Board of Education of the Township of Springfield, Union County v. Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County, 9/7/2022, (#222-22)

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06696-19
Agency Dkt. No. 71-4/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of
Springfield, Union County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark,
Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by respondent, the Newark Board of Education, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.4 and the reply thereto from petitioner, the Springfield Board of Education, have been
reviewed and considered.
This matter involves the question of which board of education is responsible for the
educational costs of two siblings, M.P. and Jad. P., during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school
years. It is undisputed that the children and their mother were homeless during the 2016-2017
school year and that under N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(c), Springfield was responsible for the children’s
educational costs during the 2016-2017 school year. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found
that Newark was responsible for the children’s transportation and tuition costs between
September 2017 and December 2018. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ found that the
222-22

2
children and their mother resided in Newark for over a year and therefore the financial
obligation for their educational costs shifted from Springfield to Newark.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that this matter
must be remanded to the Office of Administrative Law to address the inconsistent findings
outlined in the Initial Decision. Most notably, there are inconsistent findings in regard to the
children’s educational costs during the 2018-2019 school year. The ALJ found that Newark
must reimburse Springfield “$12,942.84 in tuition costs for the Rutgers Day School for M.P. for
the period of November to December 2018.” The ALJ also found that Newark must reimburse
Springfield “$12,942.84 in tuition costs for the Rutgers Day School for M.P. for the period of
September to October 2018.” Additionally, the ALJ found that Newark must reimburse
Springfield for transportation costs totaling $39,918.401 for transport of “Jad. P. to Washington
Academy, and for M.P. to Rutgers Day School for the period of June 26, 2007 through
December 31, 2018.” (Initial Decision at 13-14)
Yet, the ALJ also found that, “Springfield discovered during the summer of 2018 that the
P family was living in Dover, NJ. M.P. was enrolled in the Dover district. The transportation
contract for M.P. was cancelled. It appeared that Jad. P. had dropped out of school.” (id. at 13)
Moreover, the ALJ concluded that “Jad. P. and M.P., together with their mother, A.I.P., resided
at (a street address in) Newark, NJ, from June 30, 2016 until the summer of 2018.” (id. at 18)
The Initial Decision fails to explain why Newark is responsible for M.P.’s tuition and
transportation costs from September through December of 2018 in light of the fact that the ALJ
appears to find that the P family relocated to Dover during the summer of 2018. It is
1 A review of the record appears to suggest that this amount actually totaled $37,918.40.

3
undisputed that M.P. was ultimately registered in the Dover School District, but it is not clear
what address was used at the time of registration. The record only contains an email from
A.I.P. indicating that the family was living with her fiancé in Dover as of the summer of 2018.
Notably, it is also unclear as to whether transportation was provided for M.P. from the family’s
new Dover address or whether M.P. was picked up and dropped off at the Newark address.
Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain who is responsible for the children’s educational costs
between September 2018 and December 2018.
Accordingly, this matter is hereby remanded to the OAL for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
September 7, 2022
September 12, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 71-4/19
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD,
Petitioner,
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF NEWARK,
Respondent.
______________________________
Janelle Edwards-Stewart, Esq., and Marie-Laurence Fabian, Esq., co-counsel
for Petitioner (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C., attorneys)
Teresa L. Moore, Esq., for Respondent, Newark Board of Education (Riker,
Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, attorneys)
Sabrina Styza, Esq., co-counsel for Respondent, Newark Board of Education
Record Closed: April 7, 2022 	Decided: June 8, 2022
BEFORE: THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a petition, dated April 10, 2019, with the New Jersey Department
of Education, Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, alleging that the Newark Board of
Education is responsible for transportation and tuition costs for certain children that
have attended school in Petitioner’s district.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on May 15, 2019, as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to –15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to –13, bearing OAL Docket No. EDU 06696-19.
A prehearing conference was held on June 5, 2019. A prehearing order, dated
June 7, 2019, was entered by the undersigned.
The hearing was held on December 13, 2021, December 14, 2021 and January
24, 2022.
