Joseph Muniz v. Board of Education of the Hudson County Schools of Technology, Hudson County, 1/29/26 (#36-26)

36-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11637-25
Agency Dkt. No. 216-6/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Joseph Muniz,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Hudson County
Schools of Technology, Hudson County,
Respondent.
The record of this 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.1
In this matter, petitioner challenges the termination of his employment as Board
Secretary. 	Alternatively, if the termination of his employment was not improper, then he
challenges the Board’s failure to recognize his tenure rights in the Board Secretary and Assistant
School Business Administrator positions and the attendant “bumping rights” he holds over the
two, non-tenured persons currently employed by the Board as Assistant School Business
Administrators.
1 The Commissioner did not consider petitioner’s sur-reply or the Board’s reply to the sur-reply, as those
submissions are not permitted under N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4.

2
The material facts are undisputed. Petitioner, who holds a School Business Administrator
certificate, worked as Assistant School Business Administrator for the Board from 2005 to 2014.
Later, he became Acting Board Secretary, and then Board Secretary in November 2015. In June
2025, per the recommendation of a professional consultant for cost savings, the Board
eliminated several positions including the stand-alone Board Secretary position and combined it
with 	the 	School 	Business 	Administrator 	position 	to 	create 	a 	new 	School 	Business
Administrator/Board Secretary position. 	Consequently, the Board terminated petitioner’s
employment as Board Secretary effective July 1, 2025.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition, claiming that the elimination of the Board
Secretary position was consistent with N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9; petitioner did not obtain tenure in the
Assistant School Business Administrator position because it was not a recognized title when he
was appointed; and even if petitioner obtained tenure, under DiNapoli v. Board of Education of
the Township of Verona, 434 N.J. Super. 233 (App. Div. 2014), administrators only retain tenure
rights during their employment in that position.
The ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the petition. Specifically, the ALJ found
that the Board’s elimination of the Board Secretary position for reasons of economy did not
violate any statute or regulation. As for petitioner’s tenure rights, the ALJ rejected the Board’s
contention regarding the unrecognized title but concluded that DiNapoli was both persuasive
and controlling. The ALJ held that once petitioner left his position as Assistant School Business
Administrator for the position of Board Secretary, his tenure rights in the Assistant School
Business Administrator position were not retained, and thus no “bumping rights” existed.

3
In his exceptions, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred when concluding that he
relinquished his tenure rights in the Assistant School Business Administrator position upon
accepting the Board Secretary position. 	He asserts that the DiNapoli case, which involved a
secretary who relinquished her tenure rights when she accepted a promotion to the position of
Assistant School Business Administrator, applies only to secretaries who hold non-certificated
positions. 	He asserts that because he moved from one certificated position to another, he
maintains the right to “bump back” to the Assistant School Business Administrator position.
In response, the Board agrees with the ALJ that petitioner relinquished his tenure rights
in the Assistant School Business Administrator position when he voluntarily accepted the Board
Secretary position. Thus, the principles expressed in DiNapoli are applicable, and petitioner does
not have any bumping rights related to the Assistant School Business Administrator position or
the new School Business Administrator/Board Secretary position.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ and adopts the Initial Decision as
the final decision in this matter. Petitions are subject to dismissal by the Commissioner “on the
grounds that the petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner’s factual
allegations are accepted as true.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. This standard also appears in New Jersey
Court Rule 4:6-2(e), which permits a motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See Jonathan Wadley v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., Office of
Student Prot., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09223-22, Initial Decision at 4-5 (Mar. 10, 2023), adopted,
Commissioner Decision No. 110-23 (Apr. 11, 2023) (assessing respondent’s motion to dismiss
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 under the standards used by courts when analyzing Rule 4:6-2
motions). Such motions “must be evaluated in light of the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged”

4
in the petition. Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 100, 106 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Donato
v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475, 482 (App. Div. 2005)). While petitioner is not expected to prove
his case at the pleadings stage, the petition must contain factual “allegations, which, if proven,
would constitute a valid cause of action.” Ibid. (quoting Leon v. Rite Aid Corp., 340 N.J. Super.
462, 472 (App. Div. 2001)). Ultimately, a petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
“if it has failed to articulate a legal basis entitling [petitioner] to relief.” Ibid.
