Linda Amerman, Art Amerman, Elliott Banen, Byron Chapin, Erin Chapin, Susan Graglia, Lou Graglia, Doug Gold, Elena Gold, Carol Eng, Jodi Goffredo, Kris Pawelko, Alla-Safir-Krause, Cynthia Phillips, and Kerri Sirinides v. Board of Education of the Board of Education of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, Bergen County, 10/6/2023, (#301-23)

301-23
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.
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Synopsis
Petitioners challenged the vote to appoint Brian DeLaite (DeLaite) to a vacant seat on the Board of
Education of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, contending that the vote was invalid
because – per Robert’s Rules of Order – five affirmative votes were required, comprising a “majority of
the entire membership,” to make this appointment. The Board asserted that, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:12-15(f) and Board policy, only “a majority of the remaining members” after recusals, or four
affirmative votes, were required to appoint DeLaite. The Board at the time of the vote to fill the vacancy
consisted of 8 members, two of whom recused themselves, leaving a quorum of six members. Four
members voted to appoint DeLaite, while two opposed the appointment. The parties submitted cross
motions for summary judgment.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no issues of material fact in this matter and the case is ripe for
summary decision; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) mandates that the vacancy in question be filled “[b]y a majority
vote of the remaining members of the board after the vacancy occurs”; Board Policy #0143 was
consistent with, and incorporated language from, the controlling statute; and the language upon which
the petitioners relied from Robert’s Rules of Order cannot supersede N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 and Board Policy
#0143. The ALJ concluded that because there were four affirmative votes for DeLaite, which constituted
a majority of the remaining members following the recusals, the Board’s vote was valid and in accord
with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this
matter, finding that petitioners’ reliance on language from Robert’s Rules of Order is misplaced as
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15, which controls how board vacancies are filled in type II districts with elected boards
of education, applies in this case. Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision was granted,
and the petition was dismissed.
Linda Amerman, Art Amerman, Elliott Banen,
Byron Chapin, Erin Chapin, Susan Graglia,
Lou Graglia, Doug Gold, Elena Gold, Carol Eng,
Jodi Goffredo, Kris Pawelko, Alla Safir-Krause,
Cynthia Phillips, and Kerri Sirinides,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Ramapo Indian Hills
Regional High School District, Bergen County,
Respondent.

301-23
Linda Amerman, Art Amerman, Elliott Banen,
Byron Chapin, Erin Chapin, Susan Graglia,
Lou Graglia, Doug Gold, Elena Gold, Carol Eng,
Jodi Goffredo, Kris Pawelko, Alla Safir-Krause,
Cynthia Phillips, and Kerri Sirinides,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Ramapo Indian Hills
Regional High School District, Bergen County,
Respondent.
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00610-23
Agency Dkt. No. 365-12/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
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.
Respondent Board is a regional board of education. Petitioners challenged the Board’s
November 14, 2022, vote to appoint Brian DeLaite to a vacant seat. The material facts are
uncontested. Due to the vacancy, the Board had eight members instead of its full membership of
nine members. Two members recused themselves from voting because of prior interactions with
DeLaite. A quorum existed even after the recusals. Ultimately, four members voted to appoint
DeLaite, and two voted not to appoint him. Petitioners insisted that the vote was invalid because,
per Robert’s Rules of Order, five affirmative votes were needed for a “majority of the entire
membership” to appoint DeLaite. Joint Exhibit J-5, at 6. In response, the Board asserted that,

