C.T. and P.T., on behalf of minor child, E.T. v. Board of Education of the Lenape Valley Regional High School District, Sussex County, 9/30/2024, (#358-24)

358-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.T. and P.T., on behalf of minor child, E.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Lenape Valley Regional
High School District, Sussex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioners challenged a decision to deny their daughter, E.T., admission into the respondent Board's
chapter of the National Honor Society (NHS) and sought to reverse the denial decision such that E.T. could
be inducted into the NHS. E.T. subsequently graduated from respondent’s high school in June 2024. The
Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: E.T. applied for admission to Lenape Regional High School’s NHS chapter
in her junior year; membership in the NHS is conferred upon students who meet “four pillars of
membership”: scholarship, leadership, service, and character; to meet the admission criteria, students
must maintain a minimum GPA of 3.75, must perform community service without compensation, must
show leadership through resourcefulness and problem solving, and must establish good character through
honesty, reliability, and working cooperatively with others; an applicant must meet the applicable
standards for entry into the NHS; admission to NHS is not automatic and cannot be considered a right; in
a February 2023 letter to E.T. from the NHS applications committee chair, E.T. was denied admission to
NHS because the committee had found that she needed to demonstrate further development in the area
of character; the letter encouraged E.T. to reapply for NHS membership in her senior year; E.T. did not
reapply and graduated in June 2024; the Commissioner has previously recognized that NHS admissions
criteria are matters to be determined locally by each school district; and the Commissioner will not
substitute his judgment for that of the school district unless there is a showing that the district’s actions
were arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. The ALJ concluded that the Board’s actions were not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable; further, the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss was granted.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, noting that E.T. is no
longer eligible for induction into the National Honor Society since she has already graduated from high
school. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, for
the reasons stated therein. 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.

358-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04131-23
Agency Dkt. No. 103-4/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.T. and P.T., on behalf of minor child, E.T.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Lenape 	Valley
Regional High School District, Sussex County,
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.
In this matter, petitioners challenge the denial of E.T.’s admission to respondent Board of
Education’s (Board) local chapter of the National Honor Society (NHS). They seek reversal of that
decision and request that E.T. be inducted into the NHS. The Board filed a motion to dismiss in
lieu of an answer, which was granted by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
Student admission to the local chapter of the NHS is a matter of “local determination for
each school district, and the Commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the school
district except where the District’s actions are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.” P.V. v. Bd.
of Educ. of Twp. of Verona, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03920-22, Initial Decision at 6 (May 23, 2022),
adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 168-22 (July 8, 2022). See J.B.A. v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough

2
of Bernardsville, 1981 S.L.D. 330 (discussing the Commissioner’s jurisdiction to adjudicate
disputes concerning admission to the NHS), adopted, Comm’r., 1981 S.L.D. 338.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the petition of appeal must be
dismissed. Even assuming petitioners could establish that the Board’s decision not to induct E.T.
into the NHS was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the relief sought—E.T.’s induction into
the NHS—cannot be granted by the Commissioner given the present circumstances. Article II,
Section 3 of the NHS Constitution of Lenape Valley Regional High School states that “[t]o be
eligible for selection to this chapter, students must be members of the junior or senior class.”
The record reflects that E.T. graduated from high school in June 2024. Consequently, she is no
longer eligible for induction into the NHS.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 30, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 2, 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 04131-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 103-4/23
C.T. AND P.T. ON BEHALF OF MINOR
CHILD, E.T.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
LENAPE VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________________________
Damiano Fracasso, Esq., for petitioners
Jacob K. Mintun Esq., Senior Attorney (Comegno Law Group, attorneys.) for
respondent
BEFORE ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner’s parents (C.T. and P.T./petitioners) challenge the denial of their child
E.T.’s admission to the National Honor Society (NHS). 	The Department of Education
transmitted 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Law, 	on 	May 	10, 	2023.
Respondent (Lenape High School/BOE) filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
2
Briefs and Certifications in support of same and in opposition thereto were received and
on argument before me was heard on January 31, 2024, and the record closed. 	I now
grant the Motion to Dismiss the petition.
