Catherine Coyle v. Board of Education of the City of Jersey City, Hudson County, 12/3/19, (#317-19)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Catherine Coyle,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Jersey City,
Hudson County,
Respondent,
and
Jersey City Education Association,
Intervenor.
Synopsis
Petitioner – a resident of the City of Jersey City – alleged that the Board violated the School Ethics Act,
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq., during negotiations members engaged in regarding a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA). The MOA related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Board
and the Jersey City Education Association (JCEA) that went into effect on July 1, 2019. Petitioner
contended, inter alia, that certain board members who participated in negotiations had conflicts of
interest, and that the Board had improperly invoked the Doctrine of Necessity in approving the MOA.
Petitioner sought to invalidate the MOA through an application for emergent relief, which was opposed
by the Board. A motion to intervene was filed on behalf of the JCEA, and was granted on July 3, 2019.
Emergent relief was denied on July 22, 2019. The Board filed a motion for summary decision on
August 6, 2019.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the only disputed facts herein pertain to whether the respondents violated
the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq.; there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case,
and the matter is ripe for summary decision; the threshold issue is whether the Commissioner of
Education has jurisdiction to consider the within petition; the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is limited to
matters that arise under the school laws, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9; petitioner’s claims involve alleged violations
of the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq., which fall under the jurisdiction of the School
Ethics Commission; and there is no incidental jurisdiction pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act as
claimed by petitioner. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and
dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, and adopted
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. 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.
December 3, 2019
317-19

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08804-19
Agency Dkt. No. 150-6/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Catherine Coyle,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Jersey City,
Hudson County
Respondent,
and
Jersey City Education Association,
Intervenor.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4
and the replies thereto filed by the Board and the intervenor, Jersey City Education Association (JCEA).
By way of background, the Board and JCEA negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) regarding a collective bargaining agreement that took effect on July 1, 2019. 	Petitioner – a
resident of the city of Jersey City – sought to invalidate the MOA in an emergent petition, alleging that
members of the Board violated the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq., by participating in the
negotiations while having conflicts of interest and that the Doctrine of Necessity was improperly invoked.
The Commissioner denied petitioner’s emergent application on July 22, 2019. 	Thereafter, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition, finding that the Commissioner does not have
jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the petition, which all involve alleged violations of the School
Ethics Act. Instead, the proper venue would be with the School Ethics Commission (SEC).

2
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the Commissioner has jurisdiction over her
claims because whether a board of education follows proper procedures in the negotiation and ratification
of teacher contracts falls under New Jersey School Law, as N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 requires Boards to act in
accordance with the law. Otherwise, a finding that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction would result in
the Commissioner having no oversight over a board negotiating a contract with a union. 	Additionally,
petitioner contends that the Commissioner has primary jurisdiction over this matter because he has
oversight over the Board due to the transition plan that returns local control to the district, and that the
Commissioner also has incidental jurisdiction over violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA),
N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq.
Petitioner further argues that the Commissioner has the authority to issue injunctions and
should enjoin the MOA. Petitioner maintains that she is not seeking relief under the School Ethics Act –
such as a reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal – so she should not be limited to the remedies
available under the Act.
Petitioner also contends that there are genuine issues of material fact that should preclude
summary decision. 	For example, the ALJ makes a finding that a Standing Committee on Labor
Negotiations was formed to manage the JCEA, but petitioner maintains that fact-finding is necessary to
determine whether the Board members who negotiated with the JCEA had the authority to do so.
Additionally, a hearing is necessary to determine if the doctrine of necessity was improperly invoked.1
In reply, the Board asks the Commissioner to adopt the Initial Decision because the ALJ
properly found that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over the allegations outlined in the petition. The
Board explains that the petition alleges three counts: “improper negotiations due to conflicts of interest”;
“unauthorized independent action by President and Vice President”; and “improper voting based on
defective doctrine of necessity.” (Petition at 14-19). All of those causes of action involve violations of
1 Petitioner also argues that the grant of summary decision is improper because the Board has not filed an
answer or responsive pleading. It is clear that the Board’s motion for summary decision is akin to a motion to
dismiss in lieu of an answer, permitted by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g), and the Board was directed by the ALJ to
proceed in this manner following the denial of emergent relief.

