Robert Zywicki v. Board of Education of the Township of Mount Olive, Morris County, 5/25/2023, (#155-23) (Order on Emergent Relief)

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02655-23
Agency Dkt. No. 77-3/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
Robert Zywicki,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Mount Olive, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of proceedings at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
have been reviewed.
This matter arises from tenure charges certified by the Mount Olive Board of Education
(Board) against petitioner, who is the district’s superintendent. Petitioner alleged that the
Board improperly invoked the Doctrine of Necessity to certify the tenure charges, such that the
Board’s vote should be vacated. Following oral argument on petitioner’s motion for emergent
relief, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order dismissing the petition because
jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims lies with the School Ethics Commission, not the
Commissioner.
Upon review, the Commissioner concludes that it was improper for the ALJ to dismiss
the petition in an Order. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.7, the disposition of a motion which
155-23

2
completely concludes a case shall be by initial decision. This requirement is critical because,
when an initial decision is issued, the parties can file exceptions pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4.1
While the ALJ could have issued an initial decision dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, he
did not do so. Dismissing the case in its entirety through an Order, without affording the
parties the opportunity to file exceptions, deprived them of an important protection built into
the applicable regulatory scheme. Accordingly, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s Order.
However, the Commissioner finds that the record contains sufficient information to rule
on petitioner’s motion for emergent relief. Pursuant to Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-134
(1983), and N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6, there are four prongs the Commissioner must consider when
emergent relief is sought: 1) whether the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested relief is not granted; 2) whether the legal right underlying petitioner’s claim is
settled; 3) whether the petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying
claim; and 4) whether, when the equities and interests of the parties are balanced, the
petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not
granted.
The Commissioner concludes that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he will
suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted. Irreparable harm is defined as
harm “that cannot be redressed adequately by monetary damages.” Crowe, supra, 90 N.J. at
132-33. Petitioner claims that he will suffer based on the loss of his salary and health benefits,
but those are precisely the types of harm that can be redressed by monetary damages. To the
extent that petitioner alleges damage to his reputation, the Commissioner concludes that
1 There is no regulation permitting the parties to file exceptions to an Order Denying Emergent Relief.

3
petitioner has presented only conclusory and speculative arguments and has failed to
demonstrate that his reputation will be damaged irreparably if he is not immediately
reinstated.
As all four Crowe factors must be met for emergent relief to be granted, it is not
necessary to address the remaining factors. The Commissioner also does not reach the issue of
whether jurisdiction over this matter lies with the School Ethics Commission. The
Commissioner, however, concurs with the ALJ that her referral of this case to the OAL does not
constitute a decision that jurisdiction over the matter lies with the Commissioner, for the
reasons detailed in the Order.
Accordingly, the Order dismissing the petition is rejected. Petitioner’s motion for
emergent relief is denied. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the
parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
May 25, 2023
May 25, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 77-3/23
ROBERT ZYWICKI,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF MOUNT OLIVE, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
Stephen J. Edelstein, Esq. for petitioner (Weiner Law Group, LLP, attorneys)
Joseph L. Roselle, Esq. for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LPP,
attorneys)
BEFORE: JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Robert Zywicki filed a Verified Petition of Appeal and a Motion for
Emergent Relief with the Commissioner of Education’s Office challenging and seeking to
overturn two actions (i.e., votes) of the Mt. Olive Board of Education (hereinafter
MOBOE), which took place during the MOBOE’s March 13, 2023 meeting. 	In the first
action, the MOBOE voted to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity, and subsequently, in the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
2
second action, the MOBOE voted to certify tenure charges against Robert Zywicki, the
Superintendent of Schools.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about March 22, 2023, the Petitioner, Robert Zywicki (hereinafter “Zywicki”
or the “Superintendent”), through his attorney, Stephen J. Edelstein, filed a Petition of
Appeal with an accompanying Motion for Emergent Relief. On March 23, 2023, Attorney
Edelstein filed his supporting Brief. On March 23, 2023, the Office of Controversies and
Disputes in the Department of Education (hereinafter the “DOE” or the “Commissioner”)
transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on March
24, 2023 as a contested case. 	The matter was then assigned to John P. Scollo, ALJ,
who ordered the parties to submit Opposition papers, Reply papers, Briefs and supporting
materials by March 30, 2023. Oral argument via Zoom was conducted on April 3, 2023
with concerned citizens and a member of the press1 in attendance.