The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the elimination of the Board Secretary
position for reasons of economy did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9 or any other law or regulation.
See Maywood Bd. of Educ. v. Maywood Educ. Ass’n, 168 N.J. Super. 45, 55 (App. Div. 1979)
(“Reduction in force (RIF), whether of tenured or nontenured teachers, if done for reasons of
economy, is entirely within the authority of the board.”); Impey v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of
Shrewsbury, 142 N.J. 388, 398 (1995) (“[A] local board of education has the authority to reduce
its teaching force as long as that reduction is genuinely ‘for reasons of economy.’”). The petition
does not contain allegations which, if proven, would warrant a different conclusion.
As for petitioner’s tenure rights, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that petitioner
relinquished his tenure rights in the Assistant School Business Administrator position when he
voluntarily accepted the Board Secretary position. The petition has not articulated a legal basis
entitling petitioner to relief with respect to bumping rights. 	Tenure rights of school business
administrators are governed by N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2, which provides that any school business
administrator who has served for three consecutive calendar years “shall hold his office, position
or employment under tenure.” Having served for more than three consecutive calendar years,
petitioner earned tenure rights as an Assistant School Business Administrator. 	However, the

5
Appellate Division held in DiNapoli that N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2 limits the retention of tenure to the
time during which the staff member holds his office, position, or employment. DiNapoli, 434 N.J.
Super. at 239. 	Thus, when petitioner agreed to become Board Secretary, he relinquished the
tenure rights he held in the Assistant School Business Administrator position and cannot now
claim “bumping rights” related to that position.
The Commissioner does not agree with petitioner’s attempt to distinguish DiNapoli on
the basis that the court’s holding applies only to secretaries who hold non-certificated positions.
Petitioner has not identified any case law that limits the DiNapoli holding in that manner. The
fact that the staff member in DiNapoli was a secretary who was promoted to Assistant School
Business Administrator while petitioner was an Assistant School Business Administrator before
he became Board Secretary does not require the conclusion that DiNapoli is inapplicable here.
As discussed by the ALJ, the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2—which provided the basis for
the court’s holding in DiNapoli—pertains to both secretaries and school business administrators
alike.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
Board’s motion to dismiss the petition of appeal is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 29, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 30, 2026
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 216-6/25
JOSEPH MUNIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
HUDSON COUNTY SCHOOLS OF
TECHNOLOGY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, HUDSON COUNTY,
Respondent.
Stephen J. Edelstein, Esq., for petitioner (Weiner Law Group, LLP, attorneys)
Christopher A. Khatami, Esq., for respondent (Shah Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 31, 2025 Decided: November 18, 2025
BEFORE: MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Joseph Muniz challenges the termination of his employment as the
Secretary of the Board of Education of the Hudson County Schools of Technology
(“Board” or “District”), effective July 1, 2025. In the alternative, if it is determined that his

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
2
termination was not improper, he challenges the failure of the Board to recognize with
attainment of tenure not only as the Board Secretary, but also as an Assistant Business
Administrator in the District and the further failure to recognize his “bumping” rights over
the two persons currently employed as the Assistant Business Administrator.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This dispute is the latest salvo in a barrage of disputes involving these parties.
While not necessarily straightforward, for the purposes of this forum, the procedural
history is not particularly difficult to decipher.
The petitioner, who had been employed by respondent as the Board Secretary,
was suspended with pay from his position on November 24, 2024. Alleging that there
was no basis for the suspension, petitioner demanded that he be reinstated, but the
respondent refused.
Thereafter, on May 21, 2025, petitioner filed an Emergent Petition [Muniz v.
Hudson County Schools of Technology Board of Education (EDU 09176-2025)] with the
State Department of Education’s Office of Controversies & Disputes (“OCD”). That
petition was forwarded to the OAL and the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu
of an Answer in response to same. That case was heard on June 2, 2025, by the Hon.
Thomas R. Betancourt, A.LJ. and he issued a decision denying the requested relief,
finding that Mr. Muniz did not meet the “irreparable harm” prong of the Crowe v. DeGioia1
test. Muniz, 2025 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 313 (June 2, 2025), aff’d, Comm’r, Docket No. 304-
25E (June 13, 2025). (C-1.)
