy based
on 	the 	future 	board’s 	consideration 	of 	prevailing 	policy, 	personnel 	and 	general 	welfare
concerns.”)
Furthermore, the “lame duck” board failed to provide the required public notice
prior to voting on the successor contract. “The Legislature’s clear mandate in [N.J.S.A. 18A:11-
11] was the dual purpose of public notice and a public hearing when a board of education
renegotiates, extends, amends, or alters an existing contract with its superintendent.” Wall Twp.
Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. Of Educ. of Wall Township, supra, at 12. 	The rescission of an existing

5
contract well in advance of its expiration in order to increase the salary and extend the term is
“exactly” the type of situation contemplated by the statute that requires public notice. Ibid. The
Appellate Division made clear in the Wall Twp. decision that it was an interpretation of the
statute as written – the same version of the statute that was in effect at the time of the events at
issue in this case. 	Therefore, that decision represents a confirmation of existing statutory
requirements, rather than a new requirement being applied retroactively, as Gayles argues, and it
is appropriate to apply the Wall Twp. holding here. The “lame duck” board’s failure to comply
with the notice requirements renders the successor contract void.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in
this matter. 	Petitioner shall be reinstated to his position as superintendent from the date of the
suspension through the expiration of the original contract on June 30, 2020, together with all
salary and benefits owed for that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 8/3/2020
Date of Mailing: 	8/5/2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISON
ANTOINE GAYLES, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 45-2/19
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF HILLSIDE,
Respondent.
_____________________________
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05548-19
TOWNSHIP OF HILLSIDE, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 45-2/19
Petitioner,
v.
ANTOINE GAYLES,
Respondent.
_____________________________
William F. Koy, Esq., for petitioner
Allan C. Roth, Esq., for respondent (Ruderman & Roth, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 19, 2019 	Decided: June 17, 2020
BEFORE ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Antoine Gayles, currently suspended/placed on leave from his position
as superintendent of schools in Hillside, New Jersey, with pay, brings an action before
this tribunal as a result of a unilateral action by respondent Hillside Board of Education
suspending him from his position effective January 24, 2019. 	Also pending is an
application for declaratory relief brought by the Board, seeking to have the new contract
which was approved by the “lame duck” Board on November 29, 2018, declared void ab
initio, with no further obligation to Dr. Gayles. 	The dispute between these parties was
the subject of two prior emergent applications set forth below in the procedural history.
With decisions rendered on both emergent applications, what is left to determine is the
Board’s position that with the old contract rescinded, Dr. Gayles’ new contract is void ab
initio. 	Dr. Gayles seeks reinstatement as superintendent under the terms of the new
contract, which would allow him to serve through June 2023.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a second motion for emergent relief directly with the undersigned
due to its connection to a pending related case, seeking reinstatement of salary and
benefits. 	The matter had been the subject of a prior application for emergent relief
before 	the 	Hon. 	Thomas 	Betancourt 	on 	March 	6, 	2019. 	Based 	on 	certain
representations that were made on the record at the time by the Board counsel, and the
respective position of the Board itself, Judge Betancourt denied the application by
petitioner on the basis that, among other things, the Board was still paying petitioner
and continuing to provide benefits, and his determination that he did not believe
petitioner could succeed on the merits and meet the other criteria required for this type
of application.
Although Judge Betancourt ruled at the time that the rest of petitioner’s case was
moot, 	the 	Commissioner 	disagreed 	and 	remanded 	the 	matter 	for 	additional
proceedings. 	Subsequently, Judge Betancourt recused himself from handling the rest
of the case, as well as the related declaratory action filed by the Board.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
3
On May 9, 2019, the Board changed its position on the continued payments to
petitioner based in part on the recently decided case of Wall Township Education
Association v. Wall Township Board of Education, No. A-4885-17 (App. Div. March 14,
2019), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/. The decision to do so, while the case
on the merits was still pending before the Office of Administrative Law, was made with
only three days’ notice to petitioner, with the notice omitting what action was going to be
taken against Dr. Gayles.
Having learned that the salary and benefits would now be terminated, petitioner
brought a second emergent application on May 23, 2019, to compel the Board to return
him to the status quo and continue the payments, at least until both cases on the merits
could be heard.
Each party filed briefs, and oral argument was held on June 17, 2019 on the
second emergent application. 	The current superintendent, Dr. Sheard, was notified of
her right to file to intervene in this proceeding and be heard but declined to do so.
An Order was issued compelling the District to continue Dr. Gayles’ salary and
benefits pending the outcome of the full proceeding. 	The plenary hearing went forward
on July 8, 9, and 31, August 12, and October 8, 2019. 	Briefs were submitted and oral
argument was held on December 19, 2019. An extension was granted for the issuance
of the Initial Decision, and, shortly thereafter, State offices were closed due to Covid-19.
The Governor subsequently issued an Executive Order allowing for additional time for
the filing of decisions in pending matters.
TESTIMONY AND DISCUSSION
The Hillside Public School District is located in Union County. 	The first witness
who testified was Darryl Palmieri, the acting Union County superintendent of schools.
Mr. Palmieri, a former teacher, had only held the position for a few months when he was
presented with a new contract to review between Dr. Gayles and the Hillside Board of
Education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
4
Mr. Palmieri explained that his role is to serve as an extension of the New Jersey
Department of Education, essentially to oversee all of the school districts in Union
County. 	His office conducts evaluations of districts every three years, to review and
approve administrator contracts and transportation contracts, and do budget reviews.
By 	law, 	county 	superintendents 	are 	required 	to 	review 	all 	superintendent
contracts. 	In late October 2018, during his mid-year budget review of the district, Mr.
Palmieri 	learned 	that 	there 	were 	discussions 	concerning 	changes 	to 	Dr. 	Gayles’
contract. 	In early November 2018, the outcome of the local school Board election
drastically changed the makeup of the majority of the Board which would take office on
January 3, 2019, thus rendering the current Board into “lame duck” status. 	The Board
president at the time, Ms. Thompson-Epps, was defeated, although she would later be
appointed by the County superintendent to serve a one-year vacancy on the incoming
Board.