3
the School Ethics Act and do not arise under the school laws, as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 in
order to trigger the Commissioner’s jurisdiction. Petitioner’s argument that her claims arise under
N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 does not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner because even if, arguendo, the claims
did arise under this statute, the allegations would still require determinations by the SEC regarding the
underlying claims of board member conflict of interest and the doctrine of necessity.
The Board notes the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over contractual disputes, as the
negotiation of a contract between a board of education and a union does not fall under School Law but is
instead entered into under the Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.1 et seq. Therefore,
as the Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual matters, he also does not
have the authority to issue the injunction that petitioner seeks. Additionally, the Board points out that the
transition plan does not provide any authority for a private party to bring a claim to enforce its terms, nor
does it take away the SEC’s jurisdiction over violations of the School Ethics Act. Furthermore, the Board
explains that although petitioner did not include an OPMA claim in her petition, even if she had, the
Commissioner’s “incidental” jurisdiction over OPMA would not apply in this matter because he does not
have jurisdiction over the underlying claim.
Finally, the Board contends that there are no disputes of material fact that preclude the
entry of summary decision. The ALJ appropriately found that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over
the claims made by petitioner; therefore, he does not have jurisdiction to resolve any of the disputed
facts.2
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the he does not have
jurisdiction over this matter as the claims set forth in the petition do not arise out of New Jersey School
Law as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9; instead, they involve alleged violations of the School Ethics Act.
Whether Board members were conflicted or took unauthorized independent action – and whether the
Board properly invoked the Doctrine of Necessity – falls squarely within the SEC’s jurisdiction. N.J.S.A.
2 The arguments made by the JCEA in its reply exceptions are substantially similar to the arguments made by
the Board, and therefore will not be addressed in detail.

4
18A:12-21 et seq. The Commissioner does not find petitioner’s exceptions to be persuasive as they do
not demonstrate that the Commissioner has jurisdiction over this matter. 	Petitioner cannot attempt to
circumvent the SEC’s jurisdiction by claiming that her allegations arise under N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1, nor
does the transition plan confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner instead of the SEC. Additionally, as the
ALJ found, petitioner did not allege a violation of the OPMA; nevertheless, the Commissioner would not
have incidental jurisdiction over such a claim because the primary allegations fall under the SEC’s
jurisdiction. 	With respect to petitioner’s argument that there are genuine issues of material fact that
should preclude summary decision, it is within the SEC’s purview to make factual determinations, as the
Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over the petition.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted – for the reasons thoroughly
expressed in the Initial Decision – and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 3, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	December 3, 2019
3 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
AGY REF NO. 150-6/19
CATHERINE COYLE,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
JERSEY CITY, HUDSON COUNTY,
Respondent,
and
JERSEY CITY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Intervenor.
_________________________________________
Elizabeth M. Andes, Esq., for Petitioner (McAndrew Vuotto, attorneys)
Lawrence Bluestone, Esq., for Respondent (Genova Burns, attorneys)
Michael J. Gross, Esq., for Respondent (Kenney, Gross, Kovats & Parton,
attorneys)
Raymond M. Baldino, Esq., for Intervenor (Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum
& Friedman, attorneys)
Record Closed: August 29, 2019 	Decided: September 10, 2019
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
2
Petitioner filed a Petition with the Office of Controversies and Disputes in the
New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). The contested matter was transferred to
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:6A-12.1, where it was
filed on June 28, 2019, to be heard on an emergent basis.
Petitioner requests a ruling declaring a Memorandum of Understanding (MOA)
negotiated between the Respondent Board and the Jersey City Education Association
(JCEA) was done contrary to law and should be declared null and void. 	Petitioner
seeks on an emergent basis a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
against the implementation of the MOA.