The record remained open for the parties to submit post hearing briefs, which
were due thirty days after receipt of the hearing transcripts. 	Transcripts were received
on March 11, 2022. 	Petitioner submitted their brief on April 6, 2022. 	Respondent
submitted their brief on April 7, 2022. Whereupon the record closed on April 7, 2022.
ISSUES
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY
Petitioner’s Case
Tiffany Boehm testified as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
3
She is employed by the Springfield Board of Education and has been since 2007.
Ms. Boehm is the Director of Student Support Services. 	She went on to describe her
job duties, part of which is to oversee the placement of students out of District.
Ms. Boehm described the Board’s policy regarding the education of homeless
students. 	She is familiar with the P family, who had a residency issue during the
2015/2016 school year. 	There were four children in the P family: J.P.; Jas P.; Jad P.;
and, M.P. J.P. had graduated.
The principal of the school that M.P. attended reported that she did not show up
for school and they were having a difficult time reaching the parent. 	A resource officer
did a welfare check and discovered the family did not live at their address anymore.
Jas P., who was attending the high school told her case manager that the family
was residing in Newark. 	This was also during the 2015/2016 school year, towards the
end of the 2015/2016 school year.
Ms. Boehm drafted a letter to the mother, A.I.P., but was not able to send it as
she 	did 	not 	have 	a 	current 	address. 	She 	contacted 	the 	FACT 	(Families 	and
Communities Together) worker who was assisting the family. 	The worker did not have
a current address. The FACT worker advised that A.I.P. would not provide an address.
A.I.P. was contacted by phone. 	She informed the school that M.S. would be
attending, and that the family was returning to Springfield.
A.I.P. came in with documents on either September 6 th or 7th with a lease
showing her returning to the same address she previously had in Springfield.
Ms. Boehm received an email from the FACT worker that informed her that the
family was living in Newark at 134 Fabyan Place.
Another family was living at the residence A.I.P. provided a lease for. 	The P
family was not living there.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
4
A.I.P. then completed the required paperwork that the family was homeless,
which are the McKinney Vento Act Student Resident Information Forms. 	There were
three forms completed, for Jas P., Jad P. and M.P. 	What stood out to Ms. Boehm on
these forms is that A.I.P. claimed being homeless from June 2016, yet provided a lease
prior to completing the forms that she would be living in Springfield.
On the forms A.I.P. listed two current addresses: 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ;
and, 359 Nesbitt Terrace, Irvington, NJ. 	The only time Ms. Boehm saw the Irvington
address was on the forms.
The three children, Jas, Jad and M, were special needs students. 	Jas was
finishing her education at Jonathan Dayton High School. 	Jad was placed at Mary
Dobbins School by the State and did not require transportation. 	The District was
looking for an out of District placement for M.
As 	A.I.P. 	had 	informed 	the 	District 	the 	family 	was 	homeless, 	the 	District
continued to provide education for the three children.
Jas and M required transportation, which was provided by the District. 	Jas was
picked up at 134 Fabyan Place in Newark for transportation to the Jonathan Dayton
High School in Springfield. 	M was picked up at the same address for transportation to
the Gaudineer Middle School in Springfield. 	M was changing schools to an out of
District placement and was to be transported from the Fabyan Place address to the
Rutgers Day School in Piscataway.
The transportation company reported an incident via email where the bus arrived
at the Fabyan Place address to transport M. 	M refused to get on the bus. 	A.I.P. came
out of the house, but was not successful in getting M to go on the bus. 	M walked off
and A.I.P. returned to the Fabyan Place house.
There was never a request by A.I.P. for the District to provide transportation from
any other address, other than the Fabyan Place address.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
5
At the end of the 2016/2017 school year Jad was exiting the program at Mary
Dobbins and the District would be looking for another placement. Home instruction was
offered pending placement and A.I.P. refused to allow home instruction.
Jas graduated from Jonathan Dayton High School at the end of the 2016/2017
school year.