On November 21, 2019, Mr. Palmieri received correspondence from the Board
counsel at the time, Ms. Gonzalez, concerning a proposed new contract for Dr. Gayles,
which included increased salary and benefits, and instead of his term expiring in
eighteen months, under his existing contract, the proposed contract would expire in
June 2023. 	He did not know at the time that the full Board was unaware that this
proposed contract had been sent to him for review, nor did it go through the usual
channels 	of 	being 	considered 	by 	the 	Board’s 	labor 	or 	negotiations 	committees.
According to Mr. Palmieri, he received it from the assistant business administrator,
Annette Giordano.
Although Mr. Palmieri did not question the substance or term of the new contract,
or how a decision was made to offer it, there were some salary credits and other
miscellaneous items that needed revisions. 	Not having dealt with this situation before,
Mr. Palmieri consulted with his predecessor, Roger Jenks, who had assumed a position
in another part of the state. 	It was recommended to Mr. Palmieri that he tell the district
that in order to implement a new contract, the old one would have to be rescinded first.
He said normally a contract termination requires notice and a hearing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
5
The district inquired if the position had to be posted, and he responded that if the
initial contract were rescinded, there was no requirement to post the job. 	A public
hearing on a new contract was required, and the public should have the ability,
according to Mr. Palmieri, to review it and comment on it before it was voted upon.
When asked whether the original contract was enforceable after it was rescinded, he
responded no, but he also viewed the rescission as a predicate to the passing of a
successor contract, and that you couldn’t have one without the other.
Mr. 	Palmieri 	did 	not 	question 	the 	timing 	of 	the 	new 	contract, 	and/or 	the
implications for the incoming Board. He was a steady, credible witness.
The next witness called by the district was assistant business administrator
Annette Giordano. Mrs. Giordano has served in this position for seventeen years. 	She
confirmed that she was asked to convey the new contract to Mr. Palmieri by Dr. Gayles
and was involved in a meeting with him, as was the Board’s interim administrator and
Board secretary, Dr. David Eichenholz. 	She did not recall any discussion about the
propriety of entering into such a contract and its potential impact on the incoming Board.
Angela Menza was the next witness who appeared. 	Mrs. Menza had served on
the Board for fourteen years. 	She explained her understanding of Board policy as it
relates to negotiations and new contracts. 	As a member of the prior and new Board of
Education, she indicated that the normal process would be to have such a document
reviewed by the negotiations committee. 	In fact, she knew nothing about a new
contract until she received it three days before the meeting to be held on November 29,
2018. 	Prior to the vote, there were no questions she recalled from the public, but the
minutes of the meeting seem to suggest that there were about fifteen comments, some
favorable, some unfavorable.
Mrs. Menza objected to the contract, as, in her view, it would be a burden on the
new Board. 	She further stated that at no time did the old Board authorize the
submission of the new contract to Mr. Palmieri.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
6
Mrs. Menza, who continued to serve on the Board, then went on to discuss the
decision to suspend Dr. Gayles in order to determine the validity of the new contract.
She confirmed that the resolution to suspend was not on the agenda for the meeting on
January 24, and for some reason it came as a “walk-on” resolution, with little discussion.
She confirmed there was no discussion by the former Board as to whether to
offer a new contract and send it for review to the County superintendent. The only
discussion she recalled was during the executive session prior to the vote on November
29.
When a question was asked by a fellow Board member of the former president,
Ms. Thompson-Epps, for the reasons why Dr Gayles was being offered a new contract,
she responded “why not?” At least one member of the public questioned why the “lame
duck” Board was taking such an action. 	Two other members of the public, Althea
Mitchell and Arthur Kobitz, asked the same question. 	When asked if one Board
member can instruct the superintendent to take action, Mrs. Menza indicated that the
president can make such a request if the rest of the Board knows about it, and if it’s
discussed either in committee or with the Board as a whole.
Mrs. Menza also stated that prior to the vote, she warned the Board, which would
be leaving office in a month, that they couldn’t do a new contract in this manner.
Towards the end of her testimony, Mrs. Menza indicated that she voted no because she
believed it was an illegal contract. 	She also emphasized that at no time did the Board
authorize sending the new contract to Mr. Palmieri, and she did not believe Board policy
was properly followed.
Continuing her service with the swearing in of the new Board she confirmed that
Dr. Gayles had no prior notice of the pending vote to suspend, and, again, as far as she
knew, none of the Board committees were asked to review the action prior to the vote.
At the end of her testimony, the district put a stipulation on the record that the
suspension was not performance or discipline related, nor were there any allegations of
impropriety on the part of Dr. Gayles. Although she voted for the resolution to suspend,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
7
which was consistent with her vote on the former Board against the contract, she did not
vote to approve the appointment of an acting superintendent.
The next witness was Board member Joel Chapman. 	Mr. Chapman said that at
the time of the events surrounding the new contract, he had been a Board member for
about a year and a half. 	More importantly, Mr. Chapman had been the chair of the
Board’s labor committee in November 2018.
Mr. 	Chapman 	first 	learned 	about 	the 	new 	contract 	three 	days 	before 	the
November 29 meeting in an email from staff member Marlena Batts. When he reviewed
the email, he was surprised to learn that the subject was not about Dr. Gayles’ existing
contract, but about a new contract. 	As chair of the labor committee, he indicated that
the usual protocol was to have something of this nature be reviewed first. 	Neither Dr.
Gayles nor any other members of the Board discussed this item with Mr. Chapman prior
to its introduction on November 29. 	Even the draft agenda did not include this item,
according to Mr. Chapman.
Other Board members he reached out to prior to the meeting had no knowledge
of the new contract, so the next day, November 27, he sent an email to Mr. Palmieri to
inquire further. In response, Mr. Palmieri simply told Mr. Chapman that the concerns he
expressed are up to Board counsel. In a further attempt to find out what was going on,
Mr. Chapman wrote to Ms. Betts and asked “how could this be going on with a lame
duck Board?”
Mr. Chapman further indicated that he was never asked as a member of the
Board for permission to send the contract for review to Mr. Palmieri, and that he learned
that the new contract process was initiated by Board president Thompson-Epps.
