Student One Transport v. Board of Education of the Camden County Educational Services Commission, Camden County, and Patrick Madden, Business Administrator, 11/21/2024, (#435-24)

435-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Student One Transport,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Camden 	County
Educational Services Commission, Camden County,
and Patrick Madden, Business Administrator,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioning school bus company, Student One Transport, filed an appeal on January 7, 2024 alleging that
the respondent Board and its Business Administrator violated the School Ethics Act (Act) by failing to
comply with certain statutes and regulations when they barred Student One Transport from bidding on
transportation routes. Respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed with prejudice as
untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the process for filing a petition of appeal with the Department of
Education is described in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, which includes the limitation that a petition must be filed no
later than the 90 th day from the date of receipt of notice of a final order or ruling that is the subject of
the contested case; petitioner received clear notice via email dated July 13, 2023 that the Board would
not be accepting bids from Student One Transport; the company subsequently filed the within petition
on January 7, 2024, which was more than two months beyond the deadline for initiating a contested
case before the Commissioner in this matter; there is no basis to relax the 90 day statute of limitations;
further, there is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the Board violated the Act, which includes a
statute of limitations of 180 days rather than 90 days, as there is no evidence that petitioner filed or
attempted to file its petition with the School Ethics Commission. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the
Board’s motion to dismiss the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion and adopted the
Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law as the final decision in this matter. The respondents’
motion to dismiss was granted, and the petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

435-24
OAL Dkt. No. 03046-24
Agency Dkt. No. 3-1/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Student One Transport,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Camden
County Educational Services Commission,
Camden County, and Patrick Madden,
Business Administrator,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) —for the
reasons presented in the Initial Decision — that Student One Transport’s petition is time-barred
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). In addition, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that
the 180-day filing limit provided under the School Ethics Act does not apply in the instant matter.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. Respondents’
motion to dismiss is granted and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 21, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	November 22, 2024
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under
N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date of mailing
of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 3-1/24
STUDENT ONE TRANSPORT,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CAMDEN COUNTY EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES COMMISSION, CAMDEN
COUNTY AND PATRICK MADDEN,
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR,
Respondents.
Elizabeth J. Hampton, Esq., for petitioner (Fox Rothschild, LLP, attorneys)
Sanmathi Dev, Esq., for respondents (Capehart Scatchard, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: September 10, 2024 	Decided: October 10, 2024
BEFORE KIMBERLEY M. WILSON, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner 	Student 	One 	Transport 	(Student 	One) 	filed 	a 	petition 	with 	the
Commissioner 	of 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of 	Education 	(DOE), 	alleging 	that
respondents 	Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Camden 	County 	Educational 	Services
Commission (Board) and Patrick Madden (Madden), Business Administrator, violated the
School Ethics Act (Act) when they failed to abide by certain statutes and regulations. The
Board and Madden filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer.1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or around January 7, 2024, Student One filed its petition with the DOE. On or
around March 1, 2024, the Board and Madden filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an
answer. 	On March 4, 2024, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative
Law, for a hearing as a contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 54:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 14F-1
to -23.
After a status conference on April 29, 2024, Student One filed its opposition to the
motion on or around June 3, 2024. The Board and Madden filed their reply papers on or
around June 17, 2024, and oral argument was heard on September 10, 2024.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
I FIND the following as FACT, as it is undisputed:
1. 	On or around October 19, 2022, at 11:01 a.m., Student One sent an email
to Rita Carfagno (Carfagno), Transportation Supervisor for the Board,
asking for a return call to respond to a question. Mansi Cert., Ex. B.
2. 	On or around October 20, 2022, Carfagno sent an email to Student One,
stating that Routes 684 and 1711 were contracted routes and Student One
1 Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
3
would be in breach of the contract if it were unable to provide the required
transportation. Ibid. Student One would potentially have its bond revoked.
