Lisa Yourman v. Board of Education of the Borough of Fair Lawn, Bergen County, and Ronald Barbarulo, AND Lisa Yourman v. Board of Education of the Borough of Fair Lawn, Bergen County, and Elyss Frenkel, 5/30/2024, (#207-24)

207-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lisa Yourman,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Fair Lawn,
Bergen County, and Robert Barbarulo,
Respondents.
AND
Lisa Yourman,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Fair Lawn,
Bergen County, and Elyss Frenkel,
Respondents.
Synopsis
Petitioner initiated this consolidated matter in August 2020 via two petitions of appeal challenging the
respondent Board’s approval of the purchase of a vehicle for use by the superintendent of the Fair Lawn Public
School District (District). Petitioner alleged that respondents Ronald Barbarulo and Elyss Frenkel, then
President and Vice President of the Board, violated certain school laws and regulations in connection with
providing the superintendent with a new SUV for his personal use, absent approval of the full Board at a public
meeting. The Board contended that the petition is moot as the superintendent relinquished the vehicle and is
no longer employed by the District. The two petitions were consolidated in 2023 after unsuccessful settlement
negotiations between the parties; cross motions for summary decision were then filed by the parties.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: most of petitioner’s complaints dealt with the past purchase and assignment of
a vehicle to the superintendent, along with alleged past infractions of the recordkeeping required by N.J.A.C.
6A:23A-6.11 and -6.12; since the former superintendent and business administrator are no longer employed
in the District, the appeal is now moot. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision
and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter, but
reminded the Board that it must comply with all aspects of N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12 in the future.
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.

OAL Dkt. Nos. EDU 00251-21, 00252-21 (consolidated)
Agency Dkt. Nos. 186-8/20, 187-8/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lisa Yourman,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
Fair Lawn, Bergen County, and
Ronald Barbarulo,
Respondents.
AND
Lisa Yourman,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
Fair Lawn, Bergen County, and Elyss Frenkel,
Respondents.
The record of this consolidated 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 Board’s reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
In August 2020, petitioner initiated this consolidated matter via the filing of two
207-24

2
respondents Ronald Barbarulo and Elyss Frenkel, then President and Vice President of the Fair
Lawn Board of Education, violated certain school laws and regulations in connection with
providing Board Superintendent Nicholas Norcia with a new Ford Explorer SUV valued at
$29,979.70 for his personal use absent approval of the full Board at a public meeting.
In particular, petitioner alleged that respondents violated N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12(b), (b)(1),
and (h) (“District board of education vehicle assignment and use policy”); N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.1(a)
and (e)(14) (“Review of employment contracts for superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and school business administrators”); N.J.S.A. 18A:7-8(j) (Executive County Superintendent
approval of board employment contracts); and N.J.S.A. 18A:19-4 (Audit of claims against boards
of education). She further alleged that respondents violated the Code of Ethics for School
Board Members, specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
The Board moved to dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the
School Ethics Commission was the proper venue to adjudicate the matters against Barbarulo
and Frenkel. In addition, the Board argued that petitioner failed to name the Board of
Education—an indispensable party—as a respondent in each action. Before the matter was
transmitted to the OAL, petitioner filed a reply to the Board’s motion along with a proposed
amended petition wherein she removed the allegations pertaining to the Code of Ethics for
School Board Members. She also added two new respondents, Board Superintendent
Nicholas Norcia, and Business Administrator Brooke Bartley. In the proposed amended
petition, petitioner alleged that respondents violated N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12(b), (b)(1), (b)(2), (e),
and (h) and requested the following relief:
petitions of appeal with the Office of Controversies and Disputes. The petitions alleged that

3
1) Mr. Norcia should reimburse the district for the full amount
the Fair Lawn Board of Education paid for the SUV vehicle and
take personal ownership.
2) Ms. Bartley should reimburse the District for the cost of
insuring the vehicle during the time period the Fair Lawn Board of
Education owned the vehicle.
3) In addition, going forward, the District should approve all
vehicle purchases and all purchases over $10,000 at open public
meetings before they take possession of the purchase.
4) In addition to the regular audits required by Law that is done
yearly, there should be a mandated two-year audit (July 1, 2018-
June 30, 2020) by the County Superintendent’s office and/or by
the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance and continue
this process for the next 5 school calendar years.
[Amended Petition, p. 7.]
Thereafter, the Board filed correspondence with the Office of Controversies and
Disputes objecting to petitioner’s attempt to amend the petitions without seeking leave to do
so pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.7(a). The Board expressed that it did not consent to the
amendments and maintained that the petitions should be dismissed. Without adjudicating the
Board’s motion to dismiss, the Office of Controversies and Disputes transmitted the matters to
the OAL and added the Board to the caption.1
In August 2023, following an extended period of discovery and settlement negotiations
between the parties, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Board’s motion to
consolidate the two related matters. The parties cross-moved for summary decision.2 In sum,
1 The Board did not object to being named as a respondent in either matter. See Respondent’s Letter Brief in
Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Decision/Dismissal dated August 25, 2023, at 10 (“Although the Board has
not formally been joined as a party, the Office of Controversies and Disputes appropriately added the Board of
Education as a named respondent in transmitting the controversy to the OAL.”).
2 It does not appear that the Board’s initial motion to dismiss the petition was ever ruled upon by the ALJ.

