D.H., on behalf of minor child, H.H. v. Board of Education of the City of Cape May, Cape May County, 10/10/25 (#478-25)

478-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09625-24
Agency Dkt. No. 174-5/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.H., on behalf of minor child, H.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Cape May,
Cape May County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by respondent Cape May Board of Education (Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto filed by petitioner, D.H., have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner appeals the Board’s four-day, out-of-school suspension of his minor child, H.H.
The suspension arises from a conversation between H.H. and another student while riding the
bus to Cape May City Elementary School (school) on February 8, 2024. The two discussed using
dynamite to blow up the school on a weekend rather than on a weekday, so that no one would
get hurt. H.H. believed that the conversation was a joke but began to feel uncomfortable. When
the bus arrived at school, H.H. tried to get away from the other student but could not because
their classrooms were in the same direction. Simultaneously, the other student proceeded to
point to places in the building where he could place a bomb.

2
Mrs. Varades, a paraprofessional, was in the hallway when she overheard the other
student discuss placing the bombs in the school hallway. She reported what she overheard to
the Supervisor of Early Childhood Education and coordinator for the Intervention and Referral
Services, Leann Tarr. Tarr spoke to H.H., who confirmed Mrs. Varades’s account. Tarr returned
H.H. to his classroom and then spoke with the other student. 	After returning him to his
classroom, Tarr approached school psychologist Shawna Mulford with what she had learned.
Tarr then called Superintendent Zachary Palombo and read him the notes she took during her
conversations with Varades, H.H., and the other student. Palombo, who was not present at the
school, hung up, called the police, and drove to the school. Next, Tarr took H.H. and the other
student from their classes and brought them to her office for a threat assessment.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:17-43.4, districts are required to establish a threat assessment
team at each school. Mulford is a member of the school’s Behavior Threat Assessment Team
(TEAM). The purpose of TEAM is to provide administrators, teachers, and staff with assistance in
identifying students with behaviors of concern; assessing those students’ risk for engaging in
violence or other harmful activities; and delivering intervention strategies to manage the risk of
harm for students who pose a potential safety risk. (N.J.S.A. 18A: 17-43.4; Exhibit J-1). Mulford
administered H.H.’s risk assessment along with school social worker and fellow TEAM member
Allison Crowther. Tarr was also present for the assessment, but as an observer.
Mulford questioned H.H. using the Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management
(BTAM)’s model questions and paraphrased his responses. Mulford noted that H.H. admitted to
the conversation on the bus and that he had said that the best time to blow up the school would
be on a weekend, so no one would get hurt. 	Mulford wrote that H.H. “displayed remorse,

3
compassion” and noted that H.H. had not engaged in attack-related behavior. Exhibit J-4, at 42.
Regarding H.H.’s potential for violence, she wrote, “[t]here has not been a pattern of behavior
preceding this event/Not at this time.” Id. at 43. Mulford wrote that H.H. “described the incident
as ‘all a joke’” and that he “[s]howed remorse for the discussion and compassion for people that
could potentially be hurt if the actions discussed were to come to fruition.” Ibid.
Superintendent Palombo is a member of TEAM; however, he recused himself from both
students’ threat assessments. 	When Palombo returned to the school, he conducted his own
inquiry regarding the incident. First, he searched H.H.’s and the other student’s bookbags and
found nothing of concern. Then Palombo met with each student separately, during which H.H.
admitted to having had the conversation on the bus about blowing up the school using dynamite
on a weekend. Following Palombo’s questioning and the TEAM’s risk assessment, Palombo met
with H.H.’s parents, whom he had contacted earlier that morning. Mulford and two members of
law enforcement were also present at the meeting.
At the meeting, petitioner asked if the matter would be treated as a bomb threat.
