C.H. and S.H., on behalf of minor children, C.H., S.H., and S.H. v. Board of Education of the Township of Alloway, Salem County, 114/2021, (#279-21R)

279-21R
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.H. and S.H., on behalf of minor children, C.H.,
S.H., and S.H.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Alloway,
Salem County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
This appeal stems from a residency challenge filed by petitioners in October 2017, which was ultimately
decided in favor of the respondent Board and petitioners were ordered to pay tuition for a period of
unauthorized attendance by petitioners’ children. (see Commissioner’s Decision No. 79-19, decided
March 26, 2019) During the pendency of that case, petitioners filed the within matter, in which they
alleged that the Board denied access to the student records of their three children – specifically, email
correspondence that pertained to or included reference to any of petitioners’ named children – that were
exchanged between the petitioners and the Board’s teachers, administrators and staff during the period
from September 2009 through November 21, 2017. Petitioners requested that the Board release these
records to them at no cost. Following a lengthy and contentious procedural history, a virtual hearing in
this matter was held in February 2021, and the record closed.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: C.H. conceded during testimony that, in September 2020, petitioners
received over nine hundred pages of emails provided by the District; these documents were provided to
the petitioners at no cost; the District’s Records Custodian was responsible for overseeing the fulfillment
of the petitioners’ records request, and assigned the email search and retrieval task to Salem Community
College’s Information Technology Department through a shared services agreement; the testimony of the
the District’s representatives was credible and persuasive, and was, accordingly, accepted as fact;
petitioners’ contention that the documents provided to them did not include all emails between counsel
and the District relative to their three children is without merit as those emails were not included in
petitioners’ original petition. The ALJ concluded that: based upon petitioners’ original records request,
the District established appropriate, detailed email search parameters; the District conducted a fulsome
and responsive email search that complied with the petitioners’ original records request; the complete
results of that search were provided at no cost to the petitioners; and petitioners failed to show that the
Board withheld any document included in their original request. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the within
matter dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Board conducted a thorough email
search and provided petitioners with all student records that were the subject of the within petition of
appeal. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and
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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03608-20
(EDU 02929-18 On Remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 30-1/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.H. and S.H., on behalf of minor children,
C.H., S.H., and S.H.
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Alloway, Salem 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.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that
the Board conducted a thorough email search and has provided petitioners with all student
records that were the subject of the petition of appeal.
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
279-21R
November 4, 2021
November 4, 2021

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 30-1/18
(ON REMAND FROM EDU 02929-18)
C.H. AND S.H. ON BEHALF OF
C.H., S.H. AND S.H.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF ALLOWAY, SALEM
COUNTY,
Respondent.
C.H. and S.H., petitioners, pro se
William C. Morlok, Esq., for respondent (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: September 17, 2021 	Decided: September 29, 2021
BEFORE JEFFREY R. WILSON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners allege that the respondent denied access to the student records of their
three children. Petitioners request that the records be released to them at no cost.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petitioners filed an appeal of the denial of access to the student records of
their three children and requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL). The matter was transmitted to the OAL, where it was filed on February 26, 2018,
as a contested case, under Docket No. EDU 02929-18. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15 and
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13. The petitioners filed a motion for summary decision on June 10,
2018. The respondent filed its cross-motion for summary decision and response on June
21, 2018. 	The petitioners filed a reply brief on July 2, 2018. 	On October 1, 2018, the
petitioners filed a motion to supplement the record. On October 8, 2018, the respondent
filed it’s brief in opposition to the motion to supplement the record. Those cross-motions
for summary decision were denied by order, dated June 12, 2019.
By order, dated September 24, 2019, petitioners’ attorney was relieved as counsel.
Since that date, the petitioners continued self-represented. 	On October 21, 2019, a
telephone status conference was held and this matter was scheduled to be heard on
February 18 and February 19, 2020.
At the request of the parties, an in-person settlement conference was held on
December 26, 2019. At that time, the parties reached a settlement agreement that was
placed on the record. 	During voire dire, the pro se petitioners, C.H. and S.H., affirmed
they understood the terms of the agreement and entered into the agreement freely,
voluntarily and without coercion or duress. 	Counsel for the respondent was directed to
reduce the agreement to a writing and provide it to the petitioners to execute.