As the situation continued to evolve, on June 30, 2025, Mr. Muniz filed the subject
emergent petition following respondent’s notification to Mr. Muniz that his employment as
Board Secretary was to be terminated as a result of the abolishment of that position. In
the petition, he alleges that not only is the termination improper, but even if it were legal,
1 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
3
he is entitled to “bumping” rights, given his position as holding tenure both as the Board
Secretary and as an Assistant Business Administrator.
This petition was forwarded to the OAL for a hearing as a contested case. N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. In response to the petition, the Board filed
a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer. Following an initial conference on July 7, 2025,
the parties stipulated that this action does not meet the criteria to continue as an emergent
petition but would rather continue as a regular petition and a briefing schedule was set.
By email dated July 28, 2025, both Dominick Pandolfo and Kerri Sullivan were advised of
their right to intervene or participate in the case per N.J.A.C. 1:1-16.4. Neither Mr.
Pandolfo, nor Ms. Sullivan contacted the court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
While the respondent explicitly denies any relationship between this employment
action and the circumstances which led to petitioner’s suspension, to ignore the well-
publicized backstory to Mr. Muniz’s history with respondent would fail to provide needed
context to the arguments of the parties.
At its most basic, it is alleged by Mr. Muniz that he had an eighteen-year extramarital
affair with Amy Lin-Rodriguez. The implications of that affair really began in 2018, when Ms.
Lin-Rodriguez was hired as the Board Superintendent and failed to disclose her relationship
with the Board Secretary (Mr. Muniz). The affair allegedly ended in April 2024, but following
an “explosive” argument in November of that year, the affair became public, leading to their
respective suspensions.2
Mr. Muniz’s suspension is what led to the filing of the initial petition. While still under
(paid) suspension, he was advised on June 25, 2025, that per “the findings and
recommendation of a study conducted by (the) School Business Office”, the position of
2 The saga of Ms Lin-Rodriguez’s employment continues and although she never returned to her position
as Superintendent, her suspension was lifted on July 1, 2025. (P-C.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
4
Board Secretary will be combined with the position of School Business Administrator,
effective July 1, 2025.
THE STUDY
The study referenced above was performed by SBO Management, L.L.C. and
completed on June 17, 2025. (R-E.) The twenty-three-page report is best
summarized in the June 20, 2025, Board resolution (RA-8.) SBO had been hired on
an unknown date “to provide an economic efficiency analysis of its Business/Board
Office, including administrative staffing, organized structure and operation in the
areas of a Human Resources and Governance to determine potential cost-savings
options”.
SBO recommended the following (all effective July 1, 2025);
a. The Board Secretary position be abolished and combined
with the School Business Administrator position to create a
new position of School Business Administrator/Board
Secretary.
b. The Administrative Secretary position in the Board
Secretary’s Office shall be abolished.
c. The Purchasing Assistant position in the Board Secretary’s
Office shall be abolished.
d. One Senior Account Clerk position in the Vouchers
Department shall be abolished.
There was then this paragraph in the resolution;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Acting Superintendent,
with the assistance of the Board Attorney, is directed to notify
the affected employees and take all steps necessary to
implement the above changes, including but not limited to
preparation of a revised Organization Chart, revised job
descriptions and reassignments in accordance with any tenure
and seniority rights as my be needed.
(emphasis in original.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
5
The resolution was effectively reproduced in a letter to Mr. Muniz from the
Acting Superintendent, which advised him that;
As a result of the findings and recommendations of a study
conducted by School Business Office, and to effectuate a cost
savings, the Board abolished a number of position, including the
position of Board Secretary, which will be combined with the
School Business Administrator position, effective July 1, 2025.
Accordingly, you employment with HCST will terminate at the
close of Business on June 30, 2025.
(RA-8.)
INITIAL FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACT
During the initial pre-hearing conference, it was determined that this was almost
exclusively a legal dispute, despite the cumbersome and at times, scandalous factual
background. Ultimately, the following FACTS of the case are not in dispute:
1. Mr. Muniz holds a Business Administrator’s Certificate as issued by the
New Jersey Department of Education (“DOE”). That certificate is required for
anyone looking to be employed as a Business Administrator or Assistant
Business Administrator in a public school system.3
2. In January 2003, Mr. Muniz obtained certification as a Qualified
Purchasing Agent. He was hired by respondent as in that position on January
3, 2005. (RA-1.) On or about October 13, 2005, the Board appointed him to
the position of Assistant Business Administrator and he held that position
through August 31, 2014. (RA-2.) The circumstances of that hiring are
important and will be detailed below.