Palombo responded that it would likely be considered a terroristic threat, but additional
information would be provided via mail. On or about the following day, H.H.’s parents received
a letter from the Board, dated February 8, 2024, that stated the following:
This letter is to inform you that [H.H.] is suspended from school
today, 	Thursday, 	February 	8, 	2024 	through 	tomorrow 	[sic],
Tuesday, February 13, 2024 due to making comments that could be
potentially dangerous to others. A re-entry meeting must be held
prior to his return to school on Wednesday, February 14, 2024.
Additional 	incidents 	will 	result 	in 	further 	disciplinary
consequences.
Exhibit J-2, at 25.

4
Palombo was the sole disciplinarian in this matter. He did not consult TEAM or review the results
of the threat assessment before issuing H.H.’s suspension.
The re-entry meeting was held on February 14, 2024. 	H.H., his parents, Palombo,
Mulford, Crowther, and the Supervisor of Student Services, Alexis Cartagena, were in attendance.
After confirming with Palombo that he had an “anchor” (or a support system) in the school, H.H.
was returned to class. Prior to the meeting, petitioner requested all documentation regarding
H.H.’s disciplinary record and suspension. At the meeting, Palombo provided petitioner with a
copy of H.H.’s disciplinary report. Listed under the “Incident Code” is “205 – High Five Rule #2:
Be Responsible (Bomb Threat).” 	The report’s “Incident Description (internal)” includes the
following statement: “Student was overheard speaking about placing bombs in the school with
another student and coming up with a plan to blow up the school.” Exhibit J-3 at 26. Palombo
drafted the incident report using the Board’s online reporting system.
Several hours after the re-entry meeting, petitioner sent Palombo an email seeking
clarification 	about 	H.H.’s 	suspension 	“because he now has 	multiple reasons for being
suspended.” 	Exhibit J-3 at 36. 	Petitioner also took issue with statements in H.H.’s discipline
report, specifically that H.H. was overheard speaking about placing bombs in the school and that
he came up with a plan to blow up the school. Petitioner asked Palombo what factors listed in
the School Handbook’s Disciplinary Guide (e.g. the severity of the offense, the development level
of the student offender, his age, and the student’s history of inappropriate behavior) were
considered when he made the decision to suspend.
On February 19, 2024, Palombo responded to petitioner’s request for clarification on the
reason for suspension with the following sections from the Handbook: “A pupil whose presence

5
poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic
process, may be suspended or expelled following the process.” Exhibit J-5, at 28. In addition,
Palombo clarified that H.H.’s behavior was considered by School Administration to be a Type Four
Offense “because they encompassed: (1) terrorist threats and (2) other student behaviors that
most seriously disrupt the school environment or seriously endanger the welfare or safety of
other students or school personnel.” Ibid.1 Lastly, Palombo wrote that he considered H.H.’s “age,
development, history of discipline, severity of the offense at issue, the actual impact and
potential impact of [H.H.’s] statements and actions, and the need to enforce the School’s policies
and disciplinary code.” Exhibit J-5, at 28.
Petitioner appealed Palombo’s determination to the Board, who affirmed the suspension.
Petitioner then appealed the matter to the Commissioner of Education. Following a contested
hearing at the OAL, during which petitioner, Palombo, Tarr, Mulford, Crowther, and Cartagena
testified, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Board’s decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable as “the charges that H.H. committed a Terrorist Threat – Type Four
Offense, constituted a continuing danger or a disruptive presence, or made a bomb threat are
unfounded.” Initial Decision at 16. The ALJ found that Palombo did not provide a satisfactory
explanation as to why he relied on his discretionary authority and not the Handbook in imposing
discipline.
As to the charge that H.H. committed a Terrorist Threat – Type Four Offense, the ALJ
determined that while it was reasonable to conduct a threat assessment, it was unreasonable for
1 The specific offense in the Student Handbook is “Terroristic threats (pending a threat assessment).”
Exhibit J-20, at 361.