MOTION UNDER CONSIDERATION
Petitioners claim that E.T. was wrongfully denied admission to the National
Honor 	Society. 	Respondent 	moves 	for 	dismissal 	claiming 	several 	reasons 	why
petitioners are barred from its claim. 	First, it claims the BOE has no authority to
overrule a final decision concerning membership in the NHS. 	Second, it claims that
although there is a BOE policy (Policy # 133) and Regulation (Regulation # 540) which
mention appeals to the National Honor Society, neither grants the right of a student or
parent to appeal a final decision by the NHS or its appeals committee. 	Finally, the
controversy 	does 	not 	involve 	school 	disciplinary 	processes 	nor 	a 	statutory 	or
constitutional right of a student to become a member in the NHS.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The respondent is a comprehensive high school serving three municipalities
located in one of two counties in Morris and Sussex, (Certification provided by Michael
A. Rossi, Jr, PHD, Superintendent of Lenape Valley Regional High School, hereinafter
“Rossi Cert.”) 	It “established and actively maintains a chapter of the National Honor
Society (NHS).” (Rossi Cert. para. 3.) 	Applicant students must meet four “pillars of
membership”-scholarship, service, leadership and character. 	Academically students
must 	maintain 	a 	minimum 	GPA 	of 	3.75 	and 	are 	further 	evaluated 	on 	academic
credentials. 	For service, students have to make contributions without compensation,
such as by community service. 	Leadership is established by the student being
“resourceful, good problem solvers and idea contributors.” 	The character standard is
met by students who “work cooperatively and demonstrate high standards of honesty
and reliability.” (Rossi Cert. Paras 4 and 5).
E.T. applied for admission to the NHS in her junior year at the high school. 	On
February 13, 2023, the NHS through its applications committee leader, Colby Bird,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
3
wrote to E.T. and informed her that she was not accepted to the Lenape Valley
Regional High School Chapter of the NHS. 	The letter said the NHS Faculty Council
made this decision and had found, during its review process. that E.T. needed “further
development in the area of character.” 	The letter encouraged E.T. to reapply in her
senior year. (Attachment to Petition to the NJ State BOE, page P007). Soon thereafter,
P.T. wrote to Colby Bird and asked for further explanation, specifically about the
character criterion. Ms. Bird explained the NHS decision and how it concluded E.T. met
just three of the four pillars. 	Regarding the fourth, the character criterion, she advised
the Faculty Council in assessing E.T., relied on a survey of teachers and staff. 	Of the
eleven who responded to the survey, six of them advised they found E.T.’s character to
be below average or average among other students at the high school. 	She noted
concerns of E.T.’s lack of independence in completing tasks, and her lack of sociability
with teachers and students. 	Ms. Bird’s reply dated February 17, 2023, welcomed an
appeal of the Faculty’s Council’s decision.
E.T.’s parents appealed the decision to the appeals Committee of the NHS
Lenape Valley Regional High School Chapter. 	On February 24, 2023, Committee
members met with P.T., C.T. and E.T. to allow both parents and the student to advocate
for her admission. The Superintendent Dr. Rossi certified, per his March 9, 2023, letter
to the parents, that during this appeals process E.T. “engaged in very little self-
advocacy.” (P 0011) The process, stated Dr. Rossi, seemed driven by the parents’
frustration, rather than E.T.’s desire to be admitted.” 	Further during the process, the
Committee attempted to explore E.T.’ leadership capacities, noting there were “multiple
pathways to NHS membership.” 	However, E.T.’s parents decided that the Committee’s
inquiries were “inappropriate” and made E.T. leave the room.
The parents then brought the present action against the High School. 	I find that
the above stated facts were either not refuted or not reasonably refuted. 	Further, I find
they are the only germane material facts.
.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
4
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The OAL has addressed a student’s claims of rights involving membership to the
NHS once before, although in the context of an application for emergent relief. 	In that
case, P.V. o/b/o T.S. v Township of Verona, OAL No. 03920-22 (decided May 22,
2022), the Honorable Julio C. Morejon determined the petitioner had failed to site any
precedent for holding that there exists an “underlying legal right to admission to the
[NHS]. 	To the contrary, the Commissioner of Education has recognized admissions
criteria to the [NHS] are matters of local determination for each school district…[.] “
Thus except upon a showing the District’s actions are arbitrary, unreasonable or
capricious, 	the 	Commissioner 	will 	not 	substitute 	its 	judgement 	for 	the 	District’s.