After the hearing, the judge ordered the attorneys to submit their written summation
Briefs by April 5, 2023 with clarifications of their arguments and additional materials.
BACKGROUND 	INFORMATION 	ASCERTAINED 	FROM 	THE 	PARTIES’
SUBMISSIONS
In support of Petitioner Zywicki’s position, Attorney Edelstein first explained what
the Doctrine of Necessity is. 	He noted at the outset that of the nine people who
constituted the MOBOE on March 13, 2023, four of them were conflicted on the issue of
voting on tenure charges against Zywicki due to their involvement in pending litigation
with Zywicki (who initiated the litigation is not entirely clear to this Tribunal). 	The four
BOE members claimed to be conflicted by Edelstein are: 	Mr. Antoine Gayles, Mr.
1 The Tribunal welcomes the participation of the press in this matter. While this Judge does not know the
parties, their histories, their affiliations, their personal biases or prejudices, or their feelings towards each
other, it is evident that these parties have engaged in multiple actions and lawsuits against each other over
matters which directly or indirectly affect the schools. The taxpayers will likely bear the costs of these legal
matters. 	The newspaper’s thorough and objective investigation, probing into the origins and causes of
these multiple actions, would render a great service to the people of Mt. Olive.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
3
Anthony Strillacci, Ms. Elizabeth Ouimet, and Dr. Anthony Giordano. Attorney Edelstein
also noted that the Doctrine of Necessity could only be invoked if there were at least five
BOE members who were genuinely conflicted. Edelstein claims that enemies of Zywicki
(including the above four people and Christopher Zeier and the MOBOE’s attorney, Marc
Zitomer), improperly and in bad faith manipulated the issue of conflicts in order to bring
the number of purportedly “conflicted” BOE members to at least five so that all MOBOE
members, including the four previously listed above, would be able to vote on the tenure
charges thus making it virtually certain that said charges would be certified. 	Edelstein
argued that if the machinations of Zywicki’s “enemies” in manipulating the number of
“conflicted” people had not been successful, then there would have still been a quorum
(five people) available to vote on the tenure charges and that the effort to certify the tenure
charges against Zywicki would have failed. Attorney Roselle argued to the contrary.
ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS
The following is not a verbatim account of the arguments and documents
presented, but rather it encompasses points that the Tribunal found to be most important.
Petitioner’s and Respondent’s Arguments Regarding Emergent Relief
Attorney Edelstein argued that the MOBOE’s improper invocation of the Doctrine
of Necessity and its improper certification of tenure charges against Zywicki, and its
concomitant suspension of Zywicki’s salary and benefits calls for emergent relief. 	He
argued that Zywicki meets the standards (i.e., the four prongs) set forth in Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) and thus qualifies for emergent relief. 	Attorney Roselle
argued to the contrary claiming that emergent relief would not be justified and that Zywicki
meets none of the criteria for emergent relief as set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J.
126 (1982). This will be addressed further below.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
4
The Parties’ Arguments Regarding Jurisdiction
Both sides agree that the threshold issue before me is the question of whether the
OAL has jurisdiction over this matter.
The Parties’ jurisdictional arguments with respect to the Commissioner’s decision to refer
the matter to the OAL
Zywicki’s Petition of Appeal and Motion for Emergent Relief were filed with the
Commissioner of Education, who immediately referred the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law.
Attorney 	Edelstein 	notes 	that 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Education 	could 	have
dismissed the Petition of Appeal and the Motion if she believed that she lacked
jurisdiction. 	Therefore, he argues that the very fact that the Commissioner referred the
matter to the OAL demonstrates that the Commissioner believes he has jurisdiction.
Attorney Roselle, the Respondent’s counsel, notes that jurisdiction properly lies
with the School Ethics Commission and that the Commissioner of Education’s acceptance
of Zywicki’s papers does not automatically mean that she acknowledged that jurisdiction
was proper and was no longer an issue. Attorney Roselle argues that issues dealing with
Board member conflicts of interest or the proper invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity
belong before the School Ethics Commission. 	The Respondent relies on previous OAL
rulings in Gilliam Gardner v. Board of Education of the City of Hackensack, Bergen County
and James Montesano, Patricia Aquino-Lozano and Celso King, Intervenors, OAL Docket
No.: EDU 09421-12 (2013) and Castriotta v. Board of Education of the Township of
Roxbury, Morris County, OAL Docket No. : EDU 09217-10 (2011), reversed on other
grounds, 427 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2012)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
5
The Parties’ jurisdictional arguments with respect to whether this matter arises under the
School Laws or under the School Ethics Act (N.J.S.A.18A:12-21, et seq.)