The 	method 	of 	enacting 	the 	new 	contract, 	as 	directed 	by 	Mr. 	Palmieri 	in
conjunction with the former Board counsel, was to rescind the existing contract, and
then vote on a new contract. 	This presumes that the entire Board knew about it and
authorized it.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
8
Mr. Chapman also continued his service on the Board into the next year. 	He
confirmed that the resolution to suspend Dr. Gayles was not listed on the agenda for the
first full public meeting on January 24. 	A motion to move the public portion of the
meeting to earlier in the evening was approved. 	As a result, there would be only one
part of the agenda for the public to speak, even if other resolutions, such as the motion
to suspend Dr. Gayles, would be voted on later in the meeting.
Mr. Chapman further expressed that he voted for the suspension of Dr. Gayles
due to a lack of trust, even though the Board was seeking a decision concerning the
validity of the contract.
It was again noted during Mr. Chapman’s testimony that the Board stipulated that
the suspension of Dr. Gayles was not related to performance, impropriety, and there
were no allegations of wrongdoing. He indicated that he was satisfied with the decision
to suspend, since Dr. Gayles was being asked to “step away” with full pay until the
matter was resolved.
When asked why the motion to suspend Dr. Gayles was not reflected on the
agenda for January 24, he had no explanation. He also confirmed that prior to the vote
to suspend, the meeting was not re-opened to the public for comments on what was
being done.
Prior to the meeting, there was also no communication about who would become
the acting superintendent, though eventually the Board approved the appointment of the
director of curriculum, Debra Sheard, to serve in this capacity. 	I FIND the testimony of
Mr. Chapman to be credible.
Juan Allende, who took over as Board president in January 2019, and who also
served on both Boards, also testified. 	He too expressed surprise upon learning shortly
before the November 29 meeting about the new contract. He confirmed that neither he,
nor Mrs. Menza, nor Mr. Chapman knew about it, and were not consulted on the
submission to Mr. Palmieri.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
9
Upon going into executive session prior to the vote, Board president Thompson-
Epps 	confirmed 	only she 	had 	spoken about 	it 	with 	two 	other members. 	When
questioned about the new contract, Ms. Thompson-Epps simply stated, “well, why not?”
As the new Board president, Mr. Allende indicated that the Board has an ethical
responsibility to work as a whole, and that one person, in this case, Ms. Thompson-
Epps, can’t speak on behalf of the Board without consensus. 	He said the Board
president does not have the unilateral right to contact the County superintendent about
this or any other type of significant matter.
Mr. Allende then confirmed the “walk-on” nature of the resolution to send the
Rice notice to Dr. Gayles after the new Board was sworn in. 	He also confirmed that
neither he as the new president nor any other new Board members spoke with Dr.
Gayles about their concerns regarding the new contract prior to the adoption of the
resolution to suspend him with pay to investigate the validity of the contract. 	That too
was done as a non-agenda “walk-on” resolution, which was not really explained. He too
confirmed that Dr. Gayles was not removed for performance reasons. 	The purpose of
the Rice notice, which is required under law, was to inform Dr. Gayles that his contract
would be discussed at the next public Board meeting. 	Despite the law that requires a
consensus to send a Rice notice to an employee there was testimony that the minutes
of the reorganization meeting are not clear as to whether the Board as a whole
discussed it first in executive session, or even what prompted the sending of such a
notice. 	Even more unclear is why, having voted to send the notice to Dr. Gayles on
January 3, 2019, the Board took almost three weeks to send the notice out, and it was
not received via email until January 22, 2019. Certainly, the possibility exists that had it
gone out earlier, the parties could have at least started meaningful communication
about why the new Board had concerns about the new contract. For reasons unknown,
the Rice notice itself was not turned over in the discovery process before the hearing
commenced, although Dr. Gayles did acknowledge that he eventually received it.
Mr. Allende stated that in his new capacity as Board president, he believed there
was consensus, and the notice preparation was done in conjunction with Mr. Roth, who

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
10
had just been appointed as new counsel to the Board. He was later replaced, although
he remained as counsel of record to litigate this case.
Mr. Allende confirmed that after the reorganization meeting, Dr. Gayles asked
him what was going on. 	His response, which seems somewhat incredible, was that he
didn’t know.
Mr. Allende’s testimony then turned to the events surrounding the suspension of
Dr. Gayles at the first full public meeting on January 24, 2019. 	He confirmed that prior
to the meeting, Dr. Gayles was not informed by him as Board president that the Board
was considering the possibility of a suspension. 	(Dr. Gayles, in his testimony, said that
Mr. Allende told him it was only a rumor.) 	Again here, the credibility of the testimony of
Mr. Allende, who was the presiding officer of the Board, is somewhat suspect.
Ultimately, the motion to suspend, which was not on the agenda for the January
24 meeting, came before the Board as a “walk-on” resolution. 	Mr. Allende confirmed
that the possibility of suspension was not brought before the Board’s labor, personnel,
or negotiations committees between January 3 and January 24, and also unexplained is
why since a Rice notice had been authorized, a resolution was not prepared in advance
for review by other Board members and the public prior to the meeting.
Mr. Allende confirmed that midway through the executive session on January 24,
Dr. Gayles, who did not even receive the formal Rice notice three days in advance of
the meeting, was asked to leave the executive session. 	Thus, even if he wanted to
exercise his rights under Rice to address the Board in public or private, he was
apparently denied the opportunity to do so. At best, the transparency of how the Board
went about this process of suspending Dr. Gayles is questionable.
In 	addition 	to 	the 	prior 	stipulation 	that 	the 	suspension 	was 	unrelated 	to
performance 	or 	impropriety 	by 	Dr. 	Gayles, 	the 	Board 	also 	stipulated 	during 	Mr.
Allende’s 	testimony 	that 	there 	was 	no 	discussion 	about 	Dr. 	Sheard’s 	ability 	or
willingness to serve in the position on an interim basis. When asked if the Board could
have determined the validity of Dr. Gayles’ contract while he was still serving in the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
11
position, he simply said he did not know. 	Mr. Allende also confirmed that since the
Board had moved up the public portion of the meeting, and the resolution to suspend
was not on the agenda, the public would not have known about the suspension, nor
would it have been possible to comment or ask questions of the Board. 	Mr. Allende
testified that he did not ask for a resolution to re-open the public portion of the meeting
before the vote to suspend Dr. Gayles.