4
petitioner argued that respondents failed to comply with N.J.A.C. 6A:23A fiscal regulations and
its own Board policy and regulation 7650 in connection with the purchase and permissible use
of the SUV assigned to Norcia. Specifically, she claimed that the Board did not approve the
purchase or assignment of the vehicle to Norcia at a public meeting until after she filed an
ethics complaint, despite the fact that he had already been using the vehicle for months; that
Norcia misused the vehicle for personal travel; that Norcia did not maintain accurate mileage
logs; and that the regulations only allow for a sedan to be purchased, not an SUV.
In response, the Board argued that the consolidated matter should be dismissed as
moot because Norcia ceased using the vehicle effective July 27, 2021, and neither he nor
Bartley are working in the district any longer. It further argued that the matter should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, the Board
acknowledged that: (1) it assigned the SUV to Norcia on March 16, 2020; (2) “A public vote was
never taken to provide the Superintendent a car benefit”; (3) “A public vote was not taken in
March 2020 to approve the purchase of the vehicle, but was later placed on the public agenda
and approved on November 19, 2020”; and (4) it produced mileage logs it possessed for
Norcia’s use of the vehicle covering the time periods from July 17, 2020 to September 25, 2020
and April 20, 2021 to June 12, 2021. Respondent’s Letter Brief in Support of Cross-Motion for
Summary Decision/Dismissal dated August 25, 2023, at 3-4.
As explained in an Initial Decision issued April 18, 2024, the ALJ granted the Board’s
motion for summary decision on mootness grounds, denied petitioner’s motion for summary
decision, and dismissed the consolidated matter. Referring to the relief petitioner requested in
her proposed amended petition, the ALJ reasoned that because Norcia ceased all use of the

5
vehicle in question effective July 27, 2021, and because Norcia and Bartley were no longer
employed by the district, “no relief can be granted” as to Norcia and Bartley individually “and,
thus, the matter is no longer actionable.” Initial Decision, at 4. As for petitioner’s requests for
relief against the Board concerning advanced approval of purchases over $10,000 and for
additional audits to take place, the ALJ reasoned that “any corrective action sought to be
imposed upon or against the Board, itself, is not available relief for the petitioner, as the
undersigned does not have the authority to impose any such change in Board procedure or
practice under N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.11 and -6.12, respectively.” Ibid. The ALJ did not specifically
address petitioner’s allegations regarding the involvement of Barbarulo or Frenkel.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the ALJ failed to adequately address all
remedies she requested in her initial filing, including that Barbarulo and Frenkel be publicly
censured. She further contends that the ALJ failed to acknowledge the involvement of
Barbarulo and Frenkel, and failed to address her claims regarding Norcia’s falsification of
government records. She also asserts that the Initial Decision “sets a troubling precedent by
seemingly allowing business administrators, superintendents, and/or board members to
allocate taxpayer funds in contravention of the law without facing any consequences, provided
they simply leave their positions,” petitioner’s exceptions, at 1, and reiterates the arguments
she asserted before the ALJ that were considered and rejected.
In reply, the Board argues that the ALJ’s Initial Decision granting its motion for summary
decision on mootness grounds should be adopted. It asserts that petitioner’s arguments
regarding the conduct of former Board members are not properly before the Commissioner
because jurisdiction over these allegations lies with the School Ethics Commission. As for her

6
claims regarding the Board’s past noncompliance with fiscal accountability regulations at
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A, the Board emphasizes that it ratified the purchase of the vehicle in November
2020, Norcia surrendered the vehicle in July 2021, and both he and Bartley are no longer
employed in the district. Accordingly, the Board maintains that there is no longer any relief
that could be granted by the Commissioner, other than a declaratory ruling admonishing the
Board to comply with the regulations in the future. The Board also argues that petitioner’s
remaining exceptions simply restate the arguments expressed in her submissions to the ALJ
that were already considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision as the final decision in
this matter. At the outset, a procedural issue must be addressed. Although petitioner never
formally moved to amend her original petition, she submitted a proposed amended petition in
response to the Board’s motion to dismiss. Because the ALJ’s Initial Decision references the
relief sought in the proposed amended petition and the newly named respondents (Norcia and
Bartley), it appears that the ALJ allowed petitioner to amend her pleadings pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1:1-6.2. In her amended petition, petitioner removed the allegations pertaining to the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members in recognition of the fact that those allegations fell within the
jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the ALJ
did not err by failing to adequately address allegations contained in her initial petitions against
Barbarulo and Frenkel. Her request that they be publicly censured is for the School Ethics
Commission to determine.
As for petitioner’s assertion that the ALJ should have addressed her claims regarding
Norcia’s falsification of mileage and travel logs for the vehicle, the ALJ correctly determined