JCEA submitted a motion to intervene on July 2, 2019. 	Oral argument on the
motion was held on July 3, 2019 prior to oral argument on the request for emergent
relief. 	The motion to intervene was granted on the record on July 3, 2019. 	A written
Order was also entered on July 3, 2019.
The application for emergent relief was heard on July 3, 2019.
Petitioner was given to July 9, 2019 to submit a supplemental brief to address
jurisdiction and potential remedies. 	No reply from Respondent or Intervenor was
permitted. 	Petitioner submitted her supplemental brief on July 9, 2019, whereupon the
record was closed on the request for emergent relief.
The undersigned, by order dated July 9, 2019, denied the request for emergent
relief, and ordered the matter dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Commissioner, in an Order on Emergent Relief dated July 22, 2019, adopted
the undersigned’s order denying emergent relief. 	The Commissioner further ordered
that the matter continue at the OAL “with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ
deem necessary to bring it to closure.” 	The Commissioner noted in a footnote that a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
3
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction cannot be made in an Order on Emergent Relief and
would require and Initial Decision, citing N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.1.
A telephone conference was held on July 29, 2019. 	No hearing date was set to
afford Respondent, Jersey City Board of Education, the opportunity to submit a motion
for summary decision.
Respondent filed its motion for summary decision on August 6, 2019. 	Petitioner
filed her response on August 23, 2019. 	Intervenor filed a letter brief in support of
Respondent’s motion on August 26, 2019. 	Respondent filed a sur reply on August 29,
2019, whereupon the record was closed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Respondent herein, the Jersey City Board of Education, negotiated a MOA
with the JCEA. 	This collective bargaining agreement took effect on July 1, 2019.
Petitioner filed her petition with the Commissioner on June 27, 2019. It was transferred
to the OAL on June 28, 2019, to be heard on an emergent basis. 	Petitioner alleges
certain violations of the School Ethics Act in that some members of the Respondent
Board had conflicts with the JCEA and should not have been involved in the negotiation
process.
Last year the JCEA went on strike. 	Thereafter the Board created a Standing
Committee on Labor Negotiations to manage the same. 	Labor counsel for the Board
conducted a conflict analysis to identify non-conflicted members for participation on the
standing committee. Any agreement negotiated by the standing committee is subject to
Board ratification.
The Board determined thereafter that a majority of the Board was conflicted from
matters involving collective bargaining with the JCEA. 	The Board determined that it
needed to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity. 	On three separate occasions the Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
4
read a resolution adopting the doctrine. The resolution was re-adopted by the Board at
its meeting on April 29, 2019. The Board then voted to approve the MOA.
The SEC provided an advisory opinion to the Board on June 3, 2019. The SEC,
in said advisory opinion, did not invalidate the Board’s adoption of the Doctrine of
Necessity.
Petitioner, in her petition, alleges three causes of action: Board president Sudhan
Thomas and vice president Lorenzo Richardson engaged in improper negotiations in
violation of the common law and the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24; the Board’s
invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity on March 7, 	March 28 and April 29, 2019 was
defective and in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21; and, the Board violated the School
Ethics Act by failing to obtain full Board approval before negotiating with the JCEA.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an 	application. Ibid. These 	provisions 	mirror 	the 	summary 	judgment 	language 	of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “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.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
5
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
The disputed facts in the instant matter all pertain to questions of whether or not
Respondents violated the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. 	No facts
alleged in the petition, or argued in Petitioner’s brief as being disputed, pertain to the
School Law. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 to 76-4, which would properly lay jurisdiction before the
Commissioner.
The threshold question in the instant matter is therefore one of jurisdiction: Does
the Commissioner, and therefore the OAL, have jurisdiction to consider the petition
herein.
The Commissioner of the Department of Education has jurisdiction over disputes
“arising under the school laws.” N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.
Should there be jurisdiction a second question arises: can the remedy of a
temporary restraining order on the MOA, and the voiding of the MOA be granted.
The answers to both questions clearly is no. 	The Commissioner, and therefore
the OAL, does not have jurisdiction as the claims set forth in the petition all hinge upon
alleged violation of the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. The proper venue
for the within matter would be the School Ethics Commission (SEC). 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
27.