Former Board president Hawaiian Thompson-Epps was the next witness who
testified. 	Prior to her taking the stand, there was some back-and-forth colloquy about
whether she could testify due to cross ethics complaints between herself and Mr.
Allende. 	After consulting with personal counsel, who accompanied her to the hearing,
her testimony went forward.
Ms. Thompson-Epps indicated that she had been elected to an initial three-year
term, starting January 2015. 	In 2018 she became the Board president, which was the
year in which the contract that is the subject of the within case was enacted. 	Although
she was defeated in the November 2018 election, she was appointed in January 2019
by the County superintendent to serve a one-year vacancy on the new Board.
During her 	testimony, 	she 	acknowledged 	that 	Board 	presidents cannot 	act
unilaterally, and that in order for a Board to take action, a majority is needed. 	Usually,
according to Ms. Thompson-Epps, matters are discussed in committee before they get
to the full Board. 	However, as Board president, she said she has the right to set the
agenda, and she was responsible for Dr. Gayles’ evaluations.
Ms. Thompson-Epps said that her motivation, with a year and a half left on Dr.
Gayles’ contract, was she wanted to lock him in for an extended period, as she felt that
under 	his 	leadership 	the 	district 	was 	moving 	forward. 	While 	the 	testimony 	of
Ms. Thompson-Epps was for the most part credible, just as there were some aspects of
Mr. Allende’s testimony that were not credible, the same applies to her testimony about
the reasons and motivations for moving a matter of such magnitude, specifically, a
longer contract on an expedited basis. 	It was never admitted or stated during the
testimony, but it seems clear that at least part of her motivation was that she knew that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
12
the composition and majority of the Board was about to change in early January. At the
time Ms. Thompson-Epps moved the new contract, she also knew she was leaving the
Board, having been defeated in the recent election.
In fact, other than Board counsel, the only other person Ms. Thompson-Epps
consulted 	with 	was 	her 	liaison 	with 	the 	New 	Jersey 	School 	Boards 	Association,
Ms. Thornton. 	Both the liaison and the Board attorney at the time, as well as the
assistant business administrator, gave her approval in her capacity as Board president
to move on the new contract. 	However, none of these officials were aware that Ms.
Thompson-Epps had not consulted with the entire Board. 	She further testified that she
wanted to make the process easier, so she left it to Dr. Gayles, the Board attorney, and
the assistant business administrator to prepare the document. 	Again here, while she
may have believed this to be true, her credibility on this issue raises more questions
than answers. 	She also says she was advised by the Board counsel at the time, who
was replaced in one of the first acts by the new Board, to have the document sent to the
County superintendent. That statement is believable. Also credible and consistent with
Mr. Palmieri’s testimony is that the district was told by the County superintendent,
whether it was correct or not, to rescind the old contract before a new contract could be
acted upon.
Responding to questions from Mr. Roth, Ms. Thompson-Epps indicated that the
contract wasn’t rescinded due to Dr. Gayles’ failure to obtain certificates. 	She said the
normal 120-day notice requirement involving a superintendent’s contract was waived by
the old Board, also on the advice of former counsel. But Ms. Thompson-Epps did admit
that she was told by the School Boards Association liaison that all of the members of
the Board needed to be informed of her intentions so there were no surprises, which,
according to the testimony of others, did not occur. 	She did say she spoke with two or
three other members, even though this was not consistent with the advice she had
received.
Turning to the circumstances of the suspension, Ms. Thompson-Epps said she
believed such an action was detrimental to the school system. 	She cited several
achievements the district enjoyed under Dr. Gayles’ leadership, including but not limited

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
13
to the installation of a new football field, a new lab at the high school, a rebuilt gym, the
addition of six computer classrooms, more parent involvement, and the development of
partnerships with the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Kean University.
In 	essence, 	according 	to 	Ms. 	Thompson-Epps, 	Dr. 	Gayles 	exceeded
expectations. 	Rather than risk losing him to another district that might offer Dr. Gayles
more money and benefits, she decided that a new contract should be offered, although,
as discussed earlier, the timing seemed questionable after the outcome of the election.
Dr. David Eichenholtz, who served as interim business administrator and Board
secretary, was the next witness who testified. 	He confirmed that prior to having a draft
contract sent to the County superintendent, the Board as a whole was not informed or
asked for approval. 	His involvement in the new contract process occurred during
November 2018 when he was asked by Dr. Gayles to work with Ms. Giordano, the
assistant administrator, on answering questions raised by the County superintendent
about certain financial terms.
The only other involvement by Dr. Eichenholtz was keeping minutes of public
meetings and executive sessions; he said that for both the November 29, 2018,
meeting, and the January 24, 2019, meeting, the minutes of the executive sessions
were limited. 	He also confirmed that the procedure involving rescinding the existing
contract before enacting the new contract was the advice that was received from Mr.
Palmieri.
Dr. Antoine Gayles was the last witness to take the stand. 	He indicated that he
started his position as superintendent of the Hillside Public Schools on July 1, 2016.
The initial contract was for a four-year term, ending June 30, 2020. 	Prior to coming to
Hillside, he served as a principal in two districts, worked for the State Department of
Education, and received his superintendent certificate in 2000.
At 	the 	beginning 	of 	Dr. 	Gayles’ 	testimony, 	his 	counsel 	attempted 	to 	elicit
testimony that suggested that a local political leader was involved in interfering with Dr.
Gayles. 	That line of questioning was not allowed, as his counsel did not offer any

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
14
discovery on this issue to the counsel for the district before the hearing started, and no
foundation was laid with other witnesses concerning this subject.
On direct examination, Dr. Gayles stated that the idea about a new contract was
initiated by Ms. Thompson-Epps. 	She texted him that she had allegedly spoken with
two other members before asking if he was interested in pursuing an extension.