Consequently, “an applicant must meet the applicable standards for entry into the [NHS]
and that admission is not so ‘automatic’ as to be considered a ‘right’” 	P.V.,supra at
page 6, citing J.B.A. and A.M.A. v. Bernardsville Board of Education, 4 N.J.A.R. at 152.
Although a Motion to dismiss often is narrowly focused on such threshold issues
of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, in
practice the OAL regularly applies the Motion for Summary Decision standard to
Motions to Dismiss. In turn, the motion for summary decision is based on the rules and
practice regarding New Jersey Superior Court Rules governing summary judgement. 	It
is particularly appropriate to note that under summary judgment standards, a Petition
should be dismissed when it states no basis for relief and discovery would not yield one.
R. 4:6-2 (c), See Energy Rec. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 320 N.J. Super 59,
64 (App. Div. 1999), aff’d 170 426 (2001) (emphasis supplied.) 	Further, dismissal is
mandated when “the factual allegations are palpably insufficient to support a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” 	Rieder v. State of NJ Dept. of Transportation, 221 N.J.
Super 547, 552 (App. Div. 1987). 	As noted by Judge Morejon, a board of education’s
actions are entitled to a presumption of lawfulness and good faith. 	Thus, in challenges
to a Board’s actions, the challenger bears the burden to prove such acts were unlawful,
arbitrary capricious or unreasonable. 	P.V. supra at page 6 citing Schuster v Bd. of
Educ. Montgomery Twp, 96 N.J.A.R. 2D (edu) 670, 676, citing Schnick v Westwood Bd.
Of Educ. 60 N.J. Super 448 (App. Div. 1960) and Quinlan v Bd. Of Educ of North
Bergen Twp., 73 N.J. Super 40 (App. Div. 1962)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
5
If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, a moving party is entitled to
prevail on a motion for summary disposition as a matter of law. R. 4:46-2. 	Brill v. The
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). 	The judge weighs
the evidence as though a motion for directed verdict were before him, and “apply the
same evidentiary standard of proof -by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and
convincing evidence -that would apply on a trial on the merits. 	Brill, at 533. 	The
purpose of summary decision is to avoid unnecessary hearings and their concomitant
burden on public resources. 	Under the Brill standard, a fact-finding hearing should be
avoided “when the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law.” Id.
In the present matter, the respondent seeks a Dismissal because it is unrefuted,
or not reasonably refuted, that a) the only “right” to appeal a NHS membership decision
is if the local chapter creates an appeal process b) in this case, the local chapter
followed the appeals process per its charter c) the local chapter appeals process by the
District’s NHS appeals committee is intended to be unappealable and thus final and
such a provision violates no law.
Petitioners argue that the NHS standards, even the three pillars which petitioner
met, are “arbitrary” (Petitioners Responding Statement of Material facts, Pargrapsh 6, 7
and 8.) Regarding the one pillar she did not meet, according to the NHS local chapter
and the Appeals Committee, petitioner simply denies the allegation that E.T. did not
meet the character pillar standard and says, “Petitioner cannot prove a negative.”
Petitioners’ argument is contradictory and impossible to grant relief upon. . First,
petitioners argue that the standards are arbitrary, then says she did meet the standard,
but that she shouldn’t have to prove it. 	First, if the NHS standards are “arbitrary,” why
does anyone, including the petitioners wish to join it?. 	Consequently, what is being
denied 	to petitioners or 	any other 	applicant for membership if 	the membership’s
standards are completely arbitrary? Further, even if the NHS was not a separate entity
from the District of Lenape BOE and not entitled to freely set its own standards of
admission, independent from the Lenape BOE, 	a school District has its own broad
authority to set academic standards as well as standards for extracurricular activities,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
6
which include grading or rewarding good conduct or behavior,, i.e. “character.” Thus, in
subjects ranging from selection for “making” the Senior football team, to competing in
the Chess Club, the Districts have the broad discretion to set their own standards. Thus
the 	only 	issue 	here is 	whether 	E.T. 	met 	the 	NHS 	standards. 	Regarding 	those
standards, the only specific dispute regards the character pillar of the student applicant,
at least as compared to other applicants for membership. 	But petitioner, instead of
providing proofs in this motion that E.T. indeed met or exceeded the character standard,
petitioner instead argues, apparently, that she doesn’t have to prove that; rather, it is
claimed E.T. was treated unfairly because the character standards should not be
imposed on her owing to her having a recognized disability.