At the end of the 2016/2017 school year the District’s homeless liaison sent a
letter to Newark to advise them it would be Newark’s responsibility to educate the
students. 	Ms. Boehm testified that, to her knowledge, no response was received. 	She
then followed up with an email to Newark’s homeless liaison at the start of the
2017/2018 school year. 	She received a response about one week later, indicating that
A.I.P. spoke with Newark about registering her daughter. 	Ms. Boehm provided the
requested information, including IEPs. 	There were no follow up from Newark. 	In
November 2017 Newark’s homeless liaison, Ana Osoria, advised that she met with
A.I.P., and that it did not appear A.I.P. was living in Newark consistently for 365 days,
and declined educational responsibility. Springfield 	then 	re-enrolled 	Jad 	and 	M 	as
Newark was not taking responsibility. 	Ms. Boehm was unsure what transpired with Jad
and M between September and November. Mom met with Ms. Pacheco, the Springfield
homeless liaison. 	The Fabyan Place address was provided. 	Springfield secured
placements for both M and Jad, with transportation from the Fabyan Place address.
Prior to the placement for Jad and M, home instruction was offered, and was again
declined.
Newark was again contacted to advise that Springfield maintained that Newark
was the responsible district and that Springfield may seek reimbursement. 	Ms. Osoria
responded that she would have the residency investigator look into it. 	This was April
2018.
Emails were continued to be exchanged with Ms. Osoria. 	The last email
received was close to the end of the 2017/2018 school year wherein Ms. Osoria
maintained that Newark is not the responsible district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
6
Springfield had a residency investigator look into the Fabyan Place address. 	He
concluded that A.I.P. and M were residing therein. 	Regarding Jad no conclusion was
reached as she was not regularly attending school. This was done through observation
of the location.
In September of 2018, A.I.P. advised that the family moved to Dover and at some
point Dover took responsibility for the students. 	This was in December 2018. 	By that
time Jad had dropped out. Transportation and tuition for M switched to Dover.
Ms. Boehm reviewed the costs for tuition and transportation for the period
Springfield maintains Newark was the responsible district. Those costs total $41,593.18
for tuition, and $37,918.40 for transportation.
James Post testified as follows:
He 	is 	employed 	by 	the 	Springfield 	Board 	of 	Education 	as 	the 	residency
investigator. Prior to this he was a police officer with Newark for thirty years.
He 	described 	how 	he 	conducts 	a 	residency 	investigation, 	which 	includes
surveillance “99.9 percent” of the time.
He was asked to do a residency investigation for the P family. 	His investigation
included surveillance. He met with Janet Pacheco. He received a Power School report,
which 	contains 	the 	child’s 	photo, 	family 	member 	names, 	mother’s 	name, 	current
address and emergency contact information. 	He did surveillance of the Fabyan Place
address on April 25, 2018. 	He arrived at 6:00 a.m. 	He saw M exit the residence and
get on the school bus at approximately 7:45 a.m. Prior to that he saw some cars pull in
and pull out with adult females. He did not know who the women were. He did see one
of the women enter the house, and another women leave the house. 	He saw no
children exit a car and enter the house. 	He remained until 9:00 a.m. 	He repeated the
surveillance the next day. Again he arrived at 6:00 a.m. He approached the bus driver
when the bus arrived. 	He identified himself to the driver, who told him he picks up M
every day at this address. He remained again until 9:00 a.m. He never saw Jad during

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
7
his investigation. He again did surveillance the next day, starting at 6:00 a.m. Again M
exited the home and got on the bus. 	Again he remained until 9:00 a.m. This was
Friday. 	He returned on Saturday but saw no activity at all. 	He returned the following
Monday and again saw M exit the house at 7:45 a.m. and enter the school bus. 	He
concluded that the P family was residing at the Fabyan Place address. This was based
on M exiting the house four consecutive school days, his conversation with the bus
driver, that M never exited a vehicle to enter the house and the A.I.P. reported the
Fabyan Place house as her address.
Mr. Post was recalled regarding the Power School paperwork he was provided and
testified as follows:
He had received photographs of Jad and M. 	He also had photographs of Jas
and J.P., who were not part of his investigation. 	He could not at this time locate the
photograph of Jad. He was sure he had one when he started the investigation.
On the paperwork M’s address is listed as 807 Mountain Avenue, Springfield, NJ.
