M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, 11/5/2020, (#253-20)

253-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.M., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Lafayette, Sussex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the finding of the respondent Board’s Anti-Bullying Coordinator (ABC) that her son
was not the victim of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. Petitioner was given the opportunity to contest the ABC’s
HIB findings in a hearing before the Board and was offered two options on how to proceed in light of the
COVID-19 epidemic. Petitioner chose instead to file the within petition, challenging the ABC’s findings
and arguing that the district has violated the Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) by refusing to provide access to and copies of video recordings showing the events at issue. The
Board filed a motion to dismiss, contending that petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
by not pursuing the required appeal at the Board level.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no genuine issues of material fact here, and the Board is entitled
to prevail as a matter of law because petitioner failed to avail herself of a Board-level hearing before
appealing to the Commissioner; the district has substantially complied with petitioner’s FERPA request
for access to the video recordings; and, further, FERPA does not require the Board to provide copies of
the videos. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner’s appeal before the Commissioner is not ripe;
accordingly, summary decision was granted to the Board as a matter of law, and the petition was
dismissed.
Upon a comprehensive review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ that petitioner’s
claim regarding the district’s HIB decision is not ripe for review because the statutory procedures outlined
in the Act have not been completed. Having found petitioner’s exceptions to be without merit, the
Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. The petition
was dismissed with instruction that the matter shall proceed at the local level before the Board, and that, if
and when the petitioner disagrees with the Board’s decision following that hearing, a new petition of
appeal may be filed with the Commissioner. The instant 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.
November 5, 2020

253-20
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05225-20
Agency Dkt. No. 94-5/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.M., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Lafayette, Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto by
the Board have been reviewed and considered.1
This matter involves allegations of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB)
made by petitioner’s minor child. Following an investigation, the district’s anti-bullying coordinator
(ABC) issued a report indicating the complaint was unsubstantiated. 	Petitioner appealed to the
Commissioner, disputing the ABC’s conclusion and arguing that the district has violated the Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by
refusing to provide access to and copies of video recordings showing the events at issue. The Board
filed a motion to dismiss, and the matter was transmitted to the OAL. The case was initially assigned
1 An audio recording of a telephone conference conducted by ALJ Danielle Pasquale has also been reviewed.

2
to ALJ Danielle Pasquale and was later transferred to ALJ Jude Tiscornia.2 In his Initial Decision,
ALJ Tiscornia granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that petitioner had failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies because she had not availed herself of a hearing before the
Board prior to appealing to the Commissioner. 	The ALJ also ruled that the district had substantially
complied with petitioner’s FERPA request for access to the video recordings, and that FERPA does
not require the Board to provide copies of the videos.
Following the Initial Decision, petitioner filed a motion to reopen pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.5, in which she argued that she was not afforded a hearing or oral argument to
present evidence in responsive to the Board’s motion to dismiss. 	The Commissioner denied the
motion, finding that no statute or regulation requires a hearing or oral argument.3
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the ALJ incorrectly found that she was
appealing the ABC’s HIB finding, and instead asserts that the issue is her request for discovery
access to the video recordings prior to the Board hearing. 	Petitioner also disputes the ALJ’s
statements that indicate she is seeking copies of the video recordings and that she is seeking access to
the videos under FERPA. Petitioner reiterates arguments made in her motion to compel discovery,
contending that she needs access to the video recordings to present her case to the Board. Petitioner
takes issue with the proceedings at the OAL, in particular the ALJ’s granting of a motion for
summary decision that the Board did not file. 	She alleges that if the ALJ converted the Board’s
2 Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify ALJ Pasquale following a telephone conference she conducted with the
parties. The record does not include an Order ruling on the motion to disqualify, but as the case was subsequently
transferred to another ALJ, there is no need for a decision on the motion, as petitioner received the relief which she
sought.
3 Following the issuance of Commissioner Decision No. 191-20L regarding the motion to reopen, petitioner filed a
“Motion for Hearing and Oral Argument,” in which she expressed disagreement with the Commissioner’s decision.
There is no statutory or regulatory provision for such a motion. Nonetheless, as the Commissioner concluded in
Decision No. 191-20L, there is no requirement that every case before the OAL include a hearing and/or oral
argument, and it was entirely appropriate for the ALJ to issue an Initial Decision without conducting either type of
proceeding. For that reason, petitioner’s “Motion for Hearing and Oral Argument” is denied.