3. Having maintained continuous employment as an Assistant Business
Administrator since his appointment, Mr. Muniz was appointed to the position
3 https://www.nj.gov/education/certification/leaders/slcerts/0109CE.shtml (last accessed, Sept. 8, 2025).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
6
of Acting Board Secretary effective June 1, 2015. (RA-4.) He assumed the
position of Board Secretary effective November 2, 2015. (RA-5.)
4. He continued in that position through November 25, 2024, gaining tenure
per N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2(a), when he was suspended with pay following a
confrontation with Ms. Lin-Rodriguez. (C-1.)
5. Then, following the performance of the study detailed above, Mr. Muniz’s
position was eliminated and his employment terminated effective July 1, 2025.
6. At the time of Mr. Muniz’s hiring as the Assistant Business Administrator,
the position was, per N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.5, an “unrecognized title” and its
utilization was therefore subject to the approval of the Bergen County
Superintendent of Schools.
7. Permission to use that title was granted by the Superintendent via a
memorandum dated October 4, 2005. (R-B.)
8. However, continued utilization of that title by the District was subject to
yearly approval by the Superintendent.
9. There is no evidence that the District ever sought that approval
subsequent to the initial request in 2005.
10. Nonetheless, Mr. Muniz retained that job title through 2014.
11. There are two persons currently employed as Assistant Business
Administrators in the District; Dominick Pandolfo and Kerri Sullivan, both of
whom have been employed in those positions since June 30, 2023. Neither
has attained tenure and neither have accumulated as much service time in
that position as Mr. Muniz. (C-5.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
7
ASSISTANT BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR POSITION
This is a major part of the story. On October 4, 2005, Robert Osak, the Bergen
County Superintendent of Schools directed a memo to Frank J. Garguilo, the District
Superintendent. (R-B.) It read, in relevant part:
RE: Use of Unrecognized Title (2005-2006 School Year)
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-5.5, I have reviewed your request to use the
following unrecognized title during the 2005-2006 school year. Predicated
upon my review of the responsibilities in the respective job description, you
have approval to use the respective title with the endorsement required.
You are advised that while you may use the unrecognized title listed below,
the person employed will accrue seniority upon attainment of tenure under
the legal title.
If you plan to use this title in subsequent years, you must renew your
application to this office.
Position Title Authorization Endorsement Legal Title
Assistant School School Business Administrator Business Administrator
School Business Administrator
Despite that title having been continuously utilized since it was first introduced in
2005, there is no evidence that the District ever renewed its application to use this title in
subsequent years.
MOTION
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing the following points;
a. That the elimination of petitioner’s Board Secretary position was proper and in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9.
b. That the Assistant Business Administrator position was not a “recognized position
title” when Mr. Muniz was appointed and that he therefore could not accrue
tenure.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
8
c. That the Assistant Business Administrator position is not mentioned in N.J.S.A.
18A:17-2(a) and therefore Mr. Muniz could not accrue tenure.
d. That, unlike teachers or school superintendents, administrators only retain tenure
rights during their employment in that position. DiNapoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Verona,
434 N.J. Super. 233 (App. Div. 2014). Compare N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6, N.J.S.A.
18A:7-2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20.4.
It is argued that the Motion to Dismiss is appropriate here since, per N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.10, even if appellant’s factual allegations are all found to be true, there is no legal basis
for his appeal.
The petitioner argues that Mr. Muniz has gained tenure in two separate positions;
Board Secretary and Assistant Business Administrator. The fact that the Board did not
seek continuing approval for the position of Assistant Business Administrator should not
be visited upon Mr. Muniz and respondent should not benefit from its omission. At the
very least, the Board should be equitably estopped from asserting this defense.
Mr. Muniz also argues that the Assistant Business Administrator position is now a
recognized title (and is included in the HCST Administrators’ Collective Bargaining Unit),
obviating that aspect of the defense. Petitioner also recommends that the District’s
arguments concerning bumping rights is completely without basis. First, it argued,
pointing to the reappointment of Ms. Lin-Rodriguez as a Principal, having left that tenured
position to become Superintendent, which is deemed to be “analogous to Mr. Muniz’s
position as Assistant Business Administrator”.