That was the prior address the family lived at prior to the Fabyan Place address in
Newark. 	There is other paperwork in the Power School forms that have the Fabyan
Place address. The handwriting on the paperwork is his.
There is also an address of 259 Nesbit Terrace in Irvington. 	He did not
investigate this address as the investigation led him to the Fabyan Place address, and
he concluded that was where the family resided.
Ana Osoria testified as follows:
She is employed by the Newark Board of Education as a Program Specialist-3.
Prior to that she was a Specialist for Homeless Management from September 2013 to
July 2020. It is the same job as before with a different title. She is the McKinney Vento
liaison for the Newark School District. 	Ms. Osoria described her job duties and training
received.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
8
Ms. Osoria stated that for a person to be determined not to be homeless they
must reside in the District for 365 consecutive days. 	She maintained that this was
based on her McKinney Vento training. Any break in the 365 days resets the clock.
When she was advised by Springfield that the P family was living in Newark she
contacted A.I.P. and was able to meet with her on November 14, 2017. 	Based on that
conversation Ms. Osoria determined that the P family was not “fixed or regular” at the
Newark address. 	She notified Springfield of her findings. 	Newark did not initiate a
residency investigation.
An email dated June 27, 2017 was sent to Ms. Osoria’s email, but was not
reviewed by her until September 6, 2017. 	At that time she reached out to A.I.P. 	She
did not meet with her until November 14, 2017. 	There was no contact with A.I.P.
between the first telephone call on June 12, 2017 with her and the day she came in,
which was November 14, 2017.
Initially Ms. Osoria intended to register the students in the Newark District. 	Her
position changed after she spoke with A.I.P. in November. 	Her decision was based
upon what A.I.P. told her. 	A.I.P. indicated to Ms. Osoria that she desired educational
continuity.
Ms. Osoria reached out again to A.I.P. in 2018, the aim of which was to have her
come in and bring supporting documents that she may have. She communicated this to
Ms. Boehm. 	A meeting was scheduled for April 30, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., but A.I.P. did
not attend. She advised Springfield thereafter via email that no further investigation was
needed as the students were not Newark’s responsibility.
Susan Giordino was called at the end of Respondent’s case to testify as to certain
documents:
She is employed by the Springfield Board of Education and is the secretary to the
Director of Special Services. 	She helped process the student enrollment for M in the
beginning of the 2016/2017 school year. 	A.I.P. came to the office to submit enrollment

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
9
paperwork. A.I.P. produced a lease, which seemed to Ms. Giordino to be suspect. She
identified a copy of the lease.
Tiffany Boehm was recalled at the end of Respondent’s case to testify as to certain
documents:
Ms. Boehm reviewed release forms provided by Newark in order to send IEPs for
M and Jad P. 	Newark was requesting the most recent IEP for both students. 	The
address on the form was 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ. 	A.I.P. was listed as the
person completing the forms. 	This was November 14, 2017. 	On the same day she
corresponded with Ms. Osaria who had determined that A.I.P. was not living in Newark.
This was in an email.
Respondent’s Case
Ana Osoria testified as follows:
Ms. Osoria reviewed her experience and work as she did on direct examination
by Ms. Stewart when she testified as Petitioner’s witness.
She reviewed scenarios that could lead to a person being displaced.
Ms. Osoria also reviewed her educational background.
She reviewed how she conducts an interview with a displaced family.
During the meeting with A.I.P. in November 2017 Ms. Osoria did not offer her any
of the services or amenities she would normally offer displaced families as A.I.P.
indicated she wanted to continue with Springfield.
Ms. Osoria was not advised by anyone from Springfield that an investigator was
sent to the Fabyan Place address.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
10
She 	did 	not 	have 	any 	contact 	with 	A.I.P. 	from 	the 	first 	telephone 	call 	in
September 2017 until December 1, 2021. On that date they spoke via telephone. A.I.P.
restated what she told Ms. Osoria in September 2017 was correct. 	There was another
telephone call with A.I.P. on December 7, 2021, with Ms. Styza also on the call. On the
same date she went to meet with A.I.P. at an address in Dover. She went with Newark
Board of Education security and an investigator. 	The purpose of the visit was to see if
her previous statements were consistent.