Dr. Gayles confirmed that without his own counsel, he negotiated the terms of
the new contract with the individual who was serving as Board counsel at the time. 	He
also communicated on this issue with Ms. Giordano. 	Dr. Gayles acknowledged that he
didn’t believe that any of the Board committees had reviewed the proposed contract
before it was sent to the County superintendent, or before it went to a vote by the full
Board. 	On cross-examination, it was not clear why there were some minutes of a
meeting by the labor committee on November 14, which turned out to be an evening of
heavy snow, and other minutes of a meeting of November 19, prior to the full Board
meeting on November 29. 	Regardless, it did not seem from these documents that the
new contract was fully vetted by this committee prior to the meeting of the full Board.
Dr. Gayles expressed surprise that virtually the first development at the Board’s
reorganization meeting on January 3, 2019, was to fire the Board attorney, as it was not
an agenda item. 	Also, not on the agenda was a resolution to send a Rice notice to
Dr. Gayles advising him that his status with the district would be discussed at the
Board’s first full public meeting on January 24, 2019. 	Also unexplained is why it took
almost three weeks for the new Board counsel to send the formal notice to him. 	Dr.
Gayles testified that in that period, he asked the new Board president, Mr. Allende,
about rumors he had heard, and Mr. Allende’s response was, “it’s just a rumor.”
Just as the vote on just suspension was not on the agenda for January 24, he
learned of the Board’s action after being asked to leave the executive session and the
public meeting that night. He was informed of the action by Board counsel and the local
newspaper. 	He felt that the actions of the new Board were of a harassing nature,
damaging to his reputation and career, and were not transparent, as neither he nor the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
15
public was given a fair opportunity to speak before or after the vote on the “walk-on”
resolution at the meeting on January 24.
Two months into his suspension, which the Board stipulated throughout the
proceeding was not performance related, the Board demanded his resignation on short
notice. That month, he filed an emergent application seeking reinstatement, which was
denied since the Board was still paying him. The Board’s Declaratory Judgment action,
filed the same month, was not acted on by the Commissioner, and was transmitted to
the OAL for the proceedings addressed herein. 	The Board sought relief declaring the
new contract void ab initio, while also seeking to uphold the rescission of the first
contract.
Dr. Gayles said that in early May 2019 he received a second Rice notice without
explanation. 	Were it not for a text message he said he received from a member of the
public, he would not have known that the Board decided to renege on its commitment to
continue paying him during the suspension. 	That resulted in a second emergent
application, the outcome of which was to order the district to resume full payments and
benefits until the underlying matter could be heard.
Dr. 	Gayles 	also 	stated 	that 	he 	felt 	dehumanized 	when 	called 	to 	Board
headquarters in early May to pick up the rest of his belongings, where he was met by
three police officers and denied entry to his office.
Towards the end of his testimony, Dr. Gayles confirmed that the rescission of the
old contract and the enactment of the new contract were part of the same resolution on
November 29, 2018. 	He expressed no concern at the time of the vote on the old and
new contracts whether, if for some reason the new contract were set aside, his
employment status would be jeopardized.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	Antoine Gayles began his position as superintendent of the Hillside Public
Schools under a contract with a term from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2020.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
16
2. 	On November 6, 2018, an election for five seats on the District Board of
Education was held. 	Four new members were elected, together with one
remaining 	incumbent 	member, 	which 	significantly 	changed 	the 	majority
composition of the Board.
3. 	On 	her 	own 	initiative, 	the 	Board 	president 	at 	the 	time, 	Hawaiian
Thompson-Epps, started a conversation with Dr. Gayles to determine if he would
like to consider a contract extension.
4. 	Without consulting with the full Board, the Board counsel at the time was
enlisted 	to 	draft 	a 	new 	contract, 	which 	was 	forwarded 	to 	the 	County
superintendent by the assistant business administrator. 	The Board secretary
also was involved to the extent that figures and numbers in the new contract had
to be revised.
5. 	Three days prior to the former Board’s next-to-last meeting, on November
26, 2018, the full Board, for the first time, received the proposed new contract for
its review.
6. 	At one of its last public meetings prior to the new Board assuming office,
on November 29, 2018, the prior Board took action to rescind petitioner’s existing
contract and 	replace it 	with 	the 	new contract, 	which, 	among other 	things,
extended petitioner’s term for three additional years through June 2023 and
raised his salary. 	This was done after review and direction from the County
superintendent, who was not aware that the entire Board was not informed of the
existence of a new proposed contract. 	The parties involved were limited to the
former Board counsel, the Board secretary, the assistant business administrator,
the Board president at the time who was not re-elected, and Dr. Gayles.
7. 	By 	a 	vote 	of 	5-3 	with 	one 	abstention, 	the 	old 	contract, 	which 	was
supposed to end June 30, 2020, was rescinded and was replaced with a new
contract with a higher salary and a term ending in June 2023.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
17
8. 	At its first meeting, which took place on January 3, 2019, the new Board,
after it was sworn in and a new counsel was hired, authorized sending a Rice
Notice to petitioner. 	No explanation was offered as to why it was only sent to
Dr. Gayles via email within thirty-six hours of the next meeting when the Board
might act.
9. 	Three weeks elapsed with no one, including the new Board president,
Juan Allende, communicating with Dr. Gayles that his employment status might
be in jeopardy. When Dr. Gayles asked Mr. Allende about rumors he had heard,
Mr. Allende declined any knowledge about what was being said.
10. 	At its next meeting on January 24, 2019, the Board suspended petitioner
with pay and benefits continuing. 	No date was memorialized for this change of
status 	to 	end, 	and 	no 	facts 	were 	presented 	that 	the 	superintendent 	was
suspended for cause or any allegations of improper acts. 	In fact, the Board
stipulated during the proceeding that 	the suspension 	was not performance
related. 	The Board contended that the suspension was to allow them 	to
“investigate” the legality or illegality of the new contract. 	Having heard all of the
testimony, I FIND that whether or not the suspension was the appropriate
method for the Board’s inquiry, the suspension was not in any way related to Dr.
Gayles’ performance as superintendent of schools.