3
motion to dismiss to a motion for summary decision, she did not have notice or an opportunity to
respond.4
In reply, the Board argues that the Initial Decision was correctly decided and should
be affirmed.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ
that petitioner’s claim regarding the district’s HIB decision is not ripe for review because the
statutory procedu res outlined in the Act have not been completed.5 As a preliminary matter, the
Commissioner finds that it was appropriate for the ALJ to decide the matter on a summary basis,
notwithstanding the fact that the Board did not file a document entitled “Motion for Summary
Decision.” The Board did file a motion to dismiss, and it included documents outside the pleadings
in support of the motion. Converting such a motion to one for summary decision is common practice
and consistent with N.J. Ct. R. 4:6-2, which is applicable to proceedings at the OAL pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3.
Petitioner argues that N.J. Ct. R. 4 :6-2 requires the court to provide notice that it
intends to consider a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, and that she received no
such notice. 	Her argument is belied by the fact that following a telephone conference with
ALJ Tiscornia on August 4, 2020, petitioner filed a letter dated August 5, 2020 in which she objected
to having the matter heard on a summary basis. It is clear that petitioner did, therefore, have notice
4 Following the filing of her exceptions, petitioner filed a motion to stay the Commissioner’s decision in this matter.
It appears that petitioner misunderstands N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.15, which provides for a motion for a stay of a
Commissioner’s decision. 	This regulation is not a mechanism by which a party can delay the issuance of the
Commissioner’s decision. 	Rather, this regulation allows a party delay any relief ordered in the Commissioner’s
decision, pending a determination on appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. A motion for a stay of
a Commissioner’s decision cannot be appropriately filed until after the Commissioner’s decision has been issued,
and must be filed concurrent with, or subsequent to, a notice of appeal of that decision. Accordingly, petitioner’s
motion for a stay has not been considered.
5 While petitioner indicated in her exceptions that she is not seeking to appeal the ABC’s HIB finding, the
Commissioner is nonetheless compelled to address this issue, as it was included in the petition of appeal and many
of petitioner’s filings throughout the pendency of the case, including the exceptions themselves, have included
arguments related to the correctness of the ABC’s finding that her child was not the victim of an act of HIB.

4
of the ALJ’s intention to treat the Board’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary decision.
Moreover, petitioner had the opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the Board’s arguments
directly in both her original opposition to the motion to dismiss and the August 5, 2020 letter raising
additional objections, and indirectly in her numerous other filings making arguments on both the HIB
claim and the discovery claim. 	The Commissioner further rejects petitioner’s argument that the
Board’s failure to provide the video recordings in discovery precludes the entry of summary decision,
as the content of the videos is irrelevant to the legal questions pertaining to the Commissioner’s
jurisdiction over this matter and petitioner’s right to her child’s student records. The Commissioner
therefore agrees with the ALJ’s decision to convert the Board’s motion to dismiss to a motion for
summary decision.6
A summary decision may be rendered “if the papers and discovery which have
been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). A court should grant summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is
no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 528-29 (1995).
There is no dispute that the Board has not issued a decision regarding petitioner’s
HIB claim; in fact, petitioner admits as much in the petition of appeal.7 The district’s ABC has made
6 Following the Initial Decision, petitioner filed a “Motion to Strike” the Board’s motion for summary decision and a
“Motion to Vacate” the Initial Decision, based on arguments substantially similar to those made in petitioner’s
exceptions. There is no statutory or regulatory provision for such motions. Nonetheless, as the Commissioner has
concluded that converting the Board’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary decision was appropriate, the
motions are denied.
7 While petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend her petition of appeal, nothing contained in that motion alters
the fact that the Board has not yet issued a decision. Instead, the motion seeks to raise additional issues regarding
the procedures followed by district staff during the course of the HIB investigation and the accuracy of the ABC’s