Timothy Gray testified as follows:
Mr. Gray is a partner with Capital Investigations. 	He went on to describe his
experience as an investigator. He further explained the various types of investigations.
He was retained by Newark to do an investigation regarding Jad and M. He was
asked to find if A.I.P. was primarily residing in Newark. 	He was provided with
information about A.I.P. and performed a desk top search, which is a review of online
data bases. There was no surveillance done. Based upon the data base search results
he produces a profile. 	The search starts with a name and social security number. 	He
stated that, based on the results, it appeared to him that A.I.P. was going back and forth
from different addresses. 	He reviewed the various addresses revealed from the data
base searches. 	The time frame he reviewed was during 2016 and 2017. 	He could not
determine, with any sense of certainty, where A.I.P. lived during this time frame. 	She
did not file a change of address form with the United States Postal Service.
Mr. Gray stated it would be fair to say that he has no idea whether A.I.P. lived at
any of the addresses at all at any time.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	A.I.P., and her children, Jas. P., Jad. P. and M.P., resided in the Township
of Springfield, N.J. until approximately June of 2016.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
11
2. 	As residents of Springfield the children were entitled to be educated in the
Springfield public school system.
3. 	All three children, above noted, were students with special needs and had
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). (P-20)
4. 	A 	welfare 	check 	at 	the 	Springfield 	address 	of 	the 	P 	family 	by 	the
Springfield Police revealed that they no longer resided at said address. 	A
different family resided therein. (12/13/21 Tr. 26:12 to 27:24)
5. 	The Springfield Board of Education discovered that the P family was
residing 	in 	Newark, 	NJ, 	through 	a 	worker 	with 	Families 	and 	Communities
Together (FACT), however the worker was unable to provide a current address.
(P-19)
6. 	In September 2016, after being contacted by the school social worker,
A.I.P. came to the Florence M. Guadineer Middle School to re-register M.P., and
provided a lease, dated September 1, 2016, for her prior Springfield address. (P-
21)
7. 	The P family was not living at their previous address in Springfield. 	They
were living with the childrens’ grandmother in Newark, NJ, at 134 Fabyan Place.
8. 	The Springfield Police confirmed that the P family was not living at their
previous address. A different family was living there. (12/13/21 Tr. 41:6-17)
9. 	A.I.P. filled out a McKinney Vento Act Student Information form for Jad. P.,
Jas. P. and M.P. 	A.I.P. claimed in the forms that the family was homeless since
June 30, 2016, and were residing at 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ. 	She also
listed an Irvington address on the forms. (P-3)
10. 	Springfield 	BOE 	set 	up 	transportation 	from 	the 	134 	Fabyan 	Place,
Newark, NJ address to Springfield for Jas. P. and M.P. so they could attend
school. 	Transportation was not required for Jad. P. as she was in a residential
facility. 	Transportation for Jas. P. and M.P. continued through the end of the
2016/2017 school year.
11. 	Transportation was arranged for M.P. to attend the extended school year
program but was subsequently cancelled as M.P. refused to attend the program.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
12
12. 	The 	transportation company 	informed Springfield via 	email that M.P.
would not leave the porch of the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address. 	They
also advised that A.I.P. had exited the house after being contacted by telephone
that M.P. would not get on the bus. (P-9)
13. 	During the 2016/2017 school year the only address used to pick up the
children for transport to school was the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address.
14. 	An 	email, 	dated 	June 	27, 	2017, 	was 	sent 	to 	the 	Newark 	Board 	of
Education homeless liaison, Ana Osoria, to advise that the P family was living in
Newark from May 2016. 	Said email provided the names of the children and the
Newark address. (J-1)
15. 	Ms. Osoria did not respond to this email until September 12, 2017, after
receiving a follow up email from Tiffany Boehm of Springfield, dated September
6, 2017. (J-2)
16. 	In response to Ms. Osoria’s email of September 12, 2017, the IEPs for the
three children were forwarded. (P-23)
17. 	By email dated November 14, 2017, Ms. Osoria advised Springfield that
she met with A.I.P. and determined that A.I.P. did not reside in Newark for 365
days. This was based on representations made by A.I.P. Ms. Osoria determined
that the children should be the responsibility of Springfield. (J-3)
18. 	Springfield then assumed responsibility for the children and arranged for
placements and transportation from the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address.