It is also pointed out that Mr. Muniz’s service as an Assistant Business
Administrator far exceeds the service time of both Mr. Pandolfo and Ms. Sullivan in the
same position.
Finally, as was noted by the respondent, the petitioner, while inferring impropriety
concerning the reduction in force (as well as in Ms. Lin-Rodriguez’s reappointment), does
not make any legal argument concerning the propriety of either. Therefore, any potential
argument concerning same is moot and will not be considered here.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
9
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A Motion to Dismiss filed per N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g) is the functional equivalent of a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed in civil court per R. 4:6-2(e). Graves
v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark & Cami Anderson, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS
2417 (App Div., Sept. 26, 2017). The Court stated the standard for the granting of same:
When reviewing a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion, a court must
determine the adequacy of the pleading and decide whether
a cause of action is "suggested" by the facts. Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989)
(quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189,
192 (1988)). The court must "search[] the complaint in depth
and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a
cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure
statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if
necessary." Ibid. (quoting Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Mem'l
Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957)).
Id. at *7.
Much has been made of the “unrecognized title” aspect of the case. More
specifically, respondent argues that because the job title of “Assistant Business
Administrator” is an “unrecognized title” and since there is no evidence that the District
requested permission to use the title in the years subsequent to the County
Superintendent’s 2005 letter, Mr. Muniz did not acquire tenure in that position.
The concept of unrecognized titles is codified in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.5. This provision
reads as follows;
(a) Each district board of education shall assign to teaching
staff members position titles that are recognized by the
Department. To this end, the Department shall maintain and
make available to school districts a list of approved job titles
with corresponding authorized certificates.
(b) If a district board of education desires to use an
unrecognized position title, or if a previously established
unrecognized title exists, the following procedures shall apply:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
10
1. Prior to appointing a candidate, the district board of
education shall submit to the executive county
superintendent a written request, including a detailed job
description, for permission to use the proposed title.
2. The executive county superintendent shall exercise
his or her discretion regarding approval of the request
and shall determine the appropriate certification and title
for the position.
(c) The executive county superintendent shall review annually
all previously approved unrecognized position titles and shall
determine whether the titles will be continued for the next
school year.
(d) Decisions rendered by executive county superintendents
regarding titles and certificates for unrecognized positions
shall be binding upon future seniority determinations on a
case-by-case basis.
Here, the position of “Assistant Business Administrator” was, in 2005, an
“unrecognized title” and in compliance with the Code, the District sought approval for its
use from the Bergen County Superintendent and that approval was granted by letter
dated October 4, 2005. It was also noted that in order to utilize that title in ensuing years,
the District “must renew (its) application to this office.” As previously noted, there is no
evidence that this ever happened.
This issue is, unsurprisingly, a mite bit more nuanced that it appears on the
surface. First, the petitioner argues that the job of Assistant School Business
Administrator is now an “approved” position, pointing to its assignment of an
“Administrators Position Code”. (P-A.) While the code is listed on a private schools
document issued by the DOE, it is clear that this listing is taken directly from the approved
list of public school positions. (C-2 and C-3.) A little digging reflects that this position was
finally approved for the 2010-11 school year and continues to be an approved position.
(C-2, C-3 and C-4). That means that Mr. Muniz worked the 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13
and 2013-14 school years in the now-approved position of “Assistant Business
Administrator”.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
11
Per N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2(a), a person in the position of “School Business
Administrator” must serve three consecutive calendar years in the position in order to
become tenured. Here, it appears that irrespective of the approved/unapproved
conundrum, Mr. Muniz served a sufficient amount of time in the position after it was
approved, to have obtained tenure.
However, that is not the end of the story. Having reviewed the case law, ultimately,
this matter boils down to a contest involving two cases. First is Still v. State-Operated
Sch. Dist. of Camden, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1580 (App. Div., June 5, 2018),
which addresses this approved/unapproved issue as well as the issue of tenure retention
in detail. Ms. Still, who held a teaching certificate, served as a third and fourth grade
teacher in Camden for seven years before leaving for a job outside the District. She was
then rehired as a “technology coordinator”, which was described as a tenured position
with duties to provide “instructional support…to staff members”. Id. at *1. She remained
in that position for fourteen years before it was abolished and she was reassigned to
classroom teaching duties. She was then moved to the position of “lead educator” and
obtained the “required provisional principal certificate” required for that job. Two years
later, she was advised that this position was also being eliminated and that she was being
terminated without bumping rights. Id. at *2.