Ibid. Carfagno also advised that Route 2040Q was a quoted route that was
bound by the terms of the bid specifications. Ibid.
3. 	On October 31, 2022, at 11:02 a.m., Student One sent an email to
Carfagno, indicating that the Board would be requoting Route 684 due to a
driver issue. Ibid.
4. 	On October 31, 2022, at 11:15 a.m., Carfagno responded to Student One’s
email regarding Route 684, stating that Student One was required to send
the 	Board 	official 	notification 	that 	it 	could 	not 	fulfill 	the 	terms 	for
transportation for a contracted route effective upon a certain date. Ibid. The
Board 	would 	require 	the 	specifics 	of 	the 	student’s 	transportation
requirements, and it would then determine whether to seek quotations for
the route. 	Ibid. 	Student One would potentially be held liable for the
difference between the quoted rate and the contracted per diem rate. Ibid.
5. 	On October 31, 2022, at 11:47 a.m., Student One responded to Carfagno
by email, stating that there was no specific date for Route 684 to be
discontinued. 	Ibid. Student One advised that its potential liability was not
discussed in a conversation that morning. Ibid.
6. 	On November 1, 2022, at 9:39 a.m., Carfagno sent an email to Student One
regarding Route 684, stating the following: “I do believe we discussed the
possibility of a ‘gap’ between the current contracted per diem and the
quoted per diem if one is received. We also discussed the need to supply
any special accommodations the student is receiving, which you told me
you needed to contact the driver for the information. 	I cannot proceed
without the information.” Ibid.
7. 	On November 1, 2022, at 9:56 a.m., Student One sent an email to Carfagno
with the information she requested. Student One stated the following: “The
‘gap’ possibility was not discussed. 	The goal of the discussion is to avert

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
4
the negative outcome for the company, student and district which you have
also mentioned in your previous email.” Ibid.
8. 	On November 1, 2022, at 3:13 p.m., Student One sent an email to Carfagno,
stating, “The latest quotes emailed today were not received. Please email.”
Ibid.
9. 	On November 1, 2022, at 3:56 p.m., Madden sent an email to Student One
addressed to Michael, stating, “Student One is not receiving an opportunity
to quote on any new routes at this time. The reason is that your company
is claiming that you cannot fulfill a route that you bid on─this is a problem.”
Ibid.
10. 	On November 1, 2022, at 5:18 p.m., Student One responded to Madden’s
email of the same day as follows: 	“This is the first occurrence of this
problem due to the current severe shortage of school bus drivers nationally.
This was conveyed to [Carfagno] previously on 10/31/2022. Please advise
on the reinstatement of the company to your quote list.” Ibid.
11. 	On July 11, 2023, at 3:12 p.m., Madden sent an email to Student One,
stating the following: “The [Board] will not be accepting any bids submitted
by Student One Transport LLC for the upcoming school year. 	If a bid is
submitted or presented, it will be returned unopened.” Ibid.
12. 	By email on July 11, 2023, at 3:34 p.m., Student One asked Madden for a
reason for the denial. Ibid.
13. 	On July 12, 2023, Madden sent Student One an email advising that the
Board received a bid packet in the mail from Student One and that it was
not opened and would be returned unopened. Ibid. According to Madden,
the Board would not accept any bids from Student One “due to a negative
prior experience caused by a breach of contract during the 2022−2023
school year.” Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
5
14. 	On July 13, 2023, at 9:43 a.m., Student One sent an email to Madden
regarding a bid. 	Id.; Mansi Cert., Ex. A. 	On the same day at 9:58 a.m.,
Madden sent an email to Student One stating the following: 	“In response
to your email this morning including the attached I will restate our message
from yesterday,” reiterating that it would not be accepting bids from Student
One. 	Ibid. 	Attached to Madden’s email was a document titled Camden
county ccesc 7-13-23 bid-compressed-compressed.pdf. Ibid.
