Mark Hoyt v. Board of Education of the Township of Union, Union County, 7/26/2024, (#281-24)

281-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Mark Hoyt,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Union,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner has been employed in respondent Board’s school district since 2007. From 2016 until 2019,
he served as principal at Battle Hill Elementary School. In July 2019, petitioner was appointed as Interim
Principal of Union High School, and the Board approved payment of an $8,000 stipend associated with
the high school position. 	In September 2022, petitioner received notice that the Board intended to
discuss the terms and conditions of his employment at a meeting scheduled for September 13, 2022.
On that date, the Board conducted its meeting and elected to appoint a new high school principal,
transfer petitioner to an elementary school, and eliminate the stipend payment associated with
petitioner’s former interim position at Union High School. Thereafter, on July 18, 2023, petitioner filed
the within petition challenging the Board’s removal of the $8,000 stipend he had previously received.
The Board counter claimed for summary decision and sought to have the petition dismissed with
prejudice.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(d), a petitioner must file an appeal no later than the 90th
day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the district board of
education, individual party, or agency, that is the subject of the contested case; here, the removal of
petitioner’s stipend took place at a September 2022 meeting for which petitioner received a Rice notice;
although the notice was lengthy, the papers did inform petitioner that the stipend would be discussed
on September 2022; notes from that meeting became publicly available on November 22, 2022, and
reflected the Board’s decision to remove the stipend from petitioner’s salary. Thereafter, the decrease
was reflected in petitioner’s income statements. Petitioner, however, failed to file his challenge to the
Board’s action until July 18, 2023. Accordingly, ALJ dismissed petitioner’s motion for summary decision,
and granted the Board’s motion for summary decision with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions and
adopted the Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. 	Accordingly, the Board’s motion for
summary decision was granted 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.

281-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08533-23
Agency Dkt. No. 190-7/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Mark Hoyt,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Union, Union
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 (ALJ) that petitioner
failed to file the petition of appeal within the time period required by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). Additionally,
the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the case presents a
substantial constitutional issue or matter of significant public import that would justify relaxation of the
90-day filing requirement.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, respondent’s cross-
motion for summary decision is granted, petitioner’s motion for summary decision is denied, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 26, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	July 31, 2024
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 190-7/23
MARK HOYT,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF UNION
BOARD OF EDUCATION, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________________
Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq., for petitioner (Schwartz Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Christopher J. Buggy, Esq., for respondent (Taylor Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: January 8, 2024 	Decided: June 28, 2024
BEFORE WILLIAM COURTNEY, ALJ:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 18, 2023, petitioner Mark Hoyt, who is currently the Principal of the Hannah
Caldwell Elementary School initiated this action which challenges the removal by
respondent Township of Union Board of Education (“Board”) of an annual $8,000.00

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
2
stipend he had been receiving while he was Principal of Union High School. The matter
was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law on August 30, 2023. Upon completion
of discovery, cross motions for summary decision were filed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In this matter, Petitioner seeks a summary decision finding that an $8,000 stipend
he received as part of his compensation from 2019-2022 was improperly removed
thereafter in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5. 	The Board seeks an order granting summary
decision in its favor and dismissing the Petition with prejudice.
ISSUES PRESENTED
There are two issues presented in the cross motions for summary decision: (1) is
the action time-barred by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, and (2) was the reduction of Petitioner’s
salary in violation of the tenure statute N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Petitioner began employment with the District of Union Township Public Schools
on or about January 1, 2007. From 2016 until 2019, Petitioner served as the principal for
Battle Hill Elementary School. 	On July 16, 2019, the Board approved Petitioner’s
appointment as the interim Principal of Union High School. 	The Board also approved
payment of an $8,000 stipend associated with the Union High School principal position.
On September 9, 2022, Petitioner was served with a Rice notice advising him that
the Board intended to discuss the terms and conditions of his employment at a meeting
on September 13, 2022. The notice was extensive but did contain information regarding
the stipend.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
3
On September 13, 2022, the Board conducted its meeting electing to appoint a
new principal, transfer petitioner to an elementary school, and eliminate the stipend
payment associated with petitioner’s Union High School position. 	The minutes from
September 13 meeting were approved at a second public meeting in November 2022.
Thereafter, the reduction of the stipend was reflected in petitioner’s paychecks. Petitioner
did not initiate this action challenging the reduction in his compensation until July 18,
2023.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), a summary decision “may be rendered if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is
entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” 	This rule is substantially similar to the summary
judgment rule embodied in the New Jersey Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. 	See Judson v.
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). 	In connection therewith,
all inferences of doubt are drawn against the movant and in favor of the party against
whom the motion is directed. Id. at 75. In Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J.
520 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the appropriate test to be
employed in determining the motion:
[A] determination whether there exists a ‘genuine issue’ of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational fact-
finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-
moving party. The ‘judge’s function is not . . . to weigh the
evidence 	and 	determine 	the 	truth 	of 	the 	matter 	but 	to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial’.
[Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 540 (citations omitted).]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
4
After a thorough review of the submissions of the parties, I FIND that there are no
disputes as to any material fact and for the reasons set forth below, I grant respondent’s
motion for summary decision and dismiss the petition filed by Mr. Hoyt for failing to file
said petition within the time period required by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
As respondent highlights in its motion for summary decision, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i),
provides that petitioners must “file a petition no later than the 90 th day from the date of
receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the district board of
education, individual party, or agency, that is the subject of the requested contested case
hearing.” 	In general, the 90-day rule is strictly construed unless the case presents a
substantial constitutional issue or a matter of significant public import. Kenny v. Board of
Education of the Borough of Moonachie, Bergen County, EDU 09284-14, initial decision,
(Aug. 17, 2017), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu09284-17_1.html.
The seminal case on what constitutes adequate notice for the purpose of N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3(i) is Kaprow v. Board of Education of Berkeley Township, 131 N.J. 572 (1993).
There, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that even though the petitioner’s notice was
“unofficial and informal,” it was still sufficient to apprise the petitioner of the “state of facts
that would enable him to file a timely claim,” and therefore the 90-day limitation tolled. Id.
at 588-89.
Here, the removal of petitioner’s stipend took place at a September 2022 meeting
for which petitioner received a Rice notice. Although admittedly a long notice, the papers
did inform petitioner that the stipend would be discussed at the meeting. On November
22, 2022, the notes from said meeting became publicly available and reflected the Board’s
decision to remove the stipend from petitioner’s salary. 	Thereafter, the decrease was
reflected in petitioner’s income statements. 	Petitioner, however, did not file his Petition
challenging the reduction in salary until July 18, 2023.
Petitioner argues that the only mention of the stipend was “buried” within the Rice
notice, and it was not clear from his pay checks that the stipend had been removed. As