5
findings, and the superintendent has reported those findings to the Board, but the Act requires those
findings to be affirmed, rejected, or modified by the Board, and it is the Board’s decision that is
appealable to the Commissioner. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e). The Legislature explicitly created a
multi-step process for the investigation and determination of HIB allegations. 	Only after the final
decision by the board of education did the Legislature create a right of appeal to the Commissioner,
and for good reason – it is not in the interest of judicial economy to adjudicate HIB matters in a
piecemeal fashion. To allow an appeal following the ABC’s written report, as petitioner sought to do
here, would result in the expenditure of time and money to dispute findings that could have been
rejected by the Board if the matter had proceeded to a vote. 	Moreover, the standard of review
applicable to the Commissioner’s decision in HIB matters necessitates that the process be concluded
prior to coming before the Commissioner. 	When a local board of education acts within its
discretionary authority, its decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be
disturbed unless there is an affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without
rational basis or induced by improper motives.” 	See Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J.
Super. 288 (App. Div. 1960). 	The Commissioner is unable to determine whether the Board’s
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable when the Board has not issued a decision.
Although the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear all controversies arising
under the school laws, the criteria for determining the ripeness of a controversy for judicial
determination are “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of
withholding court consideration.” 	Abbott Labs v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967). 	In
assessing fitness, the court must determine if a legal question suitable for judicial resolution has
crystallized and whether the ruling or action that is the subject of the complaint is final. Ibid.
Here, the action complained of – the HIB finding – is not final, and therefore the matter is not
findings. Petitioner’s HIB claim, including any and all issues regarding the district’s procedures or findings, is not
ripe for review, for the reasons explained herein. Therefore, the motion for leave to amend is moot and is denied.

6
ripe for review. The Commissioner notes that, i n arguing for dismissal, the Board frames the issue
as a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, an argument that the ALJ accepted. 	However, the
jurisdictional issue is more properly characterized as one of ripeness, as the Board’s decision
regarding the HIB allegations is not a remedy to an action by the ABC or the superintendent, but
rather a necessary predicate to a decision by the Commissioner.8 	For these reasons, summary
judgment is granted in favor of the Board.
The Commissioner also concurs with the ALJ’s decision denying petitioner’s motion
to compel discovery related to the video recordings.9 Petitioner has, in various filings, argued that
discovery is needed as part of the district-level HIB process and as part of the contested case opened
through her petition of appeal. 	To the extent that the motion sought discovery in the docketed
contested case, the motion is moot and is denied.10 To the extent that the motion sought “discovery”
for the Board hearing on the HIB claim that has not yet occurred, the Commissioner has previously
addressed the question of the nature of a board of education’s hearing regarding an HIB allegation
and concluded that the Act does not require trial-type adversary proceedings. 	L.K. and T.K., obo
8 Participants in the Board hearing process may colloquially refer to the hearing as an “appeal.” However, while a
hearing presents an opportunity for parents to dispute the findings of the ABC and/or the superintendent, it is not, in
fact, an appeal of those decisions, and it is not characterized in the Act as such. A parent who does not request a
hearing is still permitted to appeal a board’s decision to the Commissioner – provided that a decision has been made.
Here, the obstacle to the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is not the lack of a hearing, but the lack of a decision by the
Board.
9 Petitioner also filed a motion for emergent relief, asking the ALJ to grant her motion to compel discovery before
any other pending motions are decided. Petitioner argued that she is unable to proceed with a hearing before the
Board without the video recordings. The motion for emergent relief seeks the same relief as the motion to compel
discovery, and it must be rejected for the same reasons.
10 This decision does not preclude petitioner from seeking the video recordings as discovery in any future
proceedings before the OAL, nor does it determine whether any such request should be granted or denied.
Petitioner’s motion to sanction the Board for failing to respond to her discovery request is also denied. 	Petitioner
emailed counsel for the Board on June 9, 2020, seeking access to or copies of the videos. Petitioner argues that by
failing to provide access or copies within 15 days of the request, the Board should be subject to sanctions. However,
petitioner had filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking the same items from the Board, on June 12, 2020. With
its motion to dismiss pending, as well as petitioner’s motion to compel the Board to produce the same video
recordings requested in discovery, it was not unreasonable for the Board to withhold discovery until decisions on
those motions could be issued. 	Therefore, sanctions are not warranted. 	Moreover, as the motion to compel
discovery has been denied, the motion for sanctions is moot, and imposing sanctions for failure to produce that
discovery would be unfounded.

