Board of Education of the Borough of Oceanport, Monmouth County v. Borough of Sea Bright, Monmouth County; Borough of Highlands, Monmouth County; Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth County; Board of Education of the Borough of Highlands, Monmouth County; Board of Education of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth County; and Board of Education of the Henry Hudson Regional School District, Monmouth County, and Board of Education of Shore Regional High School, Monmouth County v. Borough of Sea Bright, Monmouth County; Borough of Highlands, Monmouth County; Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth County; Board of Education of the Borough of Highlands, Monmouth County, Board of Education of the Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth County, and Board of Education of the Henry Hudson Regional School District, Monmouth County, (Consolidated) 4/3/2023, (#100-23)

100-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Borough of Oceanport,
Monmouth County,
Petitioner,
v.
Borough of Sea Bright, Monmouth County, et al,
Respondents
and
Board of Education of Shore Regional High School,
Monmouth County,
Petitioner,
v.
Borough of Sea Bright, Monmouth County, et al,
Respondents.
Synopsis
Respondents in this consolidated matter are municipalities and boards of education who passed resolutions
related to a proposed regionalization plan. Currently, students from the Borough of Sea Bright attend pre-K
through eighth grade in Oceanport and high school at Shore Regional High School. Sea Bright – which does not
have its own board of education – wishes to leave Oceanport and Shore Regional, and join the boards of
education of Highlands, Atlantic Highlands, and Henry Hudson Regional in a new, all-purpose K-12 regional
school district. Sea Bright passed a resolution authorizing special counsel to file a petition with the
Commissioner seeking approval to place the question before the voters as a referendum. 	The other
respondent municipalities and boards of education passed similar resolutions. The petitioning school districts
opposed and contended, inter alia, that these resolutions are invalid. The respondents filed motion to dismiss
the petition, arguing that the matter is not ripe for review.
Upon review, the Commissioner granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding, inter alia, that: 	the
passing of a resolution is within the authority of boards of education and governing bodies of municipalities;
and the resolutions in question here merely authorize the steps necessary to seek the Commissioner’s
potential approval of actions related to the proposed regionalization plan. 	Accordingly, the consolidated
petition of appeal 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.

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Borough of
Oceanport, Monmouth County,
Petitioner,
v.
Borough of Sea Bright, Monmouth County;
Borough of Highlands, Monmouth County;
Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth
County; Board of Education of the Borough of
Highlands, Monmouth County; Board of
Education of the Borough of Atlantic
Highlands, Monmouth County; and Board of
Education of the Henry Hudson Regional
School District, Monmouth County,
Respondents.
and
Board of Education of Shore Regional
High School, Monmouth County,
Petitioner,
v.
Borough of Sea Bright, Monmouth County;
Borough of Highlands, Monmouth County;
Borough of Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth
County; Board of Education of the Borough of
Highlands, Monmouth County; Board of
Education of the Borough of Atlantic
Highlands, Monmouth County; and Board of
Education of the Henry Hudson Regional
School District, Monmouth County,
Respondents.
100-23
Agency Dkt. Nos. 157-6/22, 190-7/22 (Consolidated)

2
Respondents in this matter are municipalities and boards of education who passed
resolutions related to a proposed regionalization plan. Currently, students from the Borough of
Sea Bright attend pre-K through eighth grade in Oceanport and high school at Shore Regional
High School. Sea Bright does not have its own board of education. Sea Bright wishes to leave
Oceanport and Shore Regional and join the boards of education of Highlands,
Atlantic Highlands, and Henry Hudson Regional in a new all-purpose K-12 regional school
district. To that end, Sea Bright passed a resolution authorizing special counsel to file a petition
with the Commissioner seeking approval to place the question before the voters as a
referendum. The other respondent municipalities and boards of education passed similar
resolutions.
In their petitions, the boards of education of Oceanport and Shore Regional ask the
Commissioner to find that the resolutions are invalid because 1) Sea Bright does not have the
authority to withdraw by resolution from Oceanport and Shore Regional or to pursue a
referendum on the creation or enlargement of a regional school district, and 2) the November
election date referenced in the resolutions is not authorized by statute.1
Respondents filed motions to dismiss both petitions. Respondents argue that unless
and until the Commissioner authorizes the referenda and the voters approve the actions,
Oceanport’s and Shore Regional’s challenges are not ripe for review. Respondents also contend
that the Borough of Sea Bright is a member of the Oceanport consolidated school district and
the Shore Regional limited purpose regional school district and therefore is one of the entities
1 Along with its petition of appeal, Shore Regional filed a motion to consolidate its petition (Agency Dkt. No. 190-
7/22) with Oceanport’s petition (Agency Dkt. No. 157-6/22). The parties subsequently provided a consent order in
which they agreed to the consolidation of the two petitions. The Commissioner concludes that the standards for
consolidation set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.3 have been met and, accordingly, orders that the two petitions be
consolidated.