By letter, dated January 14, 2020, counsel for the respondent informed this
Administrative Law Judge that the petitioners returned the signed agreement with
additions and deletions unilaterally made by them. 	Counsel for the respondent did not
agree with the petitioners’ amendments.
On January 16, 2020, this Administrative Law Judge sent a letter to the parties and
acknowledged that clearly there was no meeting of the minds and that there was no
settlement of the case. 	In said letter, the parties were directed to participate in a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
3
telephone conference on January 23, 2020, to address outstanding issues. 	During the
January 23, 2020, telephone conference, the parties still could not reach an agreement
as 	to 	the 	petitioners’ 	amendments 	and 	the 	petitioners 	were 	directed 	to 	provide
respondent’s counsel with a draft of their understanding of the agreement on or before
January 27, 2020. 	The petitioners complied however; respondent’s counsel was not in
agreement with their submission.
On January 28, 2020, counsel for the respondent filed a motion to enforce the
December 26, 2019, settlement agreement. The petitioners acknowledged receipt of the
motion on January 30, 2020. By letter order, dated January 30, 2020, the respondent’s
motion was denied, and it was ordered that the matter would proceed to a fair hearing,
as scheduled, on February 18 and February 19, 2020. 	It was further ordered that a
mandatory telephone conference would be held on February 3, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. to
address prehearing issues. 	It was noted that if any party failed to participate in this
telephone conference, the file would be returned to the transmitting agency for the
appropriate action which may include imposition of the proposed penalty or granting the
relief requested by the opposing party. The petitioners failed to participate in the February
3, 2020, telephone conference. 	On February 5, 2020, an initial decision/dismissal was
filed for the petitioners’ failure to appear without an explanation for their nonappearance.
By 	its 	final 	decision 	No. 	89-20, 	issued 	March 	20, 	2020, 	the 	New 	Jersey
Commissioner of Education remanded this matter to the OAL, under Docket No. EDU
03608-20, for further disposition based upon the petitioners’ “timely written explanation
stating that they did not appear at the February 3, 2020, conference because they did not
receive adequate notice of the call.” 	Upon remand, this matter was scheduled for a
peremptory hearing on October 7, 2020.
On September 17, 2020, the respondent informed this Administrative Law Judge
that all records requested (R-1 at R0001-R0936) had been turned over to the petitioners
with a request that the petitioners formally withdraw their petition. 	On October 4, 2020,
the petitioners filed a motion to compel discovery and to adjourn the October 7, 2020,
peremptory hearing. 	Accordingly, that hearing date was converted to oral argument on
the petitioners’ motion. 	By letter order, dated October 7, 2020, the petitioners’ motion

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
4
was denied, and the matter was scheduled for a peremptory hearing on December 17,
2020, pursuant to the amended prehearing order.
On December 4, 2020, the petitioners filed a “certification in support of motion to
compel discovery (reconsideration).” 	With this, the petitioners requested that this
Administrative Law Judge review and reconsider the previously denied motion to compel
discovery and seek the same relief as in their prior application. 	By letter order, dated
December 11, 2020, the petitioners’ application for reconsideration of the motion that was
previously denied was denied as untimely, pursuant to the amended prehearing order.
The matter was ordered to proceed to a peremptory hearing on December 17, 2020, at
10:00 a.m., utilizing the ZOOM platform.
At 9:39 a.m., on December 17, 2020, the petitioners requested to adjourn the
hearing that was to commence at 10:00 a.m. 	The respondent submitted their objection
at 9:45 a.m. and the parties were directed to appear, via ZOOM, at 10:00 a.m. 	At that
time, the petitioners formally requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow them time
to submit their request for interlocutory review of their recently denied motion to compel
discovery. The motion was granted, over the respondent’s objection as the petitioner was
still in time to request interlocutory review, pursuant to N..J.A.C. 1:1-14.10.
On January 4, 2021, the Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of
Education denied the petitioners’ request for interlocutory review and the matter was
ultimately heard virtually on February 9, 2021. The record remained open for the receipt
of closing submission and the record closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
C.H. testified on behalf of the petitioners. 	C.H. and S.H. are the parents of the
minor children, S.H., S.H. and C.H. 	The petitioners allege that the respondent denied
access to the student records of their three children. 	Specifically, the petitioners
requested:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
5
All 	email 	correspondence 	between 	myself, 	teachers,
administrators and staff pertaining to or including reference to
any of my children, SH, SH, CH, September 2009 through
present [November 21, 2017]
Petitioners request that the records be released at no cost to them.