11. 	The resolution that the Board voted on to suspend Dr. Gayles did not
appear on the agenda for the January 24 meeting. For reasons unknown, it was
done as a “walk-on” resolution that night, with no ability for the public to
comment, since the Board had previously voted to move the public portion of the
meeting to an earlier spot on the agenda. 	At the time the suspension resolution
was considered, the public portion of the meeting was not re-opened.
12. 	The parties, with counsel, appeared before Judge Betancourt on March 6,
2019, at which time the district, through counsel, represented that the relief
requested should be denied because petitioner would still be paid. In fact, it was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
18
represented to Judge Betancourt that would continue to pay Dr. Gayles while it
was researching the issues involving the new contract.
13. 	Two days before the hearing before Judge Betancourt, on March 4, 2019,
the district filed its request for a declaratory ruling seeking to have the new
contract deemed void ab initio.
14. 	Both matters were remanded to the OAL, and with Judge Betancourt’s
recusal, the matters were assigned to the undersigned ALJ.
15. 	Following a status phone conference, the parties were directed to appear
for settlement conferences, one of which was held on April 29, 2019, and the
second on May 14, 2019.
16. 	Five days prior to the second settlement conference, and with Dr. Gayles’
request for reinstatement and the declaratory-relief application still pending, the
Board on less than three days’ notice to petitioner unilaterally took action to stop
the payments it had previously agreed to make, resulting in no further payments
to petitioner as of May 15, 2019. 	A second emergent application was then
instituted by Dr. Gayles, seeking immediate reinstatement of his salary and
benefits while he remained suspended.
17. 	On the return date of the second request for emergent relief, no testimony
was taken, and the parties relied on their submissions and oral argument.
Hearing dates were scheduled on the merits of both matters for July 8 and July 9,
2019. 	Further hearings were conducted on July 31, August 12, and October 8,
2019. 	The district also filed a motion to strike petitioner’s answer and disqualify
petitioner’s counsel, which was denied. 	Prior to the start of testimony, counsel
for Dr. Gayles withdrew the affidavits, which cured the unintentional impropriety
the district complained about.
18. 	The Board does not dispute, and in fact stipulates, that the suspension
was in no way related to Dr. Gayles’ performance in the position. I FIND that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
19
suspension was not performance related, nor was it based on any improprieties
or acts committed by Dr. Gayles. 	For reasons unknown, the Board elected to
remove Dr. Gayles from his position while it investigated the legality of the new
contract. No other options were explored, nor does it appear that the new Board
president or members of any of the Board committees attempted to engage in a
dialogue with Dr. Gayles prior to suspending him.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The parties agree on most of the applicable law that governs this dispute. 	Not
surprisingly, they disagree on the application and interpretation of the legal principles
that determine the outcome.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.3 states: 	“any employee or officer of a Board of education in
this State who is suspended from his employment, office or position, other than by
reason of indictment, pending any investigation, hearing or trial or any appeal therefrom,
shall receive his full pay or salary during such period of suspension except that in the
event 	of 	charges 	against 	such 	employee 	or 	officer 	brought 	before 	the 	board 	of
education or the Commissioner of Education pursuant to law, such suspension may be
with or without pay or salary as provided in chapter 6 of which this section is a
supplement.” Emphasis added.
N.J.A.C. 	6A:23A-3.1 	governs 	the 	review 	of 	employment 	contracts 	for
superintendents, and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.2 addresses the required actions for early
terminations of such contracts. 	Among other things, notice is required, and at least
thirty days’ notice of a hearing is required before any such action is taken. 	Simply put,
both sides ignored these provisions and circumvented the appropriate legal process for
changing a superintendent’s contract.
The following sequence of events lead to the conclusion that the rescission of the
first contract is void, as is the rescission of the second contract. 	The suspension of
Dr. Gayles without an acceptable basis such as performance related, or the existence of
improprieties was really intended to be a termination, without following any of the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
20
recognized statutory, regulatory or policy procedures for notice, discussion and public
input.
It is undisputed that the question of which contract or either contract had not
been decided, yet the Board on May 9, 2019, unilaterally voted to stop the payments it
had been making to petitioner, which it represented it would do to the ALJ previously
assigned to this case. 	During argument, the district advocated that the provisions of
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A do not apply since there was a prior mutual rescission, yet at the same
time they also argue that the actions of the prior Board in providing a new and
extended-term contract to petitioner were invalid. 	This argument is not convincing,
since if the new contract is void, the act of rescission of the old contract is also void,
regardless of whether it was part of the same resolution, or if it had been reflected in a
separate resolution. 	I CONCLUDE, that the rescission of the old contract is also void.
Based on that conclusion and the applicable law, Dr. Gayles is entitled to reinstatement
to the position of superintendent of Hillside Public Schools under the terms of the old
contract through June 30, 2020.
Dr. Gayles argues that the former Board had the authority to modify the existing
contract under N.J S.A. 18A:11-1, which allows a Board to do all things necessary for
the lawful and proper conduct of its schools. 	He further cites N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20.1,
which is the renewal statute for superintendents providing that at the conclusion of the
initial contract or any subsequent contract the superintendent holding the position shall
be deemed reappointed for another contract of the same duration, unless the board
reappoints him for a different term.
One of the problems with advancing this argument is that under the underlying
facts indicate that Dr. Gayles still had more than eighteen months left at the time the
new contract was proposed, so this was not a renewal at the end of an expiring term.
Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that under the lawful-and-
proper-conduct standard, there was a compelling reason to essentially tear up his old
contract and replace it with a new one that had a longer term with higher salary and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
21
benefits. 	The Board president’s justification for what amounted to unilateral actions,
while perhaps well-intentioned, was misguided, and did not follow well-established law.
Dr. Gayles also argues that the enactment of the new contract also had the
blessing of the County superintendent and was properly presented to Mr. Palmieri under
N.J.S.A. 	18A:7-8 	and 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:23A 	et 	seq., 	which 	establish 	the 	duties 	and
responsibilities of this official as an agent of the Department of Education, including but
not limited to review of superintendents’ contracts.