Further, the SEC has no authority to grant the relief requested in the petition.
The SEC may impose the following sanctions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c):
Upon 	completion 	of 	the 	hearing, 	the 	commission, 	by 	majority 	vote, 	shall
determine whether the conduct complained of constitutes a violation of this act, or in the
case of a board member, this act or the code of ethics, or whether the complaint should

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
6
be dismissed. If a violation is found, the commission shall, by majority vote, recommend
to the commissioner the reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal of the school
official found to have violated this act, or in the case of a board member, this act or the
code of ethics. The commission shall state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions
of 	law. 	The 	commissioner 	shall 	then 	act 	on 	the 	commission's 	recommendation
regarding the sanction.
Further, should the Commissioner have jurisdiction on some other area of school
law, which I cannot determine exists, there is no authority for the Commissioner under
any area of school law that permits the issuance of a temporary restraining order or
injunctive relief of the MOA, which is a collective bargaining agreement.
Petitioner reargues the points made in her brief in support of the request for
emergent relief and the supplemental brief filed on July 9, 2019.
Petitioner again argues that the Respondent Board is formed pursuant the
School Law and is only authorized to act under the School Law. 	Petitioner further
argues that much of what the Board does is done pursuant to the School Law. N.J.S.A.
18A:1-1 to 76-4. 	While this argument rings true, it avoids the real issue herein: the
entire petition was brought under alleged violations of the School Ethics Act.
Petitioner then argues again that the Commissioner, and therefore the OAL, has
jurisdiction under the Transition Plan. 	The Transition Plan was issued by the New
Jersey Board of Education after it transferred control of the schools of Jersey City back
to the local Board of Education.
Nothing 	contained 	in 	the 	Transition 	Plan 	provides 	jurisdiction 	to 	the
Commissioner, and therefore the OAL, to hear a petition arising under the School Ethics
Act.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
7
Petitioner again claims the Commissioner has incidental jurisdiction as she
alleges that the Respondent Board violated the Open Public Meetings Act for not
properly noticing all its meetings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-9, and for not keeping all
meetings open to the public at all times in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:4-12. Petitioner cites
Gardner v. Board of Education of the City of Hackensack, Bergen County, OAL Dkt. No.
EDU 09421-12, 2013 WL 2467918, at *6 (OAL May 1, 2013), citing Sukin v. Northfield
Bd. of Educ., 171 N.J. Super. 184, 187 (App. Div. 1979).
Again, I note that Petitioner did not make any claim in the petition based upon a
violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. 	To suggest she did assert such a claim is
not accurate.
In Gardner the incidental jurisdiction of the Commissioner is based upon a
controversy under the school laws. 	In the instant matter there is a claim of jurisdiction
under the School Ethics Act.
As to Petitioner’s arguments regarding the remedy requested, an injunction,
Petitioner cites Shankar v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New Brunswick, Middlesex
County, et al., 13 N.J.A.R. 566, 576 (Jan. 2, 1990). 	The holding in Shankar has no
bearing on the instant matter. 	It revolved around a request for an injunction to name
petitioner valedictorian. 	It cannot be read to grant the Commissioner authority to issue
an injunction against the MOA where all the facts alleged revolve around violations of
the School Ethics Act.
Having determined that there is no jurisdiction of the Commission to hear this
matter, and therefore no jurisdiction for the OAL to hear it, the matter should be
dismissed.
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that Respondent’s motion for summary
decision be GRANTED; and that the petition should be DISMISSED with prejudice as
there is no jurisdiction to hear this matter.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
8
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED; and,
It is further ORDERED, as there is no jurisdiction to hear the underlying claim in
the petition, that the petition is dismissed with prejudice.
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 08804-19
9
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.
September 10, 2019
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08804-19
10
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision
Certification of Elizabeth M. Andes, Esq.
For Respondent:
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision
Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision
Letter sur reply brief
For Intervenor:
Letter brief is support of Motion for Summary Decision