Ms. Still then filed a petition with the Commissioner and the District moved to
dismiss same on two grounds (one of which is irrelevant to this discussion). The relevant
argument is that Ms. Still had lost her right to tenure under her teaching certificate
because the “technology coordinator” position did not require any “classroom instruction
commensurate with this certificate.” Id. at *3.
The matter was referred to the OAL, which ruled in favor of Ms. Still. The District
appealed to the Commissioner and, for the first time, raised an argument that Ms. Still
could not have acquired tenure in the position of “technology coordinator”, not because it
was an unapproved position, but because there was no evidence that the District had
requested the required year-to-year approval of the position by the County
Superintendent. Id. at *4-5. The Commissioner affirmed the Initial Decision, rejecting all

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
12
of the District’s arguments. Still v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Camden, 2017 N.J. Agen.
LEXIS 273 (Jan. 4, 2017)
The Commissioner, despite the issue being raised for the first time, addressed the
“unapproved position” argument directly and in detail.
Whether the unrecognized position of technology coordinator
was approved by the ECS is inconsequential to the
determination of tenure rights: neither the tenure statute nor
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.5 indicate that an employee will be deemed
not tenured if an unrecognized position is not approved by the
ECS…See Ciamillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Ridgefield, OAL Dkt.
No. EDU1805-04, State Board Decision No. 38-05 (January
4, 2006) (clarifying that the position in which tenure is acquired
by virtue of service in an unrecognized position title is not
limited by the unrecognized title because it is well established
that the position in which an individual achieves tenure is
either one of those specifically enumerated in the statute or
other employment for which a certificate is required); see also,
Manley v. Bd. of Educ. of Old Bridge Twp., OAL Dkt. No.
EDU10644-04, Commissioner Decision No. 450-05
(December 19, 2005) (holding, "[i]t is well established that
tenure is achieved in a specific position, and the scope of the
tenured position is initially limited by the certificate the
teaching staff member must hold to satisfy the prerequisite of
qualifications for his or her employment . . ." and finding "the
scope of tenure protection for unrecognized positions is also
determined by the certifications and endorsements required
to serve in that position.") Additionally, it is the board's
responsibility to obtain approval from the ECS. Assuming,
arguendo, that approval was necessary for accrual of tenure
in the position and the Board had failed to obtain approval
from the ECS, holding petitioner accountable in any way for
the Board's administrative failure would contravene the
principles of fairness and equity.
Id. at *5-6.
The Commissioner also noted the scope of the tenure statute;
The tenure statute should be "liberally construed to achieve
its beneficent ends." Spiewak v. Bd. of Educ. of Hamilton
Twp., et al., 90 N.J. 63, 74 (N.J. 1982). Here, petitioner served
as a technology coordinator for fourteen years, a position
which required a standard teaching certification; therefore,
petitioner obtained tenure in the District under her
instructional certification both as a technology coordinator and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
13
as an elementary school teacher. Accordingly, the Initial
Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
Id. at *7-8.
The Appellate Division rather succinctly affirmed;
As the ALJ and Commissioner pointed out, the tenure statute
is clear. In addition to the enumerated positions, "all teaching
staff members employed . . . in the positions of teacher . . .
and such other employees as are in positions which require
them to hold appropriate certificates issued by the board of
examiners . . . shall be under tenure." N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5(a)
(emphasis added). Because it was undisputed that Still held
an appropriate certificate for over fourteen years as the
technology coordinator, she accrued tenure. Nothing in the
statute or the enabling regulations supports the requirement
urged by the District that the technology coordinator position
must have an instruction component or be approved by the
ECS before the holder of the position acquires tenure. The
ALJ's and Commissioner's refusal to graft conditions onto the
statute was eminently reasonable.
Likewise, there was nothing arbitrary or capricious about the
Commissioner's legal conclusion, grounded in fairness and
equity, that even if ECS approval was necessary, it was the
District's responsibility, not Still's, to obtain it given Still had
dutifully worked for over fourteen years as the technology
coordinator, described by the District as a tenured position.