Jad. P. was placed at Washington Academy, and M.P. was placed at Rutgers
Day School. P-10 and P-11)
19. 	By letter dated April 10, 2018, Springfield advised Newark that it still held
the position that Springfield was the responsible district for the 2017/2018 school
year. (J-4)
20. 	Ms. Osoria responded, by email dated April 10, 2018, to said letter on
behalf of Newark requesting documents to support Springfield’s position and
restating Newark’s position. (J-5)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
13
21. 	In response thereto, attendance and transportation records were provided
by email dated April 23, 2018. (J-6)
22. 	Ms. Osoria responded, again reiterating Newark’s position, which was
based upon a conversation she had with A.I.P. 	Said email was also to update
what had transpired. (J-7)
23. 	Springfield 	had 	their 	residency 	investigator 	investigate 	the 	residency
situation for the P family. 	The investigator, James Post, set up surveillance at
the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address and discovered that M.P. was
residing therein. 	He did not observe Jad. P. 	He prepared a report as to his
findings. (P-4)
24. 	Newark’s position regarding the residency of the P family was based
entirely on what A.I.P. told Ms. Osoria without any supporting documentation.
25. 	Ms. Osoria testified that A.I.P. told her she wanted her children to continue
to be educated in the Springfield district.
26. 	Ms. Osoria, after speaking via telephone with A.I.P. on April 27, 2018,
arranged a meeting with her for April 30, 2018. A.I.P. did not attend the meeting.
(J-7)
27. 	Springfield discovered during the summer of 2018 that the P family was
living in Dover, NJ. 	M.P. was enrolled in the Dover district. 	The transportation
contract for M.P. was cancelled. 	It appeared that Jad. P. had dropped out of
school.
28. 	Newark Board of Education was the responsible district for the education
of the P family children, Jad. P., Jas. P. and M.P. from the beginning of the
2017/2018 school year until the time the children became the responsibility of the
Dover school district.
29. 	Springfield expended the sum of $15,707.50 in tuition for the Rutgers Day
School for M.P. for the period of April to June 2018. (P-12)
30. 	Springfield expended the sum of $12,942.84 in tuition for the Rutgers Day
School for M.P. for the period of September to October 2018. (P-13)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
14
31. 	Springfield expended the sum of $12,942.84 in tuition for the Rutgers Day
School for M.P. for the period of November to December 2018. (P-14)
32. 	Total tuition costs expended by Springfield for M.P. are $41,593,18.
33. 	Transportation costs paid by Springfield total $39,918.40 for Jad P. to
Washington Academy, and for M.P. to Rutgers Day School, for the period of
June 26, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (P-15 and P-15a)
34. 	Total amount of funds expended by Springfield that the Newark Board of
Education is responsible for equal $79,511.58.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Right to a Free Public Education
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) and N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a) sets forth the right of a student to
a free public education, which in pertinent parts states:
Public schools shall be free to the following persons over five
and under twenty years of age:
a. Any person who is domiciled within the school district[.]
Consideration in proving residency for purposes of establishing eligibility for
school district placement is found at N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.4(a),
(a) A district board of education shall accept a combination
of any of the following or similar forms of documentation
from persons attempting to demonstrate a student’s eligibility
for enrollment in the school district:
1. 	Property 	tax 	bills, 	deeds, 	contracts 	of 	sale, 	leases,
mortgages, signed letters from landlords and other evidence
of property ownership, tenancy or residency;
2. Voter registrations, licenses, permits, financial account
information, utility bills, delivery receipts, and other evidence
of personal attachment to a particular location;
. . .

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
15
3. 	Court 	orders; 	State 	agency 	agreements; 	and 	other
evidence of court or agency placements or directives;
4. Receipts; bills; cancelled checks; insurance claims or
payments; 	and 	other 	evidence 	of 	expenditures
demonstrating personal attachment to a particular location or
to support the student;
. . .