6
Palombo to ignore the results of the threat assessment and arbitrarily impose discipline. 	In
reaching her determination, the ALJ cited the fact that under the Student Handbook, a terrorist
threat is a Type Four offense pending a threat assessment. The ALJ found that the evidence from
the threat assessment established that H.H. did not have the capacity to carry out an act of
targeted violence; that H.H. was not violent; and that he did not pose an immediate threat or a
continuing danger to other people or property. As such, the ALJ concluded that Palombo had
contradicted the Handbook by continuing to refer to H.H.’s behavior as a Type Four Offense
despite the threat assessment proving otherwise.
Regarding the charge that H.H. was a disruptive presence, the ALJ relied on the
testimonies of Tarr, Mulford, and Crowther, whom she deemed provided “honest assessments”
of the events of February 8, 2024. Id. at 11. The ALJ found that other than the time it took them
to conduct the threat assessment, there was no disruption to the school environment as there
was no lockdown or other extraordinary measure taken. In doing so, the ALJ rejected Palombo’s
assertion that H.H.’s actions seriously disrupted the school environment. 	Ultimately, the ALJ
concluded that the credible evidence shows that H.H. did not pose a threat or a disruption to the
school environment.
As to the charge that H.H. made a bomb threat, the ALJ deemed it unfounded. In her
analysis, the ALJ found that despite drafting H.H.’s discipline report, Palombo could not credibly
explain why the February 8 th incident was given the incident code, “205 – High 5 Rule #2: Be
Responsible (Bomb Threat)” in the report. Specifically, the ALJ found that Palombo could not
explain why this section of the Student Code of Conduct was applicable or why the words, “bomb

7
threat” were added.2 Furthermore, citing to the Handbook, the ALJ found that the penalty for a
violation of a High 5 Rule is detention, not a suspension, and noted that Palombo provided no
explanation for the discrepancy in H.H.’s punishment. 	The ALJ further found that Palombo
initially told H.H.’s parents that he did not consider the matter to be a bomb threat but changed
course without notifying the parents or providing an explanation.
Lastly, the ALJ concluded that Palombo’s testimony – that he was mandated to recuse
himself from the TEAM because his role as a disciplinarian must be separate from the threat
assessment – is inconsistent with the District’s Student Safety Assessment Guidebook (Student
Safety Guidebook) and the Student Handbook. Accordingly, the ALJ reversed the suspension and
ordered that the Board expunge from H.H.’s record any disciplinary record regarding the
February 8, 2024, incident.
In its exceptions, the Board contends that the ALJ erred in relying on the BTAM process
as a benchmark for evaluating the appropriateness of H.H.’s suspension. The Board argues that
in doing so, the ALJ erroneously conflated the BTAM process and the disciplinary process. The
Board further argues that this conflation undermines the legislative intent of the BTAM process,
which is to maintain a non-adversarial mechanism used to manage potential safety risks, rather
than to impose student discipline. Second, the Board takes exception to the ALJ’s determination
that Palombo’s recusal from the TEAM was inappropriate given the Student Handbook and the
Student Safety Guidebook. The Board contends that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A: 17-43.4
provides districts with discretion in the composition of threat assessment teams. Furthermore,
2 The District’s Student Code of Conduct’s High 5 Rule #2 does not mention bomb threats. See Exhibit J-
20, at 358.

8
the Board argues that as the disciplinarian in this matter, Palombo correctly recused himself from
the TEAM to preserve impartiality in the disciplinary process. 	Third, the Board contends that
even if the Superintendent’s recusal was inappropriate, such an error should be excused under
the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance. 	Lastly, citing case law, the Board argues that its
suspension decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
In response, petitioner contends that the ALJ correctly determined that the Board’s
decision to suspend H.H. was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable because (1) Palombo did not
consider H.H.’s age, development, or grade level when rendering the suspension determination;
(2) Palombo did not consider imposing disciplinary action at the lowest level possible in
accordance with the Student Handbook; (3) H.H. never admitted to making a threat or plan to
blow up the school; rather, he admitted to participating in an inappropriate bus conversation;
and (4) Palombo provided petitioner with several different justifications for the suspension,
thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to understand the accusation in time and to
prepare a meaningful defense. Lastly, petitioner contends that the case law cited by the Board
in support of its determination is distinguishable from the instant matter.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s determination that the Board’s
suspension of H.H. was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, as the charges that H.H.