E.T. 	argues 	that 	she 	has 	the 	disabling 	conditions 	of 	Anxiety 	and 	ADHD,
according to Section 504/ADA Accommodations. 	(Exhibit B Petitioners’ Opposition).
As precious little has been offered to show what that has to do with the issue of
membership in the NHS or the local chapter’s actions, I shall try to address what I think
the petitioner is trying to get at
Even if the standards of character, as determined by the Appeals Committee or
the local Chapter disproportionately weigh on a student’s “immutable characteristics”
(Petitioners also argued, without any proof, that the NHS decision was motivated by
Anti-Catholicism-although Catholicism or any other religious membership is not an
“immutable characteristic,”) if we were to follow the petitioners’ line of reasoning all
school programs designed to recognize achievement would be subject to innumerable
hypothetical attacks by parents that the standards are unfair as applied to their child,
e.g. their height was considered in determining whether he or she wouldn’t be a good
candidate for the basketball team, or an asthmatic condition inhibited the child from long
distance running or making the swimming team. 	That does not make those standards,
i.e. ability to play basketball better because of being tall, or greater lung capacity being
a factor making one a better swimmer or long-distance runner arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable nor is it evidential of invidious discrimination. 	Nor would it implicate an
arbitrary unreasonable or capricious course of conduct by the BOE, if the BOE, as the
local chapter and appeals committee clearly did so here, provided they follow their own
policy or policies. 	Besides that, there was no proof submitted that the committee’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
7
determination or the appeals determination evidenced bias or a disproportionate burden
to E.T. because of E.T.’s Anxiety of ADHD.
Although petitioners’ proofs were not presented as they should be by certification
or affidavit, and although nothing further was submitted as to her disability other than
the 504, that plan shows the recommended accommodations by the school for E.T.
such as “If grades are not posting in Genesis within 24 hours, teachers are to email
parent and student,” the 504 does not even suggest that the school, much less the NHS
local 	chapter 	has 	to 	accommodate 	“lower 	than 	average 	or 	average” 	character
achievement. 	Indeed, there is no claim in the petition that there is any violation of the
504 plan or of any IEP, if there even is one (no proof was offered). 	Thus, the District’s
accommodations for E.T. is not properly before me. 	No evidence suggests that a
student suffering from Anxiety of ADHD cannot possibly meet the character pillar of
membership. Further, the Court will not indulge in speculating further as to whether the
appeals 	Committee’s 	decision 	was 	correct 	where 	the 	complaining 	party 	argues
petitioner need prove nothing. 	Rather the complete opposite is true; the burden is
entirely on the petitioners.
If judges were permitted to engraft their own beliefs by making determinations to
second 	guess 	the 	decision 	making 	of 	committees 	to 	establish 	standards 	for
membership into honorary societies, there would be no end to judicial meddling into
what is entirely beyond their scope and permitted areas of their function. 	There would
be no end to litigation by parents whose children by those who have strong credentials
for 	membership 	in 	the 	NHS, 	if 	their 	“standards” 	were 	permitted 	to 	supplant 	the
Committee or the Committee of appeals, with their own less informed, and more likely to
be biased opinions of their child’s abilities and qualities.
I agree also with that the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. For all the above reasons, therefore, I CONCLUDE that the motion to dismiss
of respondent should be and is GRANTED and the matter DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04131-23
8
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the motion to Dismiss filed by the respondent, is
hereby GRANTED and that the petitioners’ demand for relief be DISMISSED.
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 Acting 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 	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.
.
August 23, 2024
DATE 	ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	8/23/24
Mailed to Parties: 	8/23/24
id