M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, 3/4/2022, (#43-22)

43-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.M., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Lafayette, Sussex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the finding of the respondent Board’s Anti-Bullying Coordinator (ABC) that
petitioner’s minor son was not the victim of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB). Petitioner also
sought video evidence regarding the alleged HIB incident. Following a prior decision by the
Commissioner, the Appellate Division remanded the matter for consideration of additional evidence
regarding whether the Board’s HIB decision was ripe for review.
On remand, the ALJ identified the narrow issue for consideration here to be whether petitioner M.M.
availed herself of the right to appeal the ABC’s findings via a hearing before the respondent Lafayette
Board of Education (Board), and if so, whether the Board rendered a decision based on that appeal. The
ALJ found, inter alia, that: no proofs were presented to show that petitioner ever sought or received a
hearing at the Board level; an HIB hearing was never conducted before the Board and thus no
corresponding decision was ever issued by the Board based on such a hearing; although petitioner
alleged on appeal that she possessed proof that a decision was rendered, no proof was ever presented
despite repeated requests from the ALJ that petitioner provide same. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded
that petitioner had not exhausted her administrative remedies, and therefore her case remains unripe
for determination. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the petition.
Upon comprehensive review, the Commissioner found that: no further proceedings related to the video
evidence are properly before the Commissioner at this time as two previous decisions have already
ordered the Board to release the video in question to the petitioner; there is no remaining dispute as to
whether the Board’s HIB determination is ripe for review, as two previous Commissioner’s decisions
have determined that it is; while this matter was proceeding before various forums, petitioner filed a
second petition stemming from the same incident alleging that the Board violated the Act; since a
determination on the merits of petitioner’s HIB claim in connection with the same incident is currently
pending before the OAL under Agency Docket No. 216-11/21, there are no outstanding disputes herein.
Accordingly, the Commissioner determined that no further proceedings are required in this case.
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 07169-21 (EDU 05225-20 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 94-5/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.M., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Lafayette, Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the parties pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the replies thereto, have
been reviewed and considered.
The primary relief sought in the petition of appeal filed in this matter was the
production of video evidence maintained by the Lafayette Board of Education (Board) related
to a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) complaint made by petitioner on behalf of her
minor child. In two prior decisions, the Commissioner has ordered the Board to provide a copy
of the requested video to the petitioner. See, M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of
Education of the Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, Commissioner Decision No. 333-21L+,
decided December 20, 2021; and M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the
Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, Commissioner Decision No. 10-22L, decided
43-22

2
January 19, 2022. Accordingly, no further proceedings related to the video evidence are
properly before the Commissioner at this juncture.1
The proceedings in this matter have also addressed the merits of the Board’s HIB
decision and whether that decision was ripe for review when the petition was originally filed.
Again, in two prior decisions, the Commissioner has determined that the HIB decision is ripe for
review and that any argument by the Board that petitioner had failed to exhaust administrative
remedies is without merit. See, M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the
Township of Lafayette, Sussex County, Commissioner Decisions No. 333-21L+, decided
December 20, 2021; and M.M., on behalf of minor child v. Board of Education of the Township
of Lafayette, Sussex County, Commissioner Decision No. 10-22L, decided January 19, 2022.
Accordingly, there is no remaining dispute as to whether the Board’s HIB determination is ripe
for review.
While this matter was proceeding before various judicial forums, the petitioner filed a
second petition of appeal alleging that the Board violated the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act
stemming from the same incident. That matter, with Agency Docket No. 216-11/21, has been
transmitted to the OAL for a hearing regarding the merits of the Board’s HIB decision and
whether the Board violated the Act as alleged by petitioner. Accordingly, since a determination
on the merits of petitioner’s HIB claim in connection with the same incident is currently
1 It is important to recognize that the Commissioner does not have the authority to enforce the order requiring the
Board to provide the petitioner with the video evidence of the alleged incident. As provided in the New Jersey
Court Rules, R. 4:67-6, parties seeking enforcement of agency orders are required to bring an action in New Jersey
Superior Court.

3
pending before the OAL under Agency Docket No. 216-11/21, and there are no outstanding
disputes remaining in this case, no further proceedings on this matter are required.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 All motions pending under Agency Docket No. 94-5/20, including the motions to vacate, motion for partial
summary decision, motion to reopen, motions to consolidate with Agency Docket No. 216-11/21, all motions
related to adjournments, all motions related to stays of hearing dates or decisions, and all motions related to
discovery and sanctions, are denied.