committed a Terroristic Threat – Type Four Offense or made a bomb threat are unfounded.3 With
respect to the charge that H.H.’s behavior disrupted the school environment, the Commissioner
3 The Commissioner acknowledges the seriousness of H.H.’s behavior. 	However, a student facing
discipline is entitled to procedural protections even for serious offenses, and a board of education’s
decision to impose discipline must not be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

9
agrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable in
issuing the four-day suspension, but disagrees with the ALJ as to the reasoning.
One of Palombo’s justifications for suspension was the catchall provision from the
Student 	Handbook – 	“Other 	student 	behaviors 	that 	most seriously 	disrupt the 	school
environment or seriously endanger the welfare or safety of other students or school personnel.”
Contrary to the ALJ’s finding, the evidence on the record indicates that the February 8 th incident
seriously disrupted the school environment. Mulford and Crowther were pulled away from their
daily responsibilities to conduct H.H.’s threat assessment; Palombo, who was providing coverage
for a senior administrator in the West Cape May School District on the day of the incident, had
to return to the school to search the students’ bags and to question them. Nonetheless, although
the incident might have caused a substantial disruption, the suspension must be overturned
given the Board’s many procedural deficiencies in imposing H.H.’s suspension.
The record confirms that on or about February 9, 2024, H.H.’s parents received a letter in
the mail identifying the date of the suspension and the charge – “making comments that could
be potentially dangerous to others” – as mandated by N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 (a)(3)(i). However, the
facts upon which the charge was based, the provisions of the code of student conduct that H.H.
was accused of violating, and the articulation of H.H.’s due process rights (see N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2
(a)(3)(ii), (iii) and (iv)) were not included in the notice, contrary to regulatory requirements. Also
missing from the letter were the terms and conditions of H.H’s suspension. N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2
(a)(3)(v).
Palombo further contributed to the impact of these procedural deficiencies when he
provided petitioner with various justifications for the suspension in the days following the

10
incident. 	First, the charge was “making comments that could be potentially dangerous to
others,” a charge not found in the Student Handbook; next it was categorized as a “High 5 Rule
#2: Be Responsible (Bomb Threat); lastly, on February 19, 2024, over a week and a half after the
incident, Palombo identified the charge as a Type Four Offense (pending threat assessment) even
though the threat assessment had already been completed and had determined that H.H. was
not a threat.
Palombo could not credibly explain why he kept changing the reason for suspension.
Palombo also could not credibly explain why H.H.’s behavior constituted a terroristic threat after
the threat assessment had been completed, nor could he credibly explain why he chose to
suspend H.H for four days. 	The ALJ found that Mulford’s, Tarr’s, and Crowther’s testimonies
undermined Palombo’s explanation as to why a four-day suspension was warranted. Palombo
testified that the purpose of the four-day suspension was to provide H.H. a cooling-off period,
and to give the school the time needed to plan for H.H.’s return; however, there was no testimony
indicating that a plan for H.H.’s return or his need for services was considered. The ALJ also noted
that no services were offered to H.H. during the re-entry meeting, and although Palombo asked
H.H. if he had an “anchor” of support at the school, nothing further was discussed.
The Commissioner does not find the Board’s exceptions to be persuasive. 	While the
Board is correct that the BTAM and disciplinary processes are separate and distinct under N.J.S.A.