2
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) and Board policy, only “a majority of the remaining members”
following the recusals, or four affirmative votes, was required to appoint DeLaite.
Once the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the parties
cross-moved for summary decision and submitted a joint stipulation of facts and joint exhibits.
Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Board’s
motion for summary decision. The ALJ found that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) mandated that the vacancy
at issue here be filled “[b]y a majority vote of the remaining members of the board after the
vacancy occurs.”1 The ALJ further found that Board Policy #0143 was consistent with, and
incorporated language from, the controlling statute. Additionally, the ALJ found that the language
upon which petitioners relied from Robert’s Rules of Order, which the Board abides by, cannot
supersede N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 and Board Policy #0143. The ALJ concluded that because the four
affirmative votes for DeLaite constituted a majority of the remaining members following the
recusals, the Board’s vote was valid and in accord with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned decision as
the final decision in this matter. Petitioners’ reliance on language from Robert’s Rules of Order
§44:9(b), which discusses alternative circumstances in which “a majority of the entire membership”
may be required for a valid vote, is misplaced. Joint Exhibit J-5, at 6. As the ALJ thoughtfully
explained in the Initial Decision, the Legislature decided not to require a majority vote of the entire
membership for purposes of appointing a new board member to fill a vacancy under
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f), as demonstrated by the statute’s plain language. See DiPropsero v. Penn, 183
1 N.J.S.A. 18A:13-11 requires that vacancies in membership of regional boards of education be filled in the same
manner as vacancies in membership of boards of education of type II districts having elected boards of education.
Consequently, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15, which controls how board vacancies are filled in type II districts having elected
boards of education, applies here.

3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
N.J. 477, 492 (2005) (“The Legislature’s intent is the paramount goal when interpreting a statute
and, generally, the best indicator of that intent is the statutory language.”).
As written, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) requires only “a majority vote of the remaining members of
the board after the vacancy occurs,” and not a majority of the entire membership. The ALJ
correctly found that had the Legislature wished to include such a provision in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f),
it would have done so expressly as it has in other sections of Title 18. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11
(“by majority vote of its full membership”); N.J.S.A. 18A:15-2 (“by a majority vote of all of the
members of the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:16-8 (“by a recorded roll call majority vote of its full
membership”). It is uncontested that more than half of the votes cast by the remaining members
entitled to vote—excluding those members who recused themselves—were in favor of DeLaite’s
appointment to the Board. That is precisely what was required under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) for a
valid appointment. See Robert’s Rules of Order § 44:1 (defining “majority vote” as “more than half
of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions”). Joint Exhibit J-5,
at 1.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is granted, petitioners’ motion for
summary decision is denied, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
October 6, 2023
October 11, 2023
2 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.

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
AGY. DKT. NO. 365-12/22
LINDA AMERMAN, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
RAMAPO INDIAN HILLS REGIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BERGEN
COUNTY,
Respondent.
Carol Eng, Lead Petitioner, pro se
Matthew J. Giacobbe, Esq., for Respondent (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs,
attorneys)
Record Closed: August 2, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners challenge the Board’s vote regarding a vacancy.
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
2
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on January 19, 2023, as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13.
A prehearing conference was held on March 23, 2023, and a prehearing order
was issued on the same date.
The parties filed cross motions for summary decision. Petitioners filed their brief
in support of their motion on April 28, 2023. Respondent filed brief in support of their
motion on May 15, 2023.
The parties, together with their respective cross motions for summary decision,
submitted a Stipulation of Undisputed Facts and Joint Exhibits J-1 through J-6.
Petitioners filed their responsive brief on July 7, 2023. Respondent indicated that
it would not file a responsive brief on August 2, 2023, whereupon the record closed.
STIPULATION OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
The parties submitted the following stipulation of facts, and I so FIND the
following:
1. On or about September 29, 2022, former Board member James Setteducato, a
representative from Wyckoff, resigned from the Board creating a vacant seat. At full
membership, the Board consists of nine members. Following Mr. Setteducato’s
resignation, the Board consisted of eight members.
2. The Board held a regular public meeting on November 14, 2022. This meeting
was simultaneously livestreamed and archived on the Board website. (J-1 in hyperlink
format.)
3. On November 14, 2022, the Board interviewed two potential candidates — Brian