15. 	On or around January 7, 2024, Student One filed its petition with the DOE.
Mansi Cert., Ex. B. 	The DOE acknowledged receipt of the petition on
January 30, 2024. Counsel Cert., Ex. A.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The Board and Madden argue that Student One’s petition should be dismissed
with prejudice as untimely for Student One’s alleged failure to abide by the ninety-day
statute of limitations contained in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). 	Pet’r’s Br. at 1. 	In opposition,
Student One asserts that it satisfied the applicable statute of limitations, as the petition’s
claims were brought under the Act. Resp’t’s Br. at 2−3. Finally, Student One claims that
the ninety-day statute of limitations should be relaxed, as the facts here justify that result.
Id. at 6.
As will be discussed further, Student One did not abide by the ninety-day statute
of limitations found in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, and there is no basis to relax the statute of
limitations. Last, there are no facts in this record indicating that Student One either filed
or attempted to file its petition with the School Ethics Commission for review, where the
applicable statute of limitations is 180 days. 	For these reasons, the motion to dismiss
filed by the Board and Madden will be granted.
1. 	The applicable statute of limitations is set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3.
The process for filing a petition of appeal with the DOE is discussed in N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3, in relevant part, as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
6
(a) 	To initiate a contested case for the Commissioner's
determination 	of 	a 	controversy 	or 	dispute 	arising
pursuant to the school laws, a petitioner shall prepare
a petition of appeal conforming to the requirements at
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.4 and serve such petition upon each
respondent, together with any supporting papers the
petitioner may include with the petition. The petitioner
then shall file proof of service on each respondent, the
telephone 	numbers 	and 	email 	addresses, 	where
available, of the petitioner and each respondent, and
the 	petition 	and 	supporting 	materials, 	if 	any, 	by
emailing 	the 	documents 	to 	the 	email 	address
designated by the Office of Controversies and Disputes
or mailing the documents to the Commissioner c/o the
Director, Office of Controversies and Disputes, New
Jersey 	Department 	of 	Education, 	100 	River 	View
Plaza, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500.
In no case shall a petitioner submit materials to the
Commissioner that have not been served upon each
respondent.
. . . .
(i) 	The petitioner shall file a petition no later than the 90th
day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order,
ruling, or other action by the district board of education,
individual party, or agency, that is the subject of the
requested contested case hearing. . . . rule shall not
apply in instances where a specific statute, regulation,
or court order provides for a period of limitation shorter
than 90 days for the filing of a particular type of appeal.
[Emphasis added.]
This rule “provides a measure of repose, an essential element in the proper and efficient
administration of the school laws,” giving school districts the “security of knowing” that an
aggrieved party cannot challenge its actions after ninety days. Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of
Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993).
Courts strictly construe and consistently apply the ninety-day limitation period.
Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588−89; Nissman v. Bd. of Educ. of Long Beach Island Twp., 272
N.J. Super. 373, 380−81 (App. Div. 1994); Riely v. Bd. of Educ. of Hunterdon Central High
Sch., 173 N.J. Super. 109, 112−14 (App. Div. 1980). The limitation period begins to run

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
7
when the petitioner “learn[s] from the Local Board the existence of that state of facts that
would enable him to file a timely claim.” Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588−89. Indeed, the notice
of a final order, ruling or other action is "sufficient to inform an individual of some fact that
he or she has a right to know and that the communicating party has a duty to
communicate.” 	Id. at 587. 	Notably, a petitioner need not receive official and formal
notification that they may have a valid claim to begin the ninety-day limitation period. Id.
at 588.
The facts here show that as early as November 1, 2022, the Board would not allow
Student One to bid on public transportation contracts. Later, in its July 13, 2023, email,
Madden clearly indicated that the Board would not accept any bids from Student One,
and he returned a bid that Student One submitted to the Board. 	These contacts from
Madden and/or the Board are more than sufficient notice to Student One of adverse action
against it. 	Student One, however, did not file its petition with the DOE until January 7,
2024, more than 179 days after the July 13, 2023, email from Madden. 	From the plain
language of N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, Student One’s petition was not timely filed, and for this
reason alone, it should be barred.