18A:17-43.4 and the School’s Student Safety Guidebook, the Commissioner notes that the Board,
by its own terms, made the threat assessment relevant to the disciplinary process when it created
a category for “Terroristic threats (pending threat assessment)” in its Handbook. 	Once H.H.’s
threat assessment was complete, Palombo should have reviewed the results to determine if H.H.

11
was, in fact, a threat. The Commissioner acknowledges that it would not have been unreasonable
for Palombo to have considered the incident a “Terroristic threat, pending threat assessment”
initially; however, it was unreasonable for Palombo disregard the outcome of the assessment
once it was no longer pending.
The Board also argues that the ALJ erred in determining that Palombo’s recusal from the
TEAM was inappropriate given the Student Handbook and the Student Safety Guidebook which,
according to the ALJ, provide a role for the School Administrator on the threat assessment team.
The Board contends that the BTAM statute offers schools flexibility in structing their threat
assessment teams. The Board also cited the text of the BTAM statute, which states, “A threat
assessment team established by a board of education . . . shall be multidisciplinary in membership
and, to the extent possible, shall include . . . (3) a school principal or other senior administrator.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:17-43.4(b). 	The Commissioner agrees with the Board that the statute does not
require Palombo’s membership specifically. 	The Student Safety Guidebook also requires the
membership of a “school principal or other senior school administrator.” 	This means that a
senior school administrator must be on the TEAM; however, this person did not have to be
Palombo. As such, Palombo was not unreasonable in recusing himself from the TEAM. Although
the Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ regarding the appropriateness of Palombo’s recusal,
the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that Palombo was unreasonable in ignoring the results of
the threat assessment, for the reasons described above.
Lastly, in support of its contention that Palombo exercised discretion appropriately to
maintain school safety, the Board cites to case law wherein suspensions were upheld for students
who committed various disciplinary infractions. 	Even if those students were suspended, the

12
Commissioner reviews each matter carefully on a case-by-case basis and does not find that the
outcomes of other matters involving student discipline require a particular result here.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified, is adopted as the final decision in this
matter. The Board’s decision to suspend H.H. for the February 8, 2024, incident is reversed, and
all references thereto shall be expunged from H.H.’s student records.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 10, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	October 10, 2025
4 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 174-5/24
D.H. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, H.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
CAPE MAY, CAPE MAY COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
D.H., petitioner/parent, pro se on behalf of H.H.
Christopher Barrett, Esq., for respondent (Barton Gilman, LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 5, 2025 	Decided: June 10, 2025
BEFORE KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The petitioner D.H. challenged the decision by respondent Board of Education of
the City of Cape May (Board) imposing a four-day out-of-school suspension on his son,
H.H. Petitioner alleged that the suspension was unwarranted. Petitioner further alleged
that the suspension was invalid because it contravened the regulation for short term
suspensions, 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:17-7.2, 	the 	State 	of 	New 	Jersey 	Guidance 	on 	the
Establishment of Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Teams (BTAM) 2023,
and the Cape May City Elementary School Student/Parent Handbook (Handbook). 	On

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
2
February 8, 2024, Chief School Administrator, Zachary Palombo (Palombo) suspended
H.H. for “making comments that could be potentially dangerous to others.” 	(J-2.) 	The
issue is whether the Board’s decision in upholding the suspension was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 31, 2024, the petitioner filed a petition with the Commissioner of the
Department of Education (Commissioner) contesting discipline entered by the Board
against his minor son, H.H. while he was a sixth-grade student at Cape May City
Elementary School (Cape May).
In lieu of an 	Answer, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 12, 2024, with
the New Jersey State Department of Education (DOE). 	On July 16, 2024, the Office of
Controversies and Disputes within the DOE transmitted the case to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to
-15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the
Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
At the initial telephone conference, the Board withdrew its Motion to Dismiss and
the matter proceeded. 	I entered the Prehearing Order on November 7, 2024, with the
original hearing date scheduled for January 15, 2025. During a telephone conference on
December 27, 2024, the parties advised they were not able to resolve their discovery
dispute, so I allowed petitioner to file a motion to compel discovery. After reviewing the
motion and opposition, I entered an Order on January 23, 2025, denying the motion.