Attorney Edelstein argues that this case contains a valid and important issue which
arises under the school laws and therefore jurisdiction belongs to the Commissioner of
Education and thus to the OAL. 	For support, he points to the wide scope of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9, where is says:
The 	commissioner 	shall 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
determine, without cost to the parties, all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws….
That being so, Edelstein argues, the case clearly belongs under the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Education.
The issue Edelstein refers to is whether or not the MOBOE failed to follow Board
Policy 0163, a bylaw, when on March 13, 2023 it allegedly failed to post notice of its intent
to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity. Attorney Edelstein maintains that this is a school law
issue and therefore it brings this matter into the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Education. 	He concludes that the Board’s invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity fails
because the Board did not announce (by posting, as required by the bylaw) its intention
to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity.
Attorney Edelstein’s other argument is that when the Board ignored one of its own
bylaws, it was acting beyond the scope of its bylaws when it went ahead with the vote to
invoke the Doctrine of Necessity and when it went ahead with the vote on the tenure
charges. The bylaw (Board Policy number 0163) covers the invocation of the Doctrine of
Necessity and says:
“When the Board announces the Doctrine of Necessity is
being invoked, the details, parameters and / or other pertinent
facts of the matter to be voted should be revealed on an
agenda for the public meeting in which the matter is to be
voted upon.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
6
Edelstein argues that the ignoring of a bylaw raises a school law issue because
boards of education must follow procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(for making,
amending, or repealing bylaws) if they intend to act outside the bounds of their present
bylaws. Attorney Edelstein argues that the Board was only empowered to make, amend
or repeal its bylaws by following N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 and that any such changes must
appear in the Board’s minutes. Edelstein says, “That did not occur” on March 1, 2023.
The Respondent does not concede that the Board acted beyond the scope of its
bylaws because it simply did not ignore or set aside the bylaw. 	Instead, the MOBOE
acted within the scope of its bylaws. 	It concedes that advance posting of its intent to
invoke the Doctrine of Necessity did not take place before the March 13, 2023 Board
meeting. 	However, the Respondent argues that no advance posting could possibly be
made of its decision to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity because the MOBOE only
received advice regarding the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity from its attorney
during the actual Board meeting of March 13, 2023. Moreover, the Board did announce
that it was invoking the Doctrine of Necessity during the Board Meeting. The Respondent
argues that its action was fully in keeping with the wording of Board Policy 0163 for the
following reasons
because it did announce its decision to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity at its earliest
opportunity to do so at the Board meeting to those in attendance;
because the announcement itself constituted the required posting of an agenda;
because there is no requirement in the bylaw for any minimum amount of posting time
that must pass before the Board may vote on a matter under the Doctrine of Necessity;
and
because the very wording of the bylaw allows a posting to be simultaneous with the vote,
as demonstrated by the words “for the public meeting in which the matter is to be voted
upon.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
7
APPLICABLE LAW
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 provides
The 	commissioner 	shall 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
determine, without costs to the parties, all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws ….
The New Jersey School Ethics Act
The New Jersey School Ethics Act is found at N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 through N.J.S.A.
18A:12-34. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 sets forth prohibited conduct pertaining to all school
officials. The Code of Ethics for School Board Members is found therein at N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1. In addition to the requirements of the School Ethics Act, it imposes
additional rules governing the conduct of School Board Members. The establishment of
the School Ethics Commission is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-27. 	The School Ethics
Commission’s (or “S.E.C.’s”) powers and duties are set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28 and -
29. 	The jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29
where the statute says that the S.E.C. accepts complaints alleging a violation of the
School Ethics Act or of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The S.E.C. then
determines whether or not probable cause exists to credit the allegations of the complaint.