2. 	There is no basis to relax the ninety-day statute of limitations in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.16.
Student One argues that the ninety-day statute of limitations should be relaxed
here because the Board and Madden failed to follow state law to prevent it from bidding
on transportation contracts. Pet’r’s Br. at 6.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.16, any of the rules in the applicable regulations may
be relaxed when “strict adherence thereto may be deemed inappropriate or unnecessary
or may result in injustice.” Relaxation of the ninety-day filing requirement is reserved only
for situations where the party presents a substantial constitutional issue or a matter of
significant public interest beyond concern only to the parties. 	Portee v. Bd. of Educ. of
Newark, EDU 5855-93, 1994 N.J. Agen. Lexis 1363, *12−13 (February 24, 1994), aff’d,
Comm’r Decision (April 14, 1994). According to Student One, the compelling reason to
relax the ninety-day statute of limitations is respondents’ failure to comply with the
debarment process.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
8
This reason, however, does not present a substantial constitutional issue or a
matter of significant public interest; it is only of concern to Student One. There is no basis
to relax the statute of limitations in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.16. For
the foregoing reasons, I CONCLUDE that Student One’s petition against the Board and
Madden is time-barred.
3. 	The Act and its enabling legislation do not apply here.
Student One argues in the alternative that the Board and Madden violated the Act,
and because of those allegations, the statute of limitations is 180 days rather than ninety
days. Pet’r’s Br. at 2−3.
The Legislature passed the Act in 1991. 	See L. 1991 c. 393 § 7. 	In signing the
Act into law, the Governor stated that the Act based the school ethics criteria on the same
ethical standards for local officials, standards already incorporated in the ethics code for
state 	employees. 	Office 	of 	the 	Governor, 	News 	Release, 	January 	16, 	1992
(https://repo.njstatelib.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9c9ed384-7f4c-4138-8102-1fa6d6
7f44d5/content, last visited on October 4, 2024). The Legislature found and declared:
a. 	In our representative form of government it is essential that
the conduct of members of local boards of education and local
school administrators hold the respect and confidence of the
people. These board members and administrators must avoid
conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which
creates a justifiable impression among the public that such
trust is being violated.
b. 	To ensure and preserve public confidence, school board
members and local school administrators should have the
benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct and of
some 	disciplinary 	mechanism 	to 	ensure 	the 	uniform
maintenance of those standards among them.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22]
The Act also created the School Ethics Commission specifically to enforce these ethical
standards through a procedure for reviewing complaints of ethical violations, investigating

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
9
those complaints, and ultimately rendering recommendations to the Commissioner of
Education as to the imposition of sanctions when violations are established. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-28; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29. 	The School Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over
claims arising under the Act. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.4.
There is no evidence in the record that Student One filed or attempted to file its
petition with the School Ethics Commission. The only reference to the Act or the School
Ethics Commission is a scant reference in Student One’s petition. 	Without an actual
petition filed with the School Ethics Commission, Student One cannot avail itself of the
statute of limitations allowed in the Act. 	For these reasons, I CONCLUDE that the
180-day statute of limitations in the Act does not apply here.
Based on the foregoing, I further CONCLUDE that the motion to dismiss filed by
the Board and Madden should be GRANTED.
ORDER
Accordingly, I ORDER that the motion to dismiss filed by the Board and Madden
should be and hereby is GRANTED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the ACTING
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 03046-24
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 	ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
October 10, 2024
DATE 	KIMBERLEY M. WILSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KMW/dw

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03046-24
11
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner:
● 	Brief, Certification of Michael Mansi in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss, Certification of Counsel and Proof of Service, received on June 3, 2024
For respondent:
● 	Brief, dated March 1, 2024
● 	Reply Brief, dated June 17, 2024