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, 3/9/2020, (#89-20)

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02929-18
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, as have the exceptions filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 by
the petitioners. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition finding that the petitioners
failed to appear at the February 3, 2020 status conference and that they did not provide an
explanation for their nonappearance.
Based upon the petitioner’s timely written explanation stating that they did not appear at
the February 3, 2020 conference call because they did not receive adequate notice of the call, this matter
is being retransmitted to the OAL for further disposition, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-3.3(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 9, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	March 	9, 	2020
89-20

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAIL DECISION – DISMISSAL
FAILURE TO APPEAR
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02929-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 30-1/18
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 Morlok, Esq., for respondent (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: February 3, 2020 	Decided: February 5, 2020
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 at no cost to the
petitioners.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02929-18
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL DISCUSSION
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. 	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. 	(P-1.) 	The
respondent filed its cross-motion for summary decision and response on June 21, 2018.
(R-1.) 	The petitioners filed a reply brief on July 2, 2018. 	(P-2.) 	On October 1, 2018,
the petitioners filed a motion to supplement the record. (P-3.) On October 8, 2018, the
respondent filed it’s brief in opposition to the motion to supplement the record. 	(R-2.)
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 continue 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
that 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. 	(R-3.) 	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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02929-18
3
settlement of the case. (C-1.) In said letter, the parties were directed to participate in a
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. 	(R-4.) 	The petitioners acknowledged
receipt of the motion on January 30, 2020. 	(C-2.) 	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. 	(C-3.)
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.
CONCLUSION
To date, the petitioners have not provided a request for an adjournment of the
February 3, 2020, status conference or an explanation for their nonappearance for the
same. 	Neither has this office received notice of legal representation on behalf of the
petitioners. 	Therefore, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	petitioners 	have 	failed 	to 	appear 	and
abandoned their appeal.
ORDER
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02929-18
4
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.
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.
February 5, 2020
DATE 	JEFFREY R. WILSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JRW/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02929-18
5
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For Petitioners:
P-1 	Petitioners’ motion for summary decision, filed June 10, 2018
P-2 	Petitioners’ 	response 	to 	respondent’s 	motion 	opposition 	and 	cross-
motion, filed July 2, 2018
P-3 	Petitioners’ motion to supplement the record, filed October 1, 2018
For Respondent:
R-1 	Respondent’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	decision, 	brief 	in 	opposition 	to
petitioners’ motion for summary decision and in support of respondent’s
motion for summary decision, filed June 21, 2018
R-2 	Respondent’s brief in opposition to petitioners’ motion to supplement the
record, filed October 8, 2018
R-3 	Respondent’s letter, dated January 14, 2020
R-4 	Respondent’s motion to enforce settlement, dated January 28, 2020
Judge’s Exhibits:
C-1 	Administrative law Judge’s letter to the parties, dated January 16, 2020
C-2 	Petitioner’s acknowledgement of receipt of respondent’s motion to enforce
settlement, dated January 30, 2020
C-3 	Letter Order (with confirmation of delivery), dated January 30, 2020