If the S.E.C. determines that probable cause does not exist, then it shall dismiss the
complaint. 	If the S.E.C. determines that probable cause exists, then it shall refer the
matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). 	Once the OAL hears the matter, the
S.E.C. determines by majority vote whether the conduct complained of constitutes a
violation of the School Ethics Act (i.e., it decides whether to accept or reject the ALJ’s
Initial Decision). If the S.E.C. finds that a violation has occurred, it shall, by majority vote,
recommend 	a 	sanction 	(reprimand, 	censure, 	suspension, 	or 	removal) 	to 	the
Commissioner of Education, who then shall act on the S.E.C.’s recommendation
regarding the sanction.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
8
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Decision on whether the Commissioner of Education’s decision to refer the matter to the
OAL manifests a decision on his part that jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner rather
than with the School Ethics Commission
While that is true that the Commissioner could have dismissed the Petition of
Appeal and the Motion for Emergent Relief if she believed she lacked jurisdiction, the
Commissioner was not under any obligation to do so. Her decision to refer the matter to
the OAL was proper and, in most cases, the usual course; but her referral does not
necessarily decide the question of jurisdiction. To believe otherwise would mean that the
issue of determining jurisdiction can never be decided by the OAL. Obviously, that is not
true. 	The parties, in their arguments, have not taken such a position and they have
vigorously argued the pros and cons of jurisdiction.
I CONCLUDE that the Commissioner of Education’s referral of the matter to the
OAL does not manifest a decision on her part that jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner
of Education’s Office.
Decision as to whether the bylaw’s (Board Policy 0163’s) requirement for a posting is or
is not a school law issue
I have evaluated the arguments of both counsel. Attorney Edelstein’s argument is
that the Board’s alleged ignoring of its own bylaw raises a school law issue because
boards of education must follow procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 (for making,
amending, or repealing bylaws) if they wish to act outside the bounds of their present
bylaws. 	This, he argues, is a matter of school law. 	His purpose is to characterize this
matter as a school law case. 	The Respondent’s position is that the thrust of Attorney
Edelstein’s allegations, indeed his entire case, is that the Board “improperly and in bad
faith” invoked the Doctrine of Necessity in order to certify tenure charges against Mr.
Zywicki. The Respondent argues that Zywicki’s allegations are all School Ethics issues,
which belong under the jurisdiction of the School Ethics Commission.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
9
The applicable law was stated by Margaret Monaco, ALJ in Clarissa Gilliam
Gardner v. Board of Education of the City of Hackensack, Bergen County and James
Montesano, Patricia Aquino-Lozano and Celso King, Agency Docket No. 146-5/12 (2013)
“The Commissioner’s jurisdiction is defined by statute and is
limited to controversies and disputes arising under the school
laws.” N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	Our courts have held that, “[w]here
the controversy does not arise under the school laws, it is
outside the Commissioner’s jurisdiction even though it may
pertain to school personnel.” Bd. of Educ. Of E. Brunswick
v.Twp. Council of E. Brunswick , 48 N.J. 94, 102 (1966). It is
recognized that “the sweep of the Department’s interest and
the Commissioner’s jurisdiction does not extend to all matters
involving 	boards 	of 	education.” 	Archway 	Programs, 	Inc.
v.Pemberton Twsp. Bd. of Educ., 352 N.J. Super. 420, 424-
425 (App. Div. 2002).
In my analysis, Attorney Edelstein’s words tell it all. 	By his use of the words,
“improperly and in bad faith”, Attorney Edelstein makes it clear that he is arguing that the
members of the MOBOE engaged in unethical conduct. 	The issue of whether the
MOBOE ignored the bylaw is only part and parcel of the larger ethical claims. Therefore,
I CONCLUDE that the allegation that the MOBOE ignored its bylaw does not transform
the matter into a school law case.
Decision Regarding Jurisdiction
The Petitioner, Robert Zywicki, submitted his Petition of Appeal and Motion for
Emergent Relief and later submitted his supporting Brief and Exhibits to the Office of
Controversies and Disputes in the New Jersey Department of Education. Zywicki did not
file his papers with the School Ethics Commission (the “S.E.C.”).
While the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over “all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws”, it is also clear that jurisdiction over School Ethics
matters belongs with the School Ethics Commission (i.e., that ethics matters are to be
initiated by a complaint filed with the S.E.C., not with the Commissioner, and then the
S.E.C. decides the threshold issue of probable cause). Zywicki’s allegations are that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
10
MOBOE “improperly and in bad faith” invoked the Doctrine of Necessity in order to
“manipulate” the vote on the certification of the tenure charges against him. The essence
of Zywicki’s allegations (bad faith manipulation of who was or was not “conflicted” in order
to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity, and bad faith manipulation of the vote certifying
tenure charges) is that certain members of the MOBOE acted unethically and conspired
to strip him of his position, his compensation and his family’s health benefits. Therefore,
by his own words, Zywicki states that the matter presents ethical issues rather than school
law issues.