6. Affidavits, certifications and sworn attestations pertaining
to statutory criteria for school attendance, from the parent,
guardian, 	person 	keeping 	an 	“affidavit 	student,” 	adult
student, person(s) with whom a family is living, or others as
appropriate;
. . .
8. Any other business record or document issued by a
governmental entity.
(b) 	A 	district 	board 	of 	education 	may 	accept 	forms 	of
documentation not listed in (a) above, and shall not exclude
from 	consideration 	any 	documentation 	or 	information
presented by a person seeking to enroll a student.
(c) A district board of education shall consider the totality of
information and documentation offered by an applicant, and
shall not deny enrollment based on failure to provide a
particular form of documentation, or a particular subset of
documents, without regard to other evidence presented.
In the instant matter, it is clear that A.I.P. resided in Newark. 	The address given
to Springfield was the Newark address. 	Springfield’s investigator confirmed that A.I.P.
resided in Newark. 	The only reasonable conclusion is that A.I.P resided in Newark.
The investigation conducted by Newark was nothing more than internet search, with no
on-site observation, as was the case with the Springfield investigation. 	In fact, the
investigator for Springfield admitted he could not say whether or not A.I.P. lived at any

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
16
of the addresses set forth in his report. 	(2T172:16-25) 	He did not do surveillance, as
the investigator for Springfield did.
Newark based its decision on residency entirely upon what A.I.P. told them.
There was no independent confirmation. 	There were no documents provided. 	There
was nothing other then hearsay statements provided by Ms. Osoria in her testimony as
to what A.I.P. told her. 	There was not a shred of residuum evidence to support the
hearsay statements.
Judicial rules of evidence do not apply to administrative agency proceedings,
except 	for 	rules 	of 	privileges 	or 	where 	required 	by 	law. 	N.J.R.E.101(a)(3).
DeBartolomeis v. Board of Review, 341 N.J. Super.80, 82 (App. Div. 2001). 	N.J.S.A.
52:14B-10(a) and N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.1(c).
Hearsay are statements other than ones made by the declarant while testifying at
a hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 	N.J.R.E.
801(c). 	Hearsay is usually not admissible because it is deemed untrustworthy and
unreliable (N.J.R.E. 802) unless it falls within an exception enumerated in N.J.R.E 803
or 804. 	However, hearsay is admissible in an administrative proceeding such as this
one subject to the “residuum rule,” which mandates that the administrative decision
cannot be predicated on hearsay alone. Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36 (1972).
[A] fact-finding or legal determination cannot be based upon hearsay alone.
Hearsay may be employed to corroborate competent proof, or competent proof may be
supported or given added probative force by hearsay testimony. 	But in the final
analysis for a court to sustain an administrative decision, which affects the substantial
rights of a party, there must be a residuum of legal competent evidence in the record to
support it. [Id. at 51]
The Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules governing administrative agency
proceedings codify this doctrine by requiring that “some legally competent evidence
must exist to support each ultimate finding of fact to an extent sufficient to provide

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
17
assurances of reliability and to avoid the fact or appearance of arbitrariness.” 	N.J.A.C.
1:1-15.5(c). In assessing hearsay evidence, it should be accorded “whatever weight the
judge deems appropriate taking into account the nature, character and scope of the
evidence, the circumstances of its creation and production, and, generally, its reliability.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5(a).
In 	accordance 	with 	the 	residuum 	rule, 	I 	accepted 	the 	hearsay 	evidence.
However, no competent evidence was presented to corroborate the hearsay evidence.
Accordingly, no weight can be given to the same.
Further, Newark’s position that an individual must reside for 365 consecutive
days to not be considered homeless finds no support in the law.
N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(c) states: The district of residence for children whose parent
or guardian temporarily moves from one school district to another as the result of being
homeless shall be the district in which the parent or guardian last resided prior to
becoming homeless. 	For the purpose of this amendatory and supplementary act,
“homeless” 	shall 	mean 	an 	individual 	who 	temporarily 	lacks 	a 	fixed, 	regular 	and
adequate residence.