The hearing was held on March 12, 2025. I granted the parties request to obtain
a transfer of the hearing and to submit written summations. I closed the record on May
5, 2025, after receiving the summation briefs.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the unrefuted testimony of the parties and the joint documents in
evidence, I FIND the following as FACT:
H.H. was a sixth grade student at Cape May during the 2023-24 school year.
While riding the bus to school on February 8, 2024, H.H. engaged in a conversation with
a classmate. (J-21.) The discussion involved using dynamite to blow up the school on a
weekend, so no one would get hurt. 	H.H. thought the conversation was a joke, but as
they continued to talk, he started to feel uneasy. 	When the bus arrived at school, H.H.
wanted to distance himself from this classmate but he could not because they were
headed in the same direction to their classrooms. 	Ibid. 	The other student kept talking
and pointed to places in the building where he could put a bomb. (J-14, at 68.)
Mrs. Varades is a paraprofessional in the first grade classroom. She was not on
the bus. 	She overheard the student talking about placing bombs in the school hallway
and she told him not to talk that way in school. 	The student talking about placing bombs
was walking with H.H.
Leeann Tarr (Tarr) was in her preschool classroom welcoming students when Mrs.
Varades approached her to report what she had overheard. 	First, Tarr spoke to H.H.,
who confirmed what Mrs. Varades overheard. After their brief discussion, Tarr took H.H.
back to gym class and met with the other student. Tarr took notes of what Mrs. Varades
reported and of her conversation with each of the students. (J-14.)
After taking the other student back to his classroom, Tarr reported what she
learned 	to the school psychologist, Shawna Mulford (Mulford). 	She then called the
Superintendent, Palombo, who was not present in the building, and read him her notes.
After verifying from Tarr that the reporting was from a reliable source, Palombo hung up
the phone and called the Cape May City Police Department. At Palombo’s request, police
were dispatched to the school and a search warrant was obtained to search petitioner’s
home. Palombo also called H.H.’s parents and requested they come to school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
4
Mulford, as the school psychologist, was a member of the Behavior Threat
Assessment Team (TEAM). She sent Tarr to get the students and bring them to her office
for a threat assessment. 	Next, Mulford contacted Allison Crowther, the school social
worker, who was also a designated member of the TEAM. 	Mulford assembled the
guidance paperwork from the BTAM, which she used as a framework when questioning
H.H. 	She utilized the BTAM’s model questions known as the “Eleven Key Questions.”
(J-6, 42-43.) The stated purpose of these questions is as follows:
The goal of a Threat Assessment Team is to ultimately keep
all students safe, including those who may have intent on
doing harm. The Team will navigate through questions such
as the eleven below (posed in varied methods) to help identify
students of concern, assess the risk for their engagement with
violence and/or other potential harmful activities, and identify
intervention strategies to manage that risk. These have been
compiled through multiple databases and resources and most
commonly 	used 	by 	Threat 	Assessment 	Teams 	when
gathering 	information 	regarding 	a 	reported 	concern 	or
evaluating a potential risk, as there are follow up questions
paired with each of these eleven areas of inquiry.
[Ibid.]
Mulford administered the guidance questions and took notes, recording H.H.’s
answers. Ibid. 	She paraphrased H.H.’s responses and noted that he said that the best
time to “blow up the school would be on a weekend” because “during the week everyone
would die.” She noted that H.H. “displayed remorse, compassion.” (J-6, 42.) As noted
on the form, in Mulford’s opinion, H.H. did not have the capacity to carry out an act of
targeted violence. 	She noted no concerning behaviors. 	Ibid. 	She also did not believe
there was a likelihood that H.H. would engage in or resort to violence. (J-6, 43.) In her
notes, Mulford wrote: 	“Showed remorse for the discussion and compassion for people
that could potentially be hurt if the actions discussed were to come to fruition.” Ibid.