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
3
DeLaite and Michael Homaychak — for the vacant Board seat in open, public session at
their regularly-scheduled Board meeting. All eight Board members were present at the
meeting. (J-2.)
4. Two Board members — Robert Fortunato and John Carolan, both elected
representatives from Wyckoff — recused themselves from interview process,
discussions, and subsequent vote to fill the vacant seat. Member Fortunato publicly
stated that he recused himself from the process as a result of “serving on another board
with one of the applicants.” Member Carolan publicly stated that he recused himself
from the process due to having “past interactions with one of the candidates.” See “J-
2”; see also “J-1,” at 0:16:20.
5. Prior to the vote in public session at the November 14 meeting, then-Board
Counsel Rodney Hara advised the Board that a vote to fill the seat would require a
majority of the Board. Mr. Hara advised the Board that with two (2) recusals, four (4)
“yes” votes would constitute a majority of the Board on a vote to fill the vacant seat.
Board Member Judith Sullivan stated a point of order and formal objection to then-Board
Counsel Rodney Hara’s definition of “majority vote of the remaining board members.”
See “J-2”.
6. Board Policy #0143 states that, when voting to fill a vacant seat:
A vacancy in the membership of a regional Board of Education shall be
filled in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:13-11. A vacancy shall be filled
from the constituent districts represented by the former incumbents in the
same manner as vacancies in the membership of Boards of Education of
Type II districts having elected Boards of Education are filled.
A vacancy in the membership of a Board of Education shall be filled as
follows:
1. By the Executive County Superintendent, if the vacancy is caused
by:
a. The absence of candidates for election to the school
Board; or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
4
b. The removal of a member because of lack of
qualifications;
c. The failure of the Board to appoint a person to a vacancy
within sixty-five days following its occurrence; or
2. By the Executive County Superintendent, to a number sufficient to
make up a quorum of the Board if, by reason of vacancies, a
quorum is lacking;
3. By special election within sixty days of the annual school election,
if:
a. Two or more candidates qualified by law for membership
on the school Board receive an equal number of votes in
the annual school election. In the event that both
candidates receive an equal number of votes in the
special election, the vacancy shall be filled by the
Executive County Superintendent; or
b. The annual election is disqualified due to improper
election procedures.
4. By the Commissioner of Education if there is a failure to elect a
member at the annual school election due to improper campaign
practices; or
5. By a majority vote of the remaining members of the Board of
Education after the vacancy occurs in all other cases.
The Board Secretary shall promptly notify the President of a vacancy to be
filled by the Board. The President shall inform all other Board members.
The Board will give public notice of the vacancy and invite any qualified
person to submit a written request for consideration of his/her candidacy
for the vacancy. The Board may also require candidates submit a resume
with their written request.
In considering candidates who have expressed an interest in a vacancy,
the Board of Education may interview candidates in public or executive
session. The Board must vote to appoint a candidate to a vacancy in
public session and there shall be no decisions made in executive session.
In the event interviews are conducted in executive session, Board
members, in the public session nomination and voting process, shall
express their opinion in support of their vote so the public can witness any
deliberations, policy formulation, and the decision making process of the
Board.
A roll call vote will be conducted on candidates in the order the candidates
were nominated with a second. If there are two or more vacancies, each

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
5
vacancy will be filled by a separate election process. The first candidate
who receives the votes of a majority of the remaining Board members will
be elected to the vacancy. In the event no candidate receives a majority
vote of the remaining Board members, another election process shall be
conducted between the two candidates receiving the highest number of
votes.
(Board Policy #0143 J-3.)
7. The Board operates under Robert’s Rules of Order. (J-4.)
8. Robert’s Rules of Order §44:9(b) (Twelfth Edition) states that “a majority of the
entire membership is a majority of the total number of those who are members of the
voting body at the time of the vote.” (J-5.)
9. At the November 14 meeting, in public session, the Board voted 4-2, with two (2)
recusals, to appoint Brian DeLaite to the vacant seat, effective immediately, and set to
expire upon the Board’s organization meeting following the 2023 Annual School
Election. See “J-2.”
10. Mr. DeLaite was an unsuccessful candidate for the Board in the November 2022
election. (J-6.)
11. Petitioners filed a Pro Se Petition of Appeal on December 15, 2022 challenging
the Board’s appointment of Mr. DeLaite to the vacant seat.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
6
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Standard for Summary Decision
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an application. Ibid. These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . , are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
In the instant matter the parties agree that there are no material disputed facts,
and have submitted a Stipulation of Undisputed Facts. Accordingly, the matter is ripe
for summary decision.
School Board Vacancies
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 states:
Vacancies in the membership of the board shall be filled as follows:
a. By the county superintendent, if the vacancy is
caused by the absence of candidates for election to
the school board or by the removal of a member