Still, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1580 at *7-8.
Key to the discussion however, at least according to the District, is DiNapoli
v. Bd. of Educ. of Tp. of Verona, 434 N.J. Super. 233 (App. Div. 2014). The key
difference between DiNapoli and Still is that Ms. DiNapoli had obtained tenure in
a non-teaching position. More specifically, in 2006, she had been a tenured
secretary. She then left that position to become in 2009 to become the Assistant
Business Administrator of the District. That position was then abolished in 2011.
Ms. DiNapoli then asserted that since she had obtained tenure in her secretarial
job, she was entitled to bump back to that position. Both the ALJ and the
Commissioner ruled in her favor. Id. at 234-35.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
14
Even given the limited scope of review of an administrative agency’s final
determination, the Appellate Division reversed. Essentially, the District argued that
once Ms. DiNapoli transferred out of a non-certificated position (secretary) to a
certificated one (Assistant Business Administrator), she relinquished her tenure
rights as a secretary, citing to N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2.
First, the Court noted that “tenure rights are statutory and not contractual”
and that “to acquire the security of tenure, the precise conditions enunciated in the
applicable statute must be met”. Id. at 237-28, cit. Zimmerman v. Newark Bd. of
Educ., 29 N.J. 65 (1962), certif. denied, 371 U.S. 956 (1963) Then, the Court
agreed with the District;
Initially, we find the plain language of the statute does not
support the Commissioner's determination that DiNapoli
retained her tenure rights upon transfer to a certificated
position. Nor does N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2 reflect a legislative
design to provide secretaries, who have relinquished their
positions for non-secretarial certificated employment, the right
to retain tenure. Rather, the language of N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2
limits the retention of tenure to the time during which the
employee holds her secretarial office, position or employment.
The Commissioner's conclusion that secretarial staff maintain
tenure upon transfer to non-secretarial positions is unfounded
under the express terms of the statute. Once DiNapoli
voluntarily transferred to the assistant school business
administrator position, she no longer held her "office, position
or employment" as a secretary and, absent expressed
statutory authority, she relinquished her right to "bump back"
into a secretarial position.
DiNapoli, 434 N.J. Super. at 239-40.
The Court opined that if the Legislature had desired the positions mentioned in the
statute (including, coincidentally, “assistant school business administrator”) to maintain
their tenure after transferring to another position, it would have done so. The Court
pointed to, as an example, the language contained in the “teaching staff members” statute
that Ms. Still relied upon in her case (N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6) and to the “superintendent”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
15
statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20.4. Both of these statutes “afford tenure retention rights to
teachers and superintendents notwithstanding promotion or transfer.” Id. at 240.
While DiNapoli at times emphasizes the difference between certificated and non-
certificated positions (the school business administrator position is certificated, the
position of secretary is not), the fact remains that both positions are literally in the title of
N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2. While that statute has not been amended since its enactment in 1967,
N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20.4 was not enacted until 1991 and N.J.S.A. 18A:18-6 was amended in
2012. DiNapoli then reviewed the standard by which statutes should be read together,
concluding;
In determining whether legislative enactments "actually
'concern the same object,'" a court should consider "whether
both statutes were included in one enactment, whether the
proofs required overlap, and whether they are 'designed to
serve the same purpose and objective[.]'" Marino v. Marino,
200 N.J. 315, 330, 981 A.2d 855 (2009) (quoting 2B
Sutherland Statutory Construction § 51:3 (7th ed. 2008)). Both
N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2 and 18A:28-6 were enacted at the same
time. See L. 1967, c. 271. N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20.4 was enacted
subsequently. See L. 1991, c. 267, § 8.
We are satisfied that all three statutes concern the same
object, namely, the accrual and retention of tenure by school
district employees, and are designed to serve the same
purpose and objective. "When the Legislature expressly
includes a requirement in one section and excludes that same
requirement in other subsections of the same general statute,
we need not strain to import that requirement where it is not."
In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J. 478, 492,
852 A.2d 1083 (2004). When considered together, it is
obvious the Legislature did not intend to afford secretaries
tenure preservation upon transfer or promotion from
secretarial employment as they did not adopt a provision
providing for tenure retention in the legislation.