7
A.K. v. Mansfield Bd. of Educ., Commissioner Decision 107-19 (April 22, 2019). The Act provides
that “[a]t the hearing the board may hear from the school anti-bullying specialist about the incident,
recommendations for discipline or services, and any programs instituted to reduce such incidents.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). Provisions for procedures more judicial in nature – including discovery
– could have been included by the Legislature in the Act, but were not, and the Commissioner
declines to require such procedures when they are not supported by the plain language of the statute.
See DeFalco v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Hamilton, Commissioner Decision No. 198-19, decided
July 26, 2019.
However, the Commissioner notes that the petition of appeal claims that the board
has violated the law by failing to provide her with access to her child’s educational records, which is
a claim that should be evaluated on its own merits and not only with respect to the motion to compel
discovery. Petitioner bases her claim on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),
20 U.S.C. § 1232g. 11 The Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear and determine all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws, as well as the rules of the State Board of Education or the
Commissioner. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	The Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate FERPA,
which is a federal law. 	Accordingly, any claim that the Board has violated FERPA is dismissed.
Even viewing the pleadings in the light most favorable to petitioner – affording her leeway as a pro
se petitioner and addressing her claims under New Jersey’s Pupil Records Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19,
and its implementing regulations, most specifically N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5 – the Board is not required to
provide petitioner with copies of her child’s records, but rather only access to them, which it has
done.12
11 While petitioner’s exceptions indicate that she is not actually seeking access to the recordings under FERPA, she
also includes arguments that the district violated FERPA, such that the Commissioner is compelled to address them.
12 While petitioner indicated in her exceptions that she is not seeking copies of the video recordings, but rather
“discovery access” to them, the Commissioner is nonetheless compelled to address this issue, as it was included in
the petition of appeal and many of petitioner’s filings throughout the pendency of the case have referred to her

8
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter and the petition is hereby dismissed. 	The matter shall proceed before the Board for the
hearing requested by petitioner, and, if petitioner disagrees with the Board’s decision following that
hearing, she may file a new petition of appeal.13
IT IS SO ORDERED.14
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 5, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	November 6, 2020
request for copies of the video recordings. In fact, even the exceptions themselves are contradictory, as petitioner
both indicates she is not seeking copies and expresses a “preference” for copies of the recordings.
13 The Commissioner notes that the petition of appeal indicates that petitioner was concerned about deadlines, which
may have resulted in her filing the petition of appeal prior to the Board’s decision. To the extent that clarity may
assist the parties on this point, the Commissioner finds that petitioner’s time to appeal the ultimate decision of the
Board in this matter will begin anew following that decision.
14 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 DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION MOTION
OAL 	DKT. 	NO. 	EDU 	05225-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 94-5/20
M.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION TOWNSHIP
OF LAFAYETTE, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_________________________________
M.M. o/b/o Minor Child, pro se
Marc H. Zitomer, Esq., for respondent (Schenck Price Smith & King, LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: August 7, 2020 	Decided: August 7, 2020
BEFORE JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In this matter, Petitioner seeks to appeal the Anti-Bullying Coordinator’s (“ABC”) finding
that her son was not the victim of HIB. 	Petitioner was given the opportunity to appeal the
findings to the Board as required by statute. 	M.M. was informed by the Board that the appeal
would be conducted virtually, due to the current Covid-19 pandemic. M.M. was also informed
that, if M.M. preferred, the District would be willing to hold the HIB timelines in abeyance until it
resumed its in-person meetings. 	Petitioner chose not to avail herself of the either option

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05225-20
2
presented and filed this action challenging the findings instead. 	Respondent now moves to
dismiss M.M.’s appeal on procedural grounds, arguing that M.M. has failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies by not having an appeal at the board level.
In her appeal, M.M. also seeks to obtain copies of security camera videos of the physical
education class where she asserts that some of the bullying occurred. 	M.M. has filed a cross
motion to compel the respondent to produce copies of the videos which shall be addressed in
this decision.
ISSUE
Is the current HIB appeal properly before the OAL and, if so, should respondent school
district be compelled to supply security camera video footage to M.M.?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
M.M. filed a HIB complaint with Respondent School District on or about January
17, 2020. 	The matter was investigated by the District’s Anti-Bullying Coordinator and
the allegations set forth in the HIB complaint were determined to be unsubstantiated.
M.M. 	filed 	an 	appeal 	of 	the 	District’s 	determination 	with 	the 	New 	Jersey
Commissioner of Education on or about May 12, 2020. 	Respondent filed a Motion for
Summary Dismissal in Lieu of an Answer on June 4, 2020. The matter was transmitted
to the OAL where it was assigned to the Hon. Danielle Pasquale and subsequently to
the undersigned on July 17, 2020.
The mater was conferenced telephonically on August 4, 2020, wherein the
Undersigned agreed, upon Respondent’s request, to rule on the Summary Decision
Motion. The Undersigned also agreed to entertain M.M.’s motion to compel discovery.
The Undersigned allowed the record to remain open until August 7, 2020.
Legal Discussion and Conclusions