3 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).
March 4, 2022
March 4, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
Agency Ref. No.: 94-5/20
(ON REMAND)
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05225-20
M.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF LAFAYETTE BOARD
OF EDUCATION, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_________________________________
M.M. o/b/o Minor Child, pro se
Marc H. Zitomer, Esq., for respondent (Schenck Price Smith & King, LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 8, 2021 	Decided: December 9, 2021
BEFORE JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The forgoing matter involves a petition of appeal on remand from the Appellate

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
2
Division of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey to the Commissioner of the New
Jersey Department of Education. 	The factual findings and legal conclusions in the first
petition, EDU 05225-20, are incorporated herein by reference.
ISSUE
The remand decision raised a narrow issue on appeal: Did petitioner, M.M., avail
herself of the right to appeal the Anti-Bullying Coordinator’s findings via a hearing before
the Lafayette Board of Education, and if so, did the Board of Education render a decision
based on that appeal?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The underlying matter, docketed as EDU 05225-20, was dismissed by the
undersigned via an Initial Decision on Motion for Summary Decision dated August 7,
2021. In that case, M.M. appealed the Respondent School District’s (the District) Anti-
Bullying Coordinator’s (ABC) finding that her son was not the victim of harassment,
intimidation and/or bulling (HIB). In that Initial Decision, the undersigned found that M.M.
failed to exhaust her administrative remedies when she refused to appear in front of the
local board of education for a hearing to dispute the ABC’s findings as required by statute,
and thus, the local board had not issued a corresponding decision regarding M.M.’s
appeal. Instead, M.M. filed an action directly with the NJ Department of Education’s Office
of Controversies and Disputes, which was subsequently transferred to the Office of
Administrative Law.
The original Petition of Appeal was assigned to the Honorable Danielle Pasquale,
ALJ, who soon withdrew due to a conflict, and the matter was then assigned to the
undersigned. 	In the Initial Decision, the undersigned reasoned, and the Commissioner
subsequently affirmed, that M.M.’s claim was not ripe and must be dismissed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
3
Upon appeal to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, M.M.
sought to supplement the record with documents allegedly showing that the Board had,
in fact, rendered a decision regarding her appeal. 	As a result, the NJ Department of
Education filed a Motion for Remand to allow these documents to be considered by the
undersigned, with instructions that, if it is found that the local board had, in fact, rendered
such a decision, then the underlying matter would, then, be ripe for a hearing before the
Commissioner of Education and Office of Administrative law, and should proceed on the
merits.
The remanded petition of appeal was transmitted to the OAL August 24, 2021.
The transmittal sheet provided the following specific instructions regarding the alleged
documents and the focus of the hearing:
“…the DOE filed a motion for remand to allow those
documents 	to 	be 	considered. 	The 	Commissioner 	is
transmitting 	this 	matter 	for 	further 	fact-finding 	and 	a
determination 	regarding 	whether 	the 	Board 	issued 	a
decision. Should the ALJ determine that the Board did issue
a decision, the matter may proceed for a merits determination
regarding whether that decision was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Subsequent to the matter being remanded to the OAL, M.M. immediately filed a
Motion dated September 3, 2021, seeking to “disqualify Judge Tiscornia and provide an
unbiased judge.” The Motion was dismissed by the undersigned by Order dated
September 14, 2021. 	M.M. then filed a motion to appeal this denial on September 20,
2021, with the Honorable Judge Ellen Bass, Acting Director and Chief Administrative Law
Judge, who ultimately denied said appeal by order dated September 23, 2021.
On October 20, 2021, a hearing in the forgoing matter was set down for November
16, 2021. Upon receipt of the hearing date via electronic mail on October 20, 2021, M.M.
immediately filed a document entitled “Motion to Stay the Proceedings Pending Decision
on Petition for Certification to Supreme Court”. Before the undersigned could act on the
aforementioned Motion to Stay, M.M. filed an interlocutory Application for Permission to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
4
File Emergent Motion with the Appellate Division, challenging my anticipated denial of her
Motion to Stay. This application was promptly denied by the Appellate division on October
22, 2021.