But that presumes that Mr. Palmieri was aware that the Board was asked for a
consensus to send the new contract for review, and that Mr. Palmieri knew or should
have known that a new Board would be seated in a few short weeks which might not
want to be bound by the new agreement. 	The unilateral actions taken by Ms.
Thompson-Epps had the potential to compromise both Boards under the ruling in
Cheng v. Rodas, West New York Board of Education, Dkt. No. C58-14, Comm’r
(January 20, 2017), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/, a school ethics case wherein
the board president initiated private action to negotiate a new employment agreement
for a business administrator without including all the other board members.
Once Mr. Palmieri returned the contract after some revisions, the full Board only
had forty-eight hours to review the entire contract, and the members of the public had
even less time to review it and comment upon it. What seems clear, although it was not
specifically stated by the witnesses, is that the Board president at the time, Ms.
Thompson-Epps, recognized that the outcome of the election would not be favorable for
Dr. Gayles, and so she acted in an expedited and somewhat surreptitious manner to
make sure he would have some additional protection with a longer contract term. 	It is
certainly understandable that most individuals offered the same opportunity would agree
to accept a new contract. Dr. Gayles, negotiating directly with the Board counsel at the
time, may have unintentionally caused himself harm instead of waiting to see if the new
Board would concur with the actions of the Board that was about to leave office. 	See
Nowak v. Bd. of Educ. of Manville, 1976 S.L.D. 47, wherein a lame-duck board is not
allowed to bind a future board in non-administrative matters; see also Gonzalez v. Bd.
of Educ. of Elizabeth Sch. Dist., 325 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1999), cited by

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
22
both sides and setting forth the principle that “[a] board of education is a noncontinuous
body whose authority is limited to its own official life and whose actions can bind its
successors only in those ways and to the extent expressly provided by statute.” 	Thus,
the rescission of Dr. Gayles’ existing contract and replacement with a new contract
when there was no vacancy in the position and no compelling reason to make such a
change was significantly more than a ministerial act as described in Nowak.
Moreover, when a board of education is contemplating a significant action such
as a superintendent’s contract, reasonable notice to the public is required under
N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11 and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.1, which requires thirty days’ notice to the
public in advance of taking action, and at least ten days for the public to comment. The
forty-eight 	hours 	provided here 	in late November 	2018 is 	woefully short 	of 	both
requirements.
The pattern of failing to follow well-established statutes, rules, and protocol was
exacerbated once the new Board took office. 	Barely sworn in at its reorganization
meeting, the new Board, under leadership from a new president, voted on a “walk-on”
resolution pursuant to Rice v. Union County Regional High School Board of Education,
155 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied, 76 N.J. 238 (1978), which requires
that a formal written notice be sent to school employees at least seventy-two hours in
advance of the time a board may take action involving the person’s employment with
the district. The rationale behind this provision was to give that individual an opportunity
to appear before the board in public or private before any decisions are made. 	In this
case, for reasons unknown, almost three weeks went by after the initial vote before the
notice was sent, thereby allowing little or no time for Dr. Gayles to act or respond prior
to the suspension.
Even more curious are the circumstances surrounding the ultimate action the
new Board took regarding the suspension of Dr. Gayles. Both sides agree that the rules
and provisions for public comment at school-board meetings, as well as for other public
entities, are governed by the Open Public Meetings Act, which can be found at N.J.S.A.
10:4-6 et seq. 	This statute, also commonly known as “the Sunshine Law,” encourages
boards to conduct most of their business before the public, and to allow a reasonable

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
23
period of time for the public to comment, and participate in question-and-answer
sessions before the board takes action on matters that will impact the public, the
students, and individuals employed by the board. 	In this case, the new Board took at
least 	two 	actions 	that 	contravene 	this 	important 	standard 	in a 	manner 	that 	was
detrimental to Dr. Gayles and the public.
Prior to its first full public meeting, no resolution appeared on the agenda
regarding the suspension of Dr. Gayles. 	Surely, having previously authorized a Rice
notice three weeks earlier, the Board knew or should have known that it might be
considering some sort of action against Dr. Gayles that would impact his employment
with the district. 	Not only was Dr. Gayles deprived of the ability to have a meaningful
opportunity to address the Board’s concerns, but the Board failed to give the public, the
taxpayers, and parents whose children were about to be impacted an opportunity to
address the Board.
This denial of public comment was further compounded by the Board’s decision
to confine public comment to a one-time period much earlier in the meeting, prior to the
vote on the suspension. 	Presented in the form of a “walk-on” resolution, there was no
thirty-day period for the public or members of the Board to review the resolution, nor
was there a ten-day period for public comment.
At 	least 	three 	times 	during 	this 	proceeding, 	the 	Board 	stipulated 	that 	the
suspension was not performance related, nor was any impropriety involved. 	The new
president Mr. Allende, and Mr. Chapman identified the sole reason for the suspension
as an opportunity for the Board to investigate its rights under the new contract. 	No
other justification was offered.
Compounding the deleterious nature of the new Board’s actions, after initially
agreeing on the record before another administrative law judge to continue Dr. Gayles’
salary and benefits, not more than two months later, and while the matter was still active
before the Office of Administrative Law, the Board approved a new resolution, brought
as a “walk-on” without proper notice to Dr. Gayles and the public, which immediately
stripped Dr. Gayles of his salary and benefits. 	As justification for this arbitrary and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
24
capricious action, the Board cited the recently decided case of Wall Township Education
Association v. Wall Township Board of Education, No. A-4885-17 (App. Div. March 14,
2019), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/, wherein the Appellate Division ruled
that the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11 are still necessary in order for a successor
contract to be valid. Thus, the new Board advances the argument that if a board wants
to change a superintendent’s contract, public notice and a hearing are mandated in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.1 (thirty and ten days, respectively), and, as such,
the new agreement is void.
Conveniently though, Hillside does not argue that the same ruling applies to the
rescission of the contract, which occurred at the time the new contract was enacted.
They further disingenuously suggest that the undersigned does not have the authority to
overturn the rescission, unless a finding is made that the Board actions violated a
statute.
