BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY V. NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 10/20/03 (#591-03)

591-03 (Link to OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu05493-03_1.html
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
CITY OF ELIZABETH, UNION
COUNTY, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT 	:
OF EDUCATION,
:
RESPONDENT.
:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioning 	“Abbott” 	District 	appealed 	the 	Department’s 	determination 	of 	its 	2003-04
preliminary “maintenance budget,” alleging that the Department’s review was not in accordance
with the July 23, 2003 order of the Supreme Court.
The ALJ found that the duly promulgated rule implementing the Court’s order for “maintenance”
controlled in this proceeding, and that the Office of Administrative Law lacked jurisdiction to
determine its validity.
The Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, adopted the Initial
Decision for the reasons expressed therein and dismissed the District’s petition.
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.
October 20, 2003

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 5493-03
AGENCY DKT. NO. 205-6/03
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
CITY OF ELIZABETH, UNION
COUNTY, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT 	:
OF EDUCATION,
:
RESPONDENT.
:
The record of this local “Abbott” District’s appeal of the Department’s decision
on its supplemental funding request for the 2003-2004 school year, and the Initial Decision of the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have been reviewed. 	The District’s exceptions and the
Department’s reply thereto were duly submitted in accordance with the schedule established in
response to the Court’s order for expedition and were considered by the Commissioner in
reaching this decision.
Upon careful and independent review of the record and the District’s exceptions,
the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), that the District’s
challenge to the definition of “maintenance budget” in N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 is a facial challenge to
the regulation and that the OAL does not have jurisdiction to determine directly or indirectly the
validity of N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2, as such determination is solely within the jurisdictional purview
of the Appellate Division or the Supreme Court. 	R. 2:2-3(a); see, also, Pascucci v. Vagott,
71 N.J. 40, 51-52 	(1976); 	Wendling 	v. 	N.J. 	Racing 	Com’n., 	279 	N.J. 	Super. 	477, 	485
8

(App. Div. 1995). 	Moreover, even if it were to be assumed, arguendo, that the OAL has
jurisdiction to determine “a choice of law” as argued by the District, the Commissioner finds that
the Department’s definition of “maintenance budget,” as detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2, does not
differ in any appreciable way from the Supreme Court’s definition of that term contained in its
Budget Order of July 23, 2003. 	Consequently, the Department’s application of such regulatory
definition in its review and approval of the District’s 2003-2004 budget is wholly appropriate.1
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted for the reasons expressed therein.
The District’s petition is, therefore, dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 20, 2003
Date of Mailing: 	N/A
1 In that counsel for petitioner notified Judge Hayden by letter of September 16, 2003 that the District “does not
contest any of the specific maintenance budget calculations of the Department of Education in the August 27, 2003
letter,” the validity of the definition of the “maintenance budget” set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 is the only
remaining issue in this matter.
2 Pursuant to P.L. 2003, c. 122, “Abbott” determinations are final agency actions appealable directly to the Appellate
Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.
9