On October 27, 2021, the undersigned issued an Order denying the October 20,
2021, Motion to Stay. M.M, promptly filed another interlocutory Application for Permission
to File Emergent Motion, which was granted by the Appellate Division on October 28,
2021, giving leave for M.M. to make a Motion to the Appellate Division to have the matter
before me scheduled for November 16, 2021, adjourned. 	On November 3, 2021, M.M.
filed with the undersigned a Motion to Adjourn the November 16, 2021, hearing date, to
which 	the 	undersigned 	issued 	an 	Order 	dated 	November 	8, 	2021, 	denying 	the
aforementioned motion. 	On November 9, 2021, the Appellate Division issued an Order
adjourning the matter until after December 7, 2021. 	On November 10, 2021, the
undersigned set the matter down for a hearing date on December 8, 2021. 	The hearing
was set as a preemptory date, as indicated on the face of the notice.
Aside from the above referenced Motions, M.M. has drafted and sent hundreds of
correspondences via email and regular mail since this matter was transmitted to the OAL
on remand. 	These correspondences include motions, responses to motions, discovery
requests, petitions to the Appellate Division, petitions to the Supreme Court, letters to the
Commissioner to the Dept of Education, letters to opposing counsel, letters to opposing
counsel’s client (the district), letters to the Director of the Office of Administrative Law,
and letters to the undersigned, too numerous to mention here, but all of which are included
in the physical case file. 	These correspondences continued right up to the moments
before the hearing, when, approximately fifteen minutes prior to the commencement of
the hearing, the undersigned received from M.M. a correspondence entitled “Petitioner’s
Motion to Sanction Respondent for Failure to Provide Discovery”. 	The hearing was
conducted on December 8, 2021, and the record was closed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner’s Refusal to Proceed
and Failure to Present Proofs
At the hearing conducted via Zoom on December 8, 2021, petitioner, immediately
indicated, before the docket number could even be read into the record, that she refused
to proceed with the hearing. She appeared agitated, and at one point she stated she was
“shaking” and was going to have a “break down”. 	M.M. complained that I had “allowed
unfair evidence into the record”. 	She was referencing a revised exhibit list that
respondent’s counsel had circulated the morning of the hearing. I explained to M.M. that
this was only an exhibits list, and that none of the exhibits had yet been entered into the
record. 	I then noted the sole purpose of the hearing was for her to introduce the
documents which she had indicated to the Commissioner and the Appellate Division that
she possessed, and which tended to show a decision had been rendered at the local
board level. 	I explained multiple times that this was the sole focus of the hearing on
remand as indicated on the face of the transmittal sheet. My explanation seemed to make
M.M. irate, as she would continuously begin to shout and talk over me whenever I drew
her attention to the focus of the hearing.
When asked, M.M. indicated that she would not present any documents or
testimony at the hearing. I asked her multiple times to reconsider and please present the
documents that she had advised the Appellate Court she was precluded from presenting
below, or any evidence other that she may have. My request was continually met with
shouting. 	Mr. Zitomer expressed concern for M.M.’s behavior, noting that he was
concerned that she has begun showing up to the homes of the Board Members. He also
expressed great concern for the minor child, and noted that M.M. has kept her child from
attending school for the entirety of the school year. 	Counsel then made a motion to
dismiss M.M.’s appeal, which I ultimately granted at the end of the hearing after multiple
unsuccessful attempts to have M.M. present her evidence.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
6
Having received no proofs that M.M. sought or received a hearing at the Board
level, I FIND that an HIB hearing was never conducted in front of the Board of Education,
and thus, no corresponding decision was rendered by the Board based on any such
hearing.
Legal Discussion and Conclusions
As noted above, the issue at the heart of the foregoing matter on remand is a
narrow one: did the local board of education conduct a hearing and render a decision
based M.M.’s appeal of the ABC’s finding that no HIB violation occurred. Despite the fact
that M.M. alleged on appeal to possess documents that purported to show such a decision
was rendered, M.M. refused to provide any proofs whatsoever in support of her position.
Instead, M.M. continued to be combative and argumentative on the record, both with
myself and opposing counsel. 	The undersigned asked her repeatedly to enter any
evidence at all into the record; a plea which continuously went unanswered and ignored.
Thus, based on the foregoing, and for the reasons expressed in my earlier
decision, I, therefore, CONCLUDE that M.M. has not exhausted her administrative
remedies and her case before the Office of Administrative Law remains unripe for
adjudication.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED M.M.’s petition of appeal be, and hereby
is, DISMISSED.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07169-21
7
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
December 9, 2021
DATE 	JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	12/9/21
Date Mailed to Parties: 	12/9/21
id