Upon arriving at school, Mr. Palombo met with the students in his office. 	He
searched their backpacks and found nothing concerning. This was H.H.’s first time in the
principal’s office. 	Palombo met with each student separately. 	H.H. admitted his

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
5
involvement in the bus conversation to blow up the school using dynamite on a weekend.
Palombo believed that H.H. showed remorse.
Palombo is the sole disciplinarian; he was not part of the TEAM that assessed the
risk. 	He believed the conduct warranted a suspension and he imposed a four day
suspension because anything longer would have required home instruction.
After meeting with H.H., Palombo met with H.H.’s parents, Mulford, and two police
officers. At the conclusion of the meeting, Palombo handed the parents the suspension
letter:
This letter is to inform you that [H.H.] is suspended from
school today, Thursday, February 8, 2024 through tomorrow
[sic] Tuesday, February 13, 2024 due to making comments
that could be potentially dangerous to others. 	A re-entry
meeting 	must 	be 	held 	prior 	to 	his 	return 	to 	school 	on
Wednesday, February 14, 2024. 	Additional incidents will
result in further disciplinary consequences.
[J-2, 25.]
The above letter became part of H.H.’s student file. 	Palombo also created a
Discipline Report that listed the offense under the “Incident Code 205-High Five Rule #2
– Be Responsible (Bomb Threat).” (J-3, 26.) 	The Discipline Report could be disclosed
if it was specifically requested.
The 	Discipline Report contained an internal description of the incident that was
different from the public description of the incident. 	“Incident Description (internal)”
stated:
Student was overheard speaking about placing bombs in the
school with another student and coming up with a plan to blow
up the school. 	Crisis Team contacted for investigation.
Student admitted to having conversation and complied fully
with administration and crisis team. CMCPD contacted as per
state code/mandatory reporting. 	Parent contacted. 	Parent
Meeting 02/08/24 10:30 a.m. Student suspended 4 days OSS;
re-entry meeting 9:30 a.m. 021424.
[Ibid.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
6
The “Incident Description (Public)” stated that “Student was overheard speaking
about actions potentially dangerous to others in the school with another student.” Ibid.
The 	re-entry 	meeting 	occurred 	on 	February 	14, 	2024. 	Palombo, 	Mulford,
Crowther, and Alexis Cartagena, Supervisor of Student Services, were present along with
H.H. and his parents. 	After a brief exchange between Palombo and H.H. wherein H.H.
confirmed that he had trusted teachers in the school as support, Palombo released him
to class.
Prior to the meeting, D.H. requested all documentation concerning his son’s
suspension and his entire disciplinary record. At the meeting Palombo gave D.H. a copy
of the internal disciplinary report. 	(J-3.) 	After a tense but calm exchange, Palombo
advised the parents that they could appeal the discipline to the Board of Education.
Following the re-entry meeting a series of emails were exchanged between D.H.
and Palombo. On February 14, 2024, D.H. sent an email asking for clarification about his
son’s 	suspension 	and 	questioning 	whether 	the 	School’s 	Disciplinary 	Guide 	was
considered. (J-5, 35-36.) On February 19, 2024, Palombo responded and advised D.H.