7
that the regulation upon which petitioner relies—N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12—does not allow the
Commissioner to provide the remedy petitioner is seeking, i.e., for Norcia to reimburse the
district for the cost of the vehicle. Thus, even assuming Norcia failed to maintain accurate
vehicle use logs in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12(e), the remedy petitioner seeks against
Norcia personally is unavailable. Similarly, even assuming as petitioner alleges that Barbarulo,
Frenkel and Bartley were involved with the purchase of the SUV and assignment of same to
Norcia, the remedies petitioner seeks against them personally are unavailable under
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12. Finally, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the remedies
petitioner seeks against the Board—i.e., advanced approval of all purchases over $10,000 at a
public meeting and additional audits—are likewise unavailable under the regulatory scheme
upon which petitioner relies. That said, the Commissioner reminds the Board that, going
forward, it must comply with all aspects of N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.12, District board of education
vehicle assignment and use policy, in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is granted, petitioner’s motion
for summary decision is denied, and the consolidated matter is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: May 30, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 31, 2024
3 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
SUMMARY DECISION
LISA YOURMAN, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00251-21
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 186-08/20
v.
BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN BOARD OF
EDUCATION, BERGEN COUNTY, AND
RONALD BARBARULO,
Respondents. 	(CONSOLIDATED)
_________________________________
LISA YOURMAN, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00252-21
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 187-08/20
v.
BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN BOARD OF
EDUCATION, BERGEN COUNTY, AND
ELYSS FRENKEL,
Respondents.
_________________________________
Lisa Yourman, petitioner, pro se
Paul H. Green, Esq., for respondents (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: March 18, 2024 	Decided: April 18, 2024
BEFORE JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 00251-21 and EDU 00252-21
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Lisa Yourman (Yourman) challenges the Fair Lawn Board of Education’s
(Board’s) approval of a personal vehicle for the superintendent of the Fair Lawn Public
School District (District). 	On motion, the Board argues that the petition is moot, as the
superintendent relinquished the vehicle and both the superintendent and the Board’s
business administrator subsequently sought employment at another district.
ISSUE
Is the petition moot? Yes. The matter should be dismissed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Yourman filed two separate petitions with the Commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Education (Department/Agency) on August 31, 2020. 	One petition was
docketed by the Agency as 186-08/20 and transmitted as a contested case to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on December 15, 2020, and thereafter
docketed as EDU 00251-21. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	This
matter was captioned on the OAL transmittal as “Lisa Yourman v. Board of Education of
the Borough of Fair Lawn, Bergen County, and Ronald Barbarulo.” 	The other petition
was docketed by the Agency as 187-08/20 and transmitted as a contested case to the
OAL, where it was filed on December 15, 2020, and thereafter docketed as EDU 00252-
21. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	This second matter was
captioned on the OAL transmittal as “Lisa Yourman v. Board of Education of the Borough
of Fair Lawn, Bergen County, and Elyss Frenkel.” 	Both matters essentially alleged the
same facts, and differed only in that each named a different individual Board member in
the caption.
The matters were assigned to the undersigned in January 2021. From the outset,
Yourman made repeated discovery demands for copies of mileage and maintenance logs
for the subject vehicle from the District, to which the District continually maintained that