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05225-20
3
The procedure for appealing a HIB determination is specified in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et
seq., also known as the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (the “Act”). 	Under this act, a parent,
upon receiving information regarding their child’s involvement in a HIB incident, may request a
hearing before the board, which must be heard within 10 days of the parents’/guardians’
request. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). 	The requested hearing takes place before the board in
executive session. Id. 	Finally, at the next regularly scheduled board of education meeting, the
board shall issue a written decision affirming, rejecting, or modifying the superintendent’s
decision. 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:37-15(b)(6)(e). 	“The 	board’s 	decision 	may 	be 	appealed 	to 	the
Commissioner of Education.” Id.
In the case at bar, a hearing was never conducted before the Board. 	Instead, M.M.
appealed the Anti-Bulling Coordinator’s findings directly to the Commissioner of Education. 	In
her pleadings, M.M. indicates that she filed her appeal directly with the Commissioner because
she feared that she would lose her opportunity to do so if she waited for an in-person appeal,
due to statutory timelines set forth in the act. 	The District asserts in their pleadings that they
communicated to M.M. that they would be willing to hold any statutory timelines in abeyance
due to the ongoing pandemic. 	M.M. disputes any such communication by the district. 	Either
way, the District has maintained throughout this entire matter that they would so hold in
abeyance any statutory timelines in view of the worldwide pandemic, and that M.M.’s appeal
rights to the Commissioner would not be forfeited. Thus, Respondent argues, M.M. has not
exhausted all of her administrative remedies.
The fundamental concept that administrative remedies should be fully explored before
judicial action is sanctioned is well established. See Garrow v. Elizabeth General Hosp. and
Dispensary, 79 N.J. 549, 558-59 (1979); citing Central R.R. Co. v. Neeld, 26 N.J. 172, 178, cert.
den. 357 U.S. 928, 78 S. Ct. 1373, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1371 (1958); “Exhaustion of administrative
remedies before resort to the courts is a firmly embedded judicial principle” Id at 559. 	I,
therefore, CONCLUDE that petitioner's appeal regarding this incident is not ripe as she failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies by having a HIB hearing before the local Board prior to
seeking administrative relief from the Commissioner of Education.
Summary Decision Standard
A “motion for summary decision shall be served with briefs and with or without
supporting affidavits.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	A summary decision may be rendered “if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05225-20
4
is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law.” Ibid. A court should grant summary judgment when the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 528-29 (1995).
Here, it is undisputed that a HIB hearing was never conducted in front of the local Board
of Education. 	I therefore CONCLUDE that M.M. has not exhausted her administrative
remedies and should avail herself of a Board hearing before appealing to the Commissioner. I
further CONCLUDE, as a matter of law, that the forgoing motion should be granted so the
matter may be heard at the local level as prescribed by law.
Motion to Compel Discovery
With regard to M.M.’s cross motion to compel the District to produce copies of the
security camera video recordings of M.M. son’s gym class, it is undisputed that M.M. had an
opportunity to review the video recordings at the District, and did, in fact, review said recordings
while accompanied by a District employee. M.M. asserts that this is inadequate and that the law
requires 	the 	district 	to 	relinquish 	possession 	to 	her 	copies 	of 	the 	video 	recordings,
notwithstanding the images of minor children, other than M.M.’s son, appear on the recordings.
M.M. argues that she has a right to possess the recordings under The Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). 	While FERPA does
state that parents have the right to inspect and review their child’s education records maintained
by the school, FERPA specifically states that schools are not required to provide copies of those
records. 	Thus, I CONCLUDE that the district substantially complied with M.M.’s request to
review the video recordings by having her review the recordings at the District accompanied by
a District Employee and I further CONCLUDE that the District shall not be compelled to provide
physical copies of the video recordings for M.M. to possess.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that respondent Board of Education of Twp.
of 	Lafayette’s Motion for Summary Decision is GRANTED as M.M.’s appeal before the
Commissioner of Education is not ripe and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of
law. It is further ORDERED that M.M.’s Cross Motion to Compel Discovery shall be, and herby
is, DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05225-20
5
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.
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.
August 7, 2020
DATE 	JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	August 7, 2020
Date Mailed to Parties: 	August 7, 2020