3
authorized by N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11 to seek the Commissioner’s approval regarding a
regionalization referendum. Finally, respondents argue that placing the requested referenda
on the ballot for the November election is permissible, and further note that their request to
the Commissioner for approval seeks permission for that election or as soon thereafter as
permitted by law, such that they will be guided by the Commissioner’s direction on this issue.
In response, petitioners argue that there are disputed issues of material fact – for
example, whether Oceanport is a consolidated school district – that preclude dismissal at this
stage of the proceedings and instead warrant transmittal of the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law as a contested case. Petitioners assert that they will suffer harm in the
event of Sea Bright’s withdrawal, such that they have standing to pursue their petitions, and
that their petitions are ripe for review. Petitioners reiterate the arguments made in their
petitions, contending that Sea Bright does not have the authority to withdraw from Oceanport
and Shore Regional and that the requested referendum cannot be placed on the November
ballot.
Along with their opposition to the motions to dismiss, petitioners filed a motion to
consolidate their petitions with respondents’ request to the Commissioner for approval of their
referenda. However, the request for the Commissioner’s approval of respondents’ referenda is
not a controversy or dispute over which the Commissioner has jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9. Procedures related to the formation, enlargement, and dissolution of regional school
districts are set forth at N.J.S.A. 18A:13-34 et seq. Those procedures are entirely different than
the procedures related to the adjudication of controversies and disputes set forth in
N.J.A.C. 6A:3. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds it inappropriate to consolidate the matters

4
and denies petitioners’ motion to consolidate their petitions with respondents’ request for
approval of their referenda.
Upon review, the Commissioner grants respondents’ motion to dismiss. In evaluating a
motion to dismiss, “the inquiry is confined to a consideration of the legal sufficiency of the
alleged facts apparent on the face of the challenged claim.” Rieder v. State, 221 N.J. Super. 547,
552 (App. Div. 1987) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Commissioner must assume
the facts asserted by the petitioner are true. Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189,
192 (1988).
The resolutions passed by the respondents state that each entity: 1) finds that good
cause exists to pursue a referendum regarding regionalization; 2) seeks to have the referendum
placed on the November ballot with approval from the Commissioner; and 3) authorizes special
counsel to submit a petition to the Commissioner seeking approval of the referendum. The act
of passing a resolution is unquestionably within the authority of boards of education and the
governing bodies of municipalities. Moreover, the resolutions are fairly limited in substance.
They do not authorize the withdrawal of Sea Bright from Oceanport or Shore Regional, or the
placing of any measures on the ballot, or the creation, enlargement, or dissolution of any
regional school district. The resolutions only authorize the steps necessary to seek the
Commissioner’s approval of those actions. Even if petitioners are correct that Sea Bright does
not have the authority to withdraw from Oceanport or Shore Regional, or that there are any
other reasons for the Commissioner to deny respondents’ request for approval of their
referenda, that does not make the resolutions invalid. Boards of education and municipalities

5
may submit any number of requests to the Commissioner; if the ultimate disposition of those
requests is a denial, the submission of the request is not rendered improper.
Because the approval or denial of a regionalization referendum is governed by
N.J.S.A. 18A:34 and is not a controversy or dispute subject to the procedures set forth in
N.J.A.C. 6A:3, this decision does not reach the substance of any arguments regarding
Sea Bright’s ability to withdraw from Oceanport or Shore Regional. Those issues will be
considered by the Commissioner as part of the N.J.S.A. 18A:34 review. Additionally, pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, controversies and disputes concerning the conduct of school elections shall
not be deemed to arise under the school laws, and therefore any claims regarding the timing of
the requested referenda, if approved by the Commissioner, are not justiciable in this forum.
Accordingly, respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 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.
April 3, 2023
April 5, 2023