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 00251-21 and EDU 00252-21
3
all such records that were available to the District had been provided to Yourman. Aside
from this discovery issue, both parties expressed a willingness to settle both matters from
the outset. 	After approximately one year of negotiations, a draft settlement agreement
was circulated, but never consummated. Continued attempts were made to make minor
alterations to the language to make the document amenable to the parties, but no
amicable resolution could be achieved.
On 	August 25, 2023, 	Yourman moved for 	summary decision. 	The 	Board
responded with opposition to same, along with a cross-motion for summary decision, on
October 16, 2023. On December 7, 2023, the parties notified the undersigned that they
wished to file a motion for consolidation to be considered prior to consideration of the
motion for summary decision. 	The Board sent a motion to consolidate the two matters,
which was received by the undersigned on March 14, 2024. On Friday, March 15, 2024,
Yourman asked the undersigned if she could have until Monday, March 18, 2024, to
respond to the motion to consolidate. On March 18, 2024, the undersigned received via
e-mail from Yourman copies of the original complaints she filed and the transmittals she
received from the Department, along with corresponding e-mails regarding the filings, and
minutes from a School Ethics Commission meeting, dated January 26, 2021.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
While each transmittal names a separate individual board member in the caption,
each petition also names the Board as a whole. 	Thus, I FIND that the identities of the
parties in each of the matters are duplicative to the extent that consolidation is warranted.
As the underlying petitions each seem to allege the same facts, and seek essentially the
same remedy, I FIND that the nature of all the questions of fact and law are the same.
Further, to the extent that common questions of fact and law are involved, I FIND that it
would be proper, in the interest of saving time and expense, and in preventing duplication
and inconsistency of outcome, to consolidate the two matters. Based on the foregoing, I
CONCLUDE that consolidation of EDU 00251-21 and EDU 00252-21 is warranted under
N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.3, and the matters are, hereby, CONSOLIDATED.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 00251-21 and EDU 00252-21
4
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The petitioner alleges that that the Board should not have provided a vehicle, in
this case a Ford sport utility vehicle, for the superintendent’s use. 	The complaints filed
essentially seek the following relief: 	1) that the superintendent (Norcia) reimburse the
school district for any period in which he used the vehicle; 2) that the business
administrator (Bartley) reimburse the school district for the cost of insuring the vehicle in
question; 3) that protocols be put in place so that any purchase over $10,000 in the future
only be approved during a public meeting of the Board (not in closed session); and 4) that
regular audits of the superintendent’s office be done by the Office of Fiscal Accountability.
Thus, the prayer for relief purports to be grounded in school ethics law, generally, along
with 	fiscal 	accountability/recordkeeping 	regulations, 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:23A-6.11 	et 	seq.
Petitioner seeks penalties to be imposed against both the superintendent and the
business administrator individually (numbers 1 and 2), as well as corrective action to be
imposed against the Board going forward (numbers 3 and 4). 	It should be noted that
there is a separate school ethics complaint, currently pending before the School Ethics
Commission, that is not affected by this decision.
Regarding any relief sought against Norcia or Bartley individually, both Norcia and
Bartley cease to be employed by the District, and Norcia ceased all use of the subject
vehicle effective July 27, 2021. As the bulk of petitioner’s complaints deal with the past
purchase and assignment of a vehicle to Norcia, along with alleged past infractions of the
recordkeeping required by N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.11 and -6.12, and since both Norcia and
Bartley are no longer employed in the District, I CONCLUDE that the appeal is moot, as
no relief can be granted, and, thus, the matter is no longer actionable. 	I FURTHER
CONCLUDE that any corrective action sought to be imposed upon or against the Board,
itself, is not available relief for the petitioner, as the undersigned does not have the
authority to impose any such change in Board procedure or practice under N.J.A.C.
6A:23A-6.11 and -6.12, respectively.
An action is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy,
and the conflict between the parties has become merely hypothetical. In re Conroy, 190
N.J. Super. 453, 458 (App. Div. 1983). 	The doctrine of mootness has utility in the

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 00251-21 and EDU 00252-21
5
administrative setting if no effective relief can be granted in a case. In re Tenure Hearing
of Mujica, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 168 (March 15, 2006), adopted, 2006 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 660 (April 25, 2006) (stating also that the commissioner of the Department of
Education will not decide moot cases).
The most common use of the mootness doctrine occurs in cases where changed
circumstances render the relief sought impossible to grant. W. Morris Reg’l Bd. of Educ.
v. A.M. & K.H., 2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 686 (Nov. 30, 2005). 	As noted above, neither
Norcia nor Bartley is currently employed with the District, and, thus, I CONCLUDE that
the circumstances have changed so as to render the relief sought by petitioner impossible
to grant.
It is well-settled law in New Jersey that cases that have become moot prior to
adjudication are no longer actionable. 	See Mujica, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 168, at *10
(citing Coviello v. Bd. of Educ. of Fair Lawn, 1993 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1402 (March 22,
1993)). Based on the foregoing, and barring any authority which enables the undersigned
to alter the Board’s purchasing procedures going forward, I CONCLUDE that the matter
at bar is no longer actionable.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s motion for summary
decision 	should 	be 	denied, 	and 	the 	Board’s 	cross-motion 	for 	summary 	decision
dismissing the petition should be granted.
ORDER
It is, hereby, ORDERED that respondent Board’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED, and petitioner Lisa Yourman’s petition is DENIED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 00251-21 and EDU 00252-21
6
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. 	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.
April 18, 2024
DATE 	JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	4/18/24
Date Mailed to Parties: 	4/18/24
id