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
7
because of lack of qualifications, or is not filled within
65 days following its occurrence;
b. By the county superintendent, to a number sufficient
to make up a quorum of the board if, by reason of
vacancies, a quorum is lacking;
c. By special election, if in the annual school election
two or more candidates qualified by law for
membership on the school board receive an equal
number of votes. Such special election shall be held
only upon recount and certification by the county
board of elections of such election result, shall be
restricted to such candidates, shall be held within 60
days of the annual school election, and shall be
conducted in accordance with procedures for annual
and special school elections set forth in Title 19 of the
Revised Statutes. The vacancy shall be filled by the
county superintendent if in such special election two
or more candidates qualified by law for membership
on the school board receive an equal number of
votes;
d. By special election if there is a failure to elect a
member at the annual school election due to improper
election procedures. Such special election shall be
restricted to those persons who were candidates at
such annual school election, shall be held within 60
days of such annual school election, and shall be
conducted in accordance with the procedures for
annual and special school elections set forth in Title
19 of the Revised Statutes;
e. By the commissioner if there is a failure to elect a
member at the annual school election due to improper
campaign practices; or
f. By a majority vote of the remaining members of the
board after the vacancy occurs in all other cases.
Each member so appointed shall serve until the
organizational meeting following the next annual election
unless the member is appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
within the 60 days immediately preceding such election if the
annual election is held in April, or occurring after the third
Monday in July if the election is held in November, to fill a
term extending beyond such election, in which case the
member shall serve until the organizational meeting
following the second annual election next succeeding the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
8
occurrence of the vacancy, and any vacancy for the
remainder of the term shall be filled at the annual election or
the second annual election next succeeding the occurrence
of the vacancy, as the case may be.
In the matter at hand, the applicable section would be subsection f., which states:
By a majority vote of the remaining members of the board after the vacancy occurs in all
other cases.
Board Policy #0143 requires the Board to follow N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 when filling
a vacancy on the Board.
Roberts Rules of Order, in Rule 44:9(b) states “A majority of the entire
membership is a majority of the total of those who are members of the voting body at
the time of the vote.”
The question herein arises as to what controls the action of the Board regarding
its vote to replace the member who resigned.
What controls the manner in which a vacant Board seat is filled are N.J.S.A.
18A:12-15 and Board Policy #0143. Roberts Rules of Order do not, and cannot,
supersede N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 and Board Policy #0143.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 does not require a majority vote of the full membership.
Many other statutes pertaining to boards of education do require a majority vote of the
full membership. See N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11 (“by majority vote of its full membership”);
N.J.S.A. 18A:15-2 (“by majority vote of all of the members of the board”); N.J.S.A.
18A:16-8 (“majority vote of its full membership”); N.J.S.A. 18A:17-5 (“majority vote of its
full membership of the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:17-14.1 (“by a majority vote of all members
of the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:17-15 (“majority vote of the full membership of the board”);
N.J.S.A. 18A:20-5 (“majority vote of its full membership of the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:20-
37 (“by a majority vote of all its members”) N.J.S.A. 18A:25-1 (“majority vote of the full
membership of the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1 (“majority vote of the full membership of
the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:29-14 (“majority vote of the full membership of the board”);