Since it is clear that Zywicki himself has characterized this matter as an ethics
matter, it follows that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28 and 29, jurisdiction lies with the
S.E.C. rather that the Commissioner of Education. 	See Castriotta v. Bd. of Educ. Of
Roxbury, 	EDU-09217-10, 	Final 	Decision 	(May 	18, 	2011),
http://www.nj.gov/education/legal/, rev’d on other grounds, 427 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div.
2012), 	where 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Education 	re-affirmed 	that 	the 	“review 	and
adjudication of allegations of Code of Ethics For School Board Members violations is
solely within the purview of the School Ethics Commission.”
In his filed papers, Zywicki does not raise a valid school law issue; the issues he
raises are ethical issues. 	If this were a matter arising under the school laws, then the
Commissioner (and subsequently, at his discretion, the OAL) would have jurisdiction.
However, the nature of the allegations, set forth in Zywicki’s own words, demonstrates
that they are ethical matters and not matters arising under the school laws. 	As stated
above, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-28 and -29 provide that complaints regarding ethical matters fall
within the jurisdiction of the S.E.C. rather than the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Education. 	I CONCLUDE that jurisdiction belongs with the S.E.C. and Zywicki should
have brought his grievance by way of a Complaint filed with the S.E.C. It follows, and I
CONCLUDE 	that 	this 	OAL 	matter, 	having 	been 	transmitted 	to 	the 	OAL 	by 	the
Commissioner of Education, who lacked jurisdiction, cannot be maintained, and must be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Analysis Of The Arguments Concerning The Crowe Factors

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
11
Since the matter has been decided on jurisdictional grounds, there is no need for
this Tribunal to make an analysis of the Crowe factors.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Zywicki’s Petition of Appeal is DISMISSED and his
Motion for Emergent Relief seeking an Order immediately vacating the MOBOE’s vote to
invoke the Doctrine of Necessity and immediately vacating the MOBOE’s certification of
the tenure charges brought against Zywicki must be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that a copy of this ORDER shall be transmitted by email from the OAL
to both attorneys, Stephen J. Edelstein and Joseph L. Roselle, and that receipt of same
shall be acknowledged immediately by the attorneys.
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified, or
rejected by the COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who is
authorized by law to make the final decision in this case. 	The final decision shall be
issued without delay but no later than forty-five days from the entry of this order. 	If the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not adopt, modify, or
reject this order within those forty-five days, this recommended order shall become the
final decision on the issue of emergency relief under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
April 14, 2023
______________________ 	_______________________________
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02655-23
12
APPENDIX
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner
P-1 	Petitioner 	Zywicki’s 	(per 	Attorney 	Edelstein) 	March 	31, 	2023 	submission
containing Brief (supplementing his March 23, 2023 Letter Brief to the Commissioner of
Education, attached as “#1”); and also attaching as “#2”, Board Policy 0131; and also
attaching as “#3”, the Minutes of the MOBOE meeting of 3/13/23.
P-2 	Petitioner Zywicki’s April 5, 2023 supplement / summation of the April 3, 2023 oral
argument, with an attached Exhibit “A” (a copy of the OAL Transmittal Sheet)
P-3 	Copies of Statutes, Regulations, Rules and Cases relied upon by the Petitioner
For Respondent’s
R-1 	Respondent MOBOE’s March 30, 2023 submission containing Brief; Outline of
Factual Background; Certification of Christopher Zeier, attaching Exhibits “A” through “L”;
and an Index of Cases with cases.
R-2 	Respondent’s April 5, 2023 supplement / summation of the April 3, 2023 oral
argument with an attached “Exhibit “A” (a copy of the 3/13/23 Resolution to Invoke the
Doctrine of Necessity); Exhibit “B” (a copy of Zywicki’s Answer to the Tenure Charges,
Agency Docket Number 70-3/23, dated March 31, 2023); Exhibit “C” (a copy of a 3/31/23
letter from Jennifer Killough-Herrera of the Department of Education to Attorney LaPira
and Attorney Edelstein; and, an Index of Cases with cases).
R-3 	Copies of Statutes, Regulations, Rules and Cases relied upon by the Respondent.