Through her testimony, C.H. conceded receiving the over nine hundred pages of
emails provided by the District in September 2020. 	(R-1 at R0001-R0936.) 	These
documents were provided to the petitioners at no cost.
Shannon N. DuBois-Brody (DuBois-Brody), testified on behalf of the respondent.
She has been employed by the District for eighteen and one-half years and presently
serves as the District’s Business Administrator and Secretary to the Board of Education.
The District is a small rural district (Pre-Kindergarten through eighth grade) consisting of
approximately three hundred students. None of the petitioners’ children are presently in
the district.
DuBois-Brody has been the District’s Records Custodian since 2018 and was
responsible for overseeing the fulfillment of the petitioners’ records request. 	She
assigned the email search task to Christopher Pierce through the District’s shared service
agreement with Salem Community College’s IT Department.
DuBois-Brody reviewed the search parameters utilized (R-2) and all of the emails
produced through the search. 	(R-1 at R0001-R0936.) 	Based upon this review, she
determined that the emails produced were fully responsive to the petitioners’ request.
Copies of all of the emails were provided to the petitioners at no cost. 	(R-1 at R0001-
R0011.)
Christopher Pierce (Pierce) testified on behalf of the respondent. 	He has ten
years of IT experience and provides services to the District through a shared services
agreement. In the present matter, Piece conducted the search utilizing the District’s old
serve as well as their newer cloud based server. He conducted the email search utilizing

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
6
the parameter dates of September 1, 2009, through November 21, 2017. Every mailbox
on the servers was searched. None were excluded. The parameters are fully detailed in
R-2. All emails responsive to the search are included in R-1 at R0001-R0936 and all of
those emails were provided to the petitioners in .pst and .pdf formats.
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence which makes
it worthy of belief. The Supreme Court of New Jersey considered the issue of credibility
in In-re Estate of Perrone, 5 N.J. 514 (1950). The Court pronounced:
Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in
itself. It must be such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable in the
circumstances.
[5 N.J. at 522.]
In order to assess credibility, the witness’ interest in the outcome, motive or bias
should be considered. 	Furthermore, a trier of fact may reject testimony because it is
inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common
experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone
Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
Having considered the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, I accept
the testimony offered by DuBois-Brody and Pierce to be very credible and highly
persuasive. 	Their testimony was free of any histrionics and they exhibited no ulterior
motive. They clearly described their respective roles in the search in question. All of their
testimony was corroborated by the documentary evidence. Neither of them had anything
to gain from testifying. Accordingly, I FIND the testimony of both Dubois-Brody and Pierce
as FACT.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The petitioners bring this action seeking “All email correspondence between
myself, teachers, administrators and staff pertaining to or including reference to any of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
7
my children, SH, SH, CH, September 2009 through present [November 21, 2017]”. Now
they argue that the documents provided did not include all emails between counsel and
the District relative to her three children. These were not included in their original request.
I CONCLUDE that based upon petitioner’s original request, the District established
appropriate, detailed search parameters. 	I CONCLUDE that the District conducted a
fulsome, responsive email search and that the complete fruits of that search were
provided to the petitioners at no cost and that the petitioners acknowledge receipt of the
same. 	Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the petitioners failed to show that the District
withheld any document that were originally requested.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter 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
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 03608-20
8
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.
September 29, 2021
DATE 	JEFFREY R. WILSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JRW/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03608-20
9
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
C.H.
For Respondent:
Shannon DuBois-Brody
Christopher Pierce
EXHIBITS
For Petitioners:
None
For Respondent:
R-1 	Emails provided to petitioners (R0001 – R0936)
R-2 	Search parameters for email search (R0397 – R0938)
R-3 	Not in Evidence
R-4 	Not in Evidence
R-5 	Not in Evidence
R-6 	Not in Evidence
R-7 	Not in Evidence
R-8 	Prehearing Order, dated September 24, 2020, (R0947 – R0952)
R-9 	Shannon DuBois-Brody - Curriculum Vitae (R0953 – R0954)
R-10 	Christopher Pierce – Curriculum Vitae (R0955- - R0956)