As A.I.P. claimed homelessness for the 2016/2017 school year, Springfield acted
appropriately and registered children, notwithstanding their new address in Newark.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d) states: Any person whose parent or guardian, even though
not domiciled within the district, is residing temporarily therein, but any person who has
had or shall have his all-year-round dwelling place within the district for one year or
longer shall be deemed to be domiciled within the district for the purposes of this
section.
The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that A.I.P., M.P. and Jad. P.
resided at 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ for more than one year. 	Accordingly, they
became the responsibility of the Newark school district for the 2017/2018 school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
18
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3 	states in pertinent part: a) Tuition assessed pursuant to this
section shall be calculated on a per-student basis for the period of a student's ineligible
enrollment, up to one year, by applicable grade/program category and consistent with
the 	provisions 	of N.J.A.C. 	6A:23A-17.1. 	The 	individual 	student's 	record 	of 	daily
attendance shall not affect the calculation.
Springfield expended the sum of $41,593.18 in tuition costs, and the sum of
$39,918.40 in transportation costs from the time that Newark was the responsible
district for the education of M.P. and Jad. P. 	The total sums expended by Springfield
were $79,511.58.
Based upon the foregoing, I further CONCLUDE that Jad. P. and M.P., together
with their mother, A.I.P., resided at 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ, from June 30, 2016
until the summer of 2018; and, Newark became the responsible school district for the
2017/2018 school year after the family resided therein for more than one year.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing it is ORDERED that the Newark Board of Education
reimburse the Springfield Board of Education the sum of $79,511.58.
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 06696-19
19
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 8, 2022
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
20
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Tiffany Boehm
James Post
Ana Osoria
Susan Giordino
For Respondent:
Ana Osoria
Timothy Gray
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-1 	letter from Tiffany Boehm to A.I.P. (parent), dated 6/27/16
P-2 	Email from Kara King to Tiffany Boehm, dated 9/16/16
P-3 	McKinney Vento Act Student Resident Information forms
P-4 	Email report from James Post to Jannett Pacheco, Petitioner’s Former Director of
Human Resources, dated 5/13/18
P-5 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
Jas.P. for the time period ASAP through June 23, 2016, dated 9/22/16
P-6 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period ASAP through June 23, 2016, dated 9/20/16
P-7 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period ASAP through June 22, 2017, dated 12/2016
P-8 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period July 5, 2017, through August 15, 2017, dated 8/15/17
P-9 	Emails from Diana Blajsa from UCESC to Sue Lies, Petitioner’s Transportation
Coordinator, dated 6/9/17

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
21
P-10 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
Jad.P. for the time period April 2, 2018 through June 21, 2018, dated 3/26/18
P-11 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period April 11, 2018 through June 21, 2018, dated 6/1/17
P-12 	Vendor History Printout for April, May and June 2018
P-13 	Vendor History Printout for September and October 2018
P-14 	Springfield Board of Education Purchase Order 901230
P-15 	Springfield Board of Education District Billing Reports
P-17 	Power School Documents
P-18 	emails between Tiffany Boehm and parent dated 11/28 and 29/2021
P-19 	email between Tiffany Boehm and FACT worker
P-20 	IEPs
P-21 	Lease submitted by parent to Springfield
P-23 	email dated 9/17/17 from Tiffany Boehm’s secretary, Jessica
For Respondent:
R-1 	Residency Investigation
R-2 	McKinney Vento training manual
R-3 	McKinney Vento questionnaire
Joint Exhibits:
J-1 	Email from Ellyn Atherton to Ana Osoria with the subject “Homeless Students
Living in Newark” dated 6/27/17
J-2 	Emails from Tiffany Boehm to Ana Osoria dated 9/6-12/17
J-3 	Emails from Ana Osoria to Tiffany Boehm dated 11/14/17
J-4 	letter from Tiffany Boehm to Ana Osoria dated 4/10/18
J-5 	Email from Ana Osoria to Tiffany Boehm dated 4/10/18
J-6 	Email from Tiffany Boehm to Ana Osoria with attachments dated 4/23/18
J-7 	Email from Ana Osoria to Tiffany Boehm dated 5/15/18