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
5
a result, Petitioner concludes, he never received adequate notice to begin tolling the 90-
day limitation.
Under Kaprow, petitioner’s argument fails. Even though petitioner never received
a document dedicated solely to informing him the stipend had been removed, it is
reasonable to conclude that he was aware, or should have been aware, of the state of
facts giving rise to his cause of action well before July 18, 2023. Between the Rice notice,
the public minutes, and the fact that his monthly salary was actually decreased, petitioner
should have known the stipend had been removed by the end of 2022. His failure to bring
this action for another seven months clearly puts this case outside of the 90-day limitation
period.
Petitioner cites Stockton v. Board of Education, 210 N.J. Super. 150 (App. Div.
1986), in arguing that the petition is not untimely. 	However, Stockton is distinguishable
from the facts at hand. There, the Court held that “receipt of a salary check for less of an
increase than one anticipates cannot provide notice that a decision has been made to
correct an error allegedly made three years before.” Id. at 157. 	Here, the reduction in
Petitioner’s paycheck over many months is only part of the Board’s argument for proper
notice. 	There was also a Rice notice and the publication of public minutes, making
Stockton inapposite.
In petitioner’s main argument for summary decision, he relies on N.J.S.A. 18A:28-
5 (“Tenure Law”) which states tenured teaching staff “shall not be dismissed or reduced
in compensation except for inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct unbecoming such a
teaching staff member.” Here, there is no allegation of inefficiency, incapacity or conduct
unbecoming. 	Rather, the issue raised by petitioner is whether removal of a “stipend”
qualifies as a “[reduc[tion] in compensation” which is prohibited under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5.
Petitioner’s reliance on the Tenure Law, however, cannot salvage an untimely petition
from dismissal. See Nissman V. Bd. of Educ., Twp. of Long Beach Island, 272 N.J. Super.
373, 381(App. Div. 1994) and Scheffler v. Bd. of Trs. Charter Sch. For Tec., 2023 N.J.
Super. 	Unpub. 	LEXIS 	534 	(rejecting 	petitioner’s 	argument 	that 	the 	Tenure 	Law

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
6
superseded the 90-day time limit to file a petition); see also Salazar-Linden, 2009 N.J.
Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2713(rejecting argument that the 90-day time limit undermines
tenure rights).1
For the reasons stated, I FIND that petitioner failed to file his petition challenging
his claimed reduction in salary within the required 90-day deadline set forth in N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3(i) . 	I Further FIND 	that petitioner has failed to provide any credible evidence
that the case presents a substantial constitutional issue or is a matter of significant public
import that would justify relaxation of strict 90-day filing requirement or that the Tenure
Law negates its application. I, therefor, CONCLUDE that petitioner’s motion for summary
decision must be denied and respondent’s motion for summary decision must be granted.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioners motion for summary decision is DENIED; and
2. 	Respondent’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED.
This decision resolves all outstanding issues before this tribunal.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
1 While R. 1:36-3 precludes a court’s consideration of unpublished decisions, the OAL is
not a court. See 37 New Jersey Practice, Administrative Law and Practice s.250, at Supp.
p. 89, (Steven L. LeFelt) (1995) (noting that the U.A.P.R. contains no restrictions on the
use of unreported Appellate Division cases and that “any authority by a court, even if
contained within an unreported case, should be carefully considered by ALJs.”). Further,
this tribunal is unaware of any contrary authority to the case cited.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
7
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.
June 28, 2024
DATE 	WILLIAM J. COURTNEY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	________________________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	________________________________
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08533-23
8
List of Moving Papers
Petitioner’s Submissions Considered
1. 	Petitioner’s November 14, 2023 Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision
with Exhibits 1-18.
2. 	Petitioner’s January 5, 2024 Brief in Further Support of Petitioner’s Motion for
Summary Decision and In Opposition to Respondent’s Cross-Motion with Exhibits 19,
20 & 21.
Respondent’s Submissions Considered
December 18, 2023 Certification of Christopher J. Buggy with attached Exhibits 1-13.