Id. at 241-42.
So, where does that leave us? Per N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9, a District is permitted to
implement a reduction of force, including tenured employees and “to abolish any such
positions for reasons of economy or because of reduction in the number of pupils or of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
16
change in the administrative or supervisory organization of the district or for other good
cause.”
There is certainly a history between the parties and there is no question that a
study was commissioned and recommended not only the elimination of Mr. Muniz’s
position, but also other administrative positions. However, while Mr. Muniz infers that
there may be an impure motive behind the elimination of his position, he has not
presented any specific evidence of same (although he does point to the curious re-hiring
of Ms. Lin-Rodriguez, effective July 1, 2025). (P-C.) Petitioner’s sole legal argument is
that of his tenure as an Assistant Business Administrator and his seniority/bumping rights
over the two persons currently employed by the District in that position.
Unfortunately for Mr. Muniz, I find that DiNapoli is both persuasive and controlling
and that, unlike teachers or superintendents, once he left his tenured position as the
Assistant Business Administrator to become the Board Secretary, he forsook those tenure
rights. If, as in Still, the petitioner had been a certificated teacher or superintendent, we
would have proceeded to address the issue of bumping. However, the Court in DiNapoli
was very clear as to the limitations of N.J.S.A. 18A:17-2 and all references to DiNapoli
since its publication have either been tangential to this specific issue or approving of its
conclusions. See eg, Saylor v. Bd. of Educ. of W.N.Y., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS
873 (App. Div. May 12, 2021).
In fact, Still, in an extensive footnote, recognizes the distinction between the
applicable statutes, and distinguishes her position as a lead educator versus Ms.
DiNapoli’s position as a secretary. Id. at 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1580 at *10,
n.2.
Given the above, I CONCLUDE that when Mr. Muniz left his position as Assistant
Business Administrator to accept the position of Board Secretary, his tenure rights in the
Assistant Business Administrator position disappeared. I further CONCLUDE that given
his loss of tenure rights, there is no need to address petitioner’s claim of bumping rights
back to the Assistant Business Administrator position. I further CONCLUDE that no
evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the RIF recommended by the SBO

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
17
study and implemented by respondent was improper or violated of any statutory or
Administrative Code provision.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's Motion to
Dismiss be and is hereby GRANTED and;
It is further ORDERED that Mr. Muniz’s appeal be and is hereby 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
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 11637-25
18
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.
November 18, 2025
DATE MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
/sej/cb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
19
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For Court:
C-1 Muniz v. Hudson County Schools of Technology Board of Education, 2025
N.J. Agen. LEXIS 313 (June 2, 2025), aff’d, Comm’r, Docket No. 304-25E
(June 13, 2025)
C-2 2010 - 2011 Listing of Recognized Position Titles
C-3 Recognized Position Titles Memorandum (June 21, 2010)
C-4 2025 – 2026 Listing of Recognized Position Titles
C-5 Hudson County Schools of Technology Board of Education Meeting
Agenda (February 16, 2023)
For Respondent:
R-A Board resolutions (Muniz hiring)4
RA-1 January 3, 2005 (Purchasing Agent)
RA-2 October 13, 2005 (Assistant School Business Administrator)
RA-3 September 1, 2014 (Acting Board Secretary)
RA-4 June 1, 2015 – June 30, 2018 (Acting Board Secretary)
RA-5 November 16, 2015 (Board Secretary)
RA-6 September 1, 2018 – August 31, 2023 (Board Secretary)
RA-7 July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2025 (Board Secretary)
RA-8 Board resolution 6.18/letter to petitioner (June 20, 2025)
R-B “Unrecognized Title” memorandum (October 4, 2005)
R-C Letter from petitioner counsel to Board attorney (June 29, 2025)
R-D Letter from Board attorney to petitioner counsel (June 30, 2025)
R-E Business Office Economic Efficiency Analysis (June 17, 2025)
R-F Certification of Jonathan Busch, Esq. (July 6, 2025)
4 All date are the “effective dates” of the job appointment.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11637-25
20
For petitioner:
P-A New Jersey Department of Education “Listing of Recognized Position
Titles” (2022-2023)
P-B Administrative Members Contract
P-C District Board Meeting – Superintendent’s Agenda (June 19, 2025)