Given the actions of both sides, I CONCLUDE that each side violated the spirit
and intent of the relevant statutes, regulations, and caselaw regarding superintendents’
contracts, and I further CONCLUDE that the initial “walk-on” resolution suspending
Dr. Gayles in January 2019, followed by another “walk-on” resolution to stop his salary
and benefits wherein he was directed to pick up his boxed belongings and barred from
his office, amounted to a termination, disguised as a suspension, without the right to be
properly heard under the involuntary-termination section of N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20 and
N.J.A.C. 	6A:23A-3.2, 	which 	involves 	notice 	of 	charges 	and 	evidence 	to 	a
superintendent, with a right to reply. 	Thus, the same argument Hillside advances, that
the new contract was the result of improper and illegal procedures, also applies to its
action of suspending Dr. Gayles, and ultimately in early May 2019 of stripping him of
salary and benefits and the use of his office, without formally saying he had been
terminated.
In support of its actions and position, the district relies on the recently decided
Wall case, as well as its belief that this is a contract case only and argues that since the
first contract was mutually rescinded, the Board has the authority to cease payments.
For the reasons set forth herein, I CONCLUDE that the acts leading to second contract

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
25
were inappropriate, making the contract itself void, the same CONCLUSION applies as
well 	to 	the 	rescission 	of 	the 	contract 	in 	existence 	at 	the 	time, 	as 	the 	County
superintendent was not aware that the new contract was sent for his review without the
consensus of the Board. 	Moreover, the action could be detrimental to the new Board
that would take office within a few weeks that there was no compelling reason to offer
Dr. Gayles a new contract with eighteen months left on the contract in effect at the time.
I further CONCLUDE that starting with the Rice notice, together with the “walk-
on” resolution to suspend, the lack of public input constitutes bad faith on the part of the
new Board, which in essence masked an intent to terminate Dr. Gayles under a
suspension that had no legitimate basis or rationale.
While I HAVE CONCLUDED that the circumstances surrounding the suspension
were suspect, the same CONCLUSION applies to the circumstances surrounding the
preparation 	of 	a 	new 	contract 	sent 	without 	full 	Board 	authority 	to 	the 	County
superintendent. 	The vote on the new contract by a “lame duck” Board seems as if it
was done to circumvent the normal process of a full public hearing. 	The former Board
president, Ms. Thompson-Epps, without the knowledge of the full Board, took unilateral
actions to expedite the process of enacting a new contract that a new Board was about
to take over. 	There was no consensus to send the proposed contract to the County
superintendent. 	The members of the “lame duck” Board only had forty-eight hours to
review the proposed contract. 	There was insufficient time for members of the public to
review the document. 	I therefore CONCLUDE that it was appropriate for Dr. Gayles to
receive his full salary and benefits due to the questionable circumstances surrounding
his suspension while this matter was pending. 	The application for declaratory relief is
granted 	in 	part 	as 	to 	the new contract being deemed 	void ab 	initio. 	I 	further
CONCLUDE that the rescission of the contract ending June 30, 2020, is also deemed
void ab initio, as it was part of the same act and resolution approving the new contract.
I further CONCLUDE that the Board’s argument that the new contract should be
deemed void, but the rescission of the old contract should be upheld, is misguided, and
fails as a matter of fact and law. 	Therefore, I CONCLUDE, under a totality of the facts
and circumstances, Dr. Gayles is entitled to all the salary and benefits he collected

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
26
during the pendency of the litigation and retroactive to January 1, 2019 through June
30, 2020.
The parties are left to their remedies in other forums concerning any remaining
disputes about payments, should they try to pursue them.
ORDER
I hereby ORDER that the rescission of the original contract as part of a resolution
on November 29, 2018 is hereby deemed VOID as is the new contract enacted as part
of the same resolution is also deemed VOID. 	Board compensate petitioner for any
salary and benefits lost and credit petitioner any seniority credit lost retroactive to
January 24, 2019 and is reinstated to the position of superintendent through June 30,
2020. 	I further ORDER that the suspension enacted on January 24, 2019 is deemed
VOID and VACATED and a copy of this initial decision confirming the suspension was
not 	based 	on 	performance 	or 	inappropriate 	conduct 	by 	Dr. 	Gayles 	becomes 	a
permanent part of his personnel file.
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 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
27
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.
June 17, 2020
DATE 	ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	June 17, 2020
Date Mailed to Parties:
mm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
28
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Dr. Antoine Gayles
For Respondent:
Darryl Palmieri
Anette Giordano
Angela Menza
Joel Chapman
Juan Allende
Hawaiian Thompson-Epps
Dr. David Eichenholtz
Exhibits
Joint:
J-1 	2016 contract
J-2 	2018 new contract
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Contract, (also J-1) dated 2016
P-2 	Not in Evidence
P-3 	Labor draft, dated November 14, 2018
P-4 	Letter to Mr. Palmieri, dated November 21, 2018
P-5 	Letter to former Board counsel Gutierrez
P-6 	Meeting Minutes, dated January 24, 2019
P-7 	Detailed statement Dr. Eichenholtz

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06502-19 and EDU 05548-19
29
P-8 	Transmittal to Board Attorney,
P-9 	Minutes, dated November 29, 2018
P-10 	Board Policy 01711 Duties of Officers
P-11 	Labor Committee policy
P-12 	Rice Notice
P-13 	Performance Appraisal
P-14 	Not in Evidence
P-15 	Meeting Minutes, dated January 3, 2019
P-16 	Rice Notice
For Respondent:
R-1 	Meeting Minutes, dated September 20, 2018
R-2 	Agenda, dated October 18, 2018
R-3 	Exec. Session, dated October 18, 2018
R-4 	Minutes, dated November 29, 2018
R-5 	Closed Session Minutes, dated November 29, 2018
R-6 	Meeting Minutes, dated January 24, 2019
R-7 	Exec. Session Minutes, dated January 24, 2019
R-8 	Palmieri/Giordano emails
R-9 	Palmieri to Giordano email
R-10 	Emails
R-11 	Palmieri/Eichenholtz emails
R-12 	Miscellaneous documents
R-13 	Labor Agenda, dated November 27, 2018
R-14 	Labor Committee, dated November 14, 2018
R-15 and R-16 Eichenholtz tapes referenced, not played