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
9
N.J.S.A. 18A:33-1 (“majority vote of the full membership of the board”); N.J.S.A.
18A:34-1 (“majority vote of the full membership of the board”); N.J.S.A. 18A:38-6 (“by a
majority vote of all the members of the board of education”); N.J.S.A. 18A:51-1 (“by a
majority vote of all of the members of each such board”); and N.J.S.A. 18A:51-11
(“majority vote of its full membership”). Yet the Legislature chose not to use the term of
art “majority vote of its full membership” when enacting N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f).
The legislative history of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) shows that it was amended in
December 1996 to add the words “by a majority vote of the remaining members of” the
board.
The Senate Education Committee Statement to the bill states: “This bill specifies
that when a member of a school board in a Type 23 II district resigns, the vacancy will
be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of the board. Under an
interpretation of the present statute, it is possible for the member who resigns to vote on
the appointment of a successor.”
The Assembly Education Committee statement to the bill states: “As amended
by committee, this bill specifies that when a member of a school board in a Type II
district resigns, the vacancy will be filled by a majority vote of the remaining members of
the board after the vacancy has occurred. Under an interpretation of the present statute,
it is possible for the member who resigns to vote on the appointment of a successor.
The committee amended the bill to add language clarifying that the vote of the
remaining members of the board will occur after the vacancy has occurred. This bill
was pre-filed for introduction in the 1996 session pending technical review. As reported,
the bill includes the changes required by technical review which has been performed.”
Had the Legislature intended N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) to require a majority vote of the full
membership they would have included the same in the statute. They did not.
In the instant matter, the remaining members of the board totaled eight. At the
meeting where Mr. DeLaite was selected to replace Mr. Setteducato all eight remaining
members were present. Two of those members recused themselves and stated their
reasons for recusal on the record, notwithstanding Petitioners’ assertion that they did

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
10
not. There remained a quorum of six voting members. Of those six members four
members voted in the affirmative. These four affirmative votes constituted a majority of
the remaining members, and their vote was in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f).
Petitioners in their brief define the issues as follows:
1. Did the former majority members of the 2022 Ramapo Indian Hills Board
of Education uphold, preserve and ensure the public confidence, trust and
respect of the people who elected them?
2. Did the former majority members of the 2022 Ramapo Indian Board of
Education dutifully abide by the policies and regulations, and use integrity
and ethical procedures to select the best qualified candidate to serve on
the open Wyckoff seat on the Board?
Neither of the two above noted issues were set forth in the due process petition
and are not considered herein. The issue is the legality of the vote to place Mr. DeLaite
on the Board.
Also in their brief, Petitioners seek to introduce unrelated, and unsupported facts,
none of which have any bearing on the legality of the vote to place Mr. DeLaite on the
Board. They are, therefore, not considered herein.
Respondent, in its brief, cites two cases regarding plurality votes in filling a
vacant board seat that predate the 1996 amendment to N.J.S.A. 18A: 12-15(f):
Polonsky, et al. v. Red Bank Board of Education, 1967 S.L.D. 93 (Comm’r of Educ. Apr.
25, 1967); and Corda v. Willingboro Board of Education, 1987 S.L.D. 337 (Dec. 26,
1986), aff’d 1987 S.L.D. 349 (Comm’r of Educ. Feb. 5, 1987). Respondent makes a
compelling argument as to the validity of the vote in question intertwining the two above
cases with the amendment to the statute. However, the undersigned determines that
the analysis above as to the legislative history, and the lack of the words “full
membership” in the statute is sufficient to determine that the vote to fill the vacancy at
issue herein was valid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
11
Based upon the above I CONCLUDE there are no genuine issues of material
facts as they relate to the due process petition, and Respondent is entitled to prevail as
a matter of law.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED; and
It is further ORDERED that Petitioners’ motion for summary decision is DENIED;
and
It is further ORDERED that Petitioners’ due process petition is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
12
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 28, 2023
DATE
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb
THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00610-23
13
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioners:
Brief in support of motion for summary decision
Reply brief in opposition to respondent’s motion for summary decision
For Respondent:
Motion for summary decision
Brief in support of motion for summary decision
Joint Filings:
Stipulation of Undisputed Facts
Joint Exhibits:
J-1 November 14, 2022 meeting hyperlink
J-2 Minutes of November 14, 2022 meeting
J-3 Board Policy #0143
J-4 Robert’s Rules of Order
J-5 Robert’s Rules of Order, Chapter XIII, §44
J-6 November 2022 election results from Bergen County Clerk’s Office
J-7 Pro Se Petition of Appeal filed December 15, 2022
Other Pleadings and Filings:
Answer to Petition of Appeal and Separate Defenses