that pursuant to his request for an appeal, the Board of Education would consider his
appeal at their February 22, 2024, meeting. (J-5, 27.) In response to D.H.’s request for
clarification, Palombo cited to sections of the Handbook which referred to a “pupil whose
presence poses a continuing danger to persons or property, or an ongoing threat of
disrupting the academic process, may be suspended.” 	Referencing the Handbook,
Palombo further clarified that H.H.‘s statements were considered “to be a Type Four
Offense because they encompassed: (1) terrorist threats and (2) other student behaviors
that most seriously disrupt the school environment or seriously endanger the welfare or
safety of other students or school personnel.” (J-5, 28.) In closing, Palombo stated that
prior to imposing discipline, he considered H.H.’s “age, development, history of discipline,
severity of the offense at issue, the actual impact and potential impact of your son’s
statements and actions, and the need to enforce the School’s policies and disciplinary
code were all considered.” Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
7
H.H. is a gifted student with no prior disciplinary history. 	He is chronologically
younger than his classmates. While attending school in North Carolina, H.H. was able to
complete second and third grade work requirements during his second grade and he
advanced to fourth grade, skipping the third grade.
D.H. objected to the short notice for his appeal to the Board. 	By letter, dated
February 	26, 2024, Palombo notified D.H. that the meeting would be adjourned until
March 21, 2024. (J-5, 39-41.) After another adjournment, the meeting occurred on April
18, 2024. 	By letter, dated April 19, 2024, John Thomas, Business Administrator/Board
Secretary, notified petitioner that the Board voted to affirm the School Administrator’s
decision with respect to his son’s disciplinary matter. (J-10, 55.)
Testimony
The following is not a verbatim recitation of the testimony, but a summary of
pertinent testimony in areas of dispute.
D.H. believed his son’s punishment for his role in the incident of February 8, 2024,
was excessive and without support in the school’s literature or New Jersey regulation, or
legislation. He reviewed the Cape May City School District Student Safety Assessment
Support Guidebook (Guidebook) (J-1), the Cape May City Elementary School District
Safety and Security Plan (Safety and Security Plan) (J-15), Threat Assessments in
Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School
Climates (J-17), the BTAM 2023 (J-19), and the Handbook (J-20). He also reviewed the
regulation for short term suspension, N.J.A.C. 6A:17-7.2 and the legislation reciting the
causes for suspension under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2.
After finding no support to justify Palombo’s decision to suspend H.H. for four days,
D.H. questioned Palombo in a series of emails. 	D.H. believed that Palombo’s answers
were contradictory or non-responsive.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
8
At the time of the incident, H.H. was ten years old, attending sixth grade at Cape
May Elementary School. 	After this incident, H.H. finished his sixth-grade year at Cape
May, without incident.
For seventh grade, H.H.’s parents tried to enroll him as a non-resident tuition
student in the Avalon School District. When Avalon did not accept H.H.’s application, the
parents decided to home school their son for the 2024-2025 school year. The petitioner
is very concerned about how Cape May’s discipline decision will adversely affect H.H.
and prevent him from attending the schools of his choice in the future.
Leeanne Tarr is the supervisor for early childhood education, the coordinator for
the intervention and referral services, and the liaison for the partners in education
program. Tarr is familiar with H.H. because he was in her social and emotional learning
class when he was in fifth grade.
On the morning of February 8, 2024, Tarr was in her preschool classroom
welcoming students when she was approached by a staff member, who overheard a
student in the hallway saying where he would put bombs. 	H.H. was not the student
talking, he was identified as the other student involved. Tarr believed that H.H. responded
to her questions and provided information in a forthcoming and willing manner.
Shawna Mulford, as the school psychologist was an integral part of the TEAM.
All TEAM members participated in mandatory training under the BTAM. 	Beginning in
November 2022, Mulford attended seven different training sessions in this field.
Mulford recalled that H.H. repeated that he did not intend this to happen and he
was sorry. Regardless, Mulford still had to go through the protocol and treat the situation
seriously. She felt her questioning was thorough and was confident that the situation was
handled appropriately.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
9
In this case, Mulford was not consulted as to discipline. Palombo informed her of
the four-day suspension. She transcribed her personal notes, but did not share them with
Palombo prior to his decision to suspend H.H.
In her experience, the school’s disciplinary code is separate from a threat
assessment. 	The purpose of the TEAM is to mitigate potential threats to the school or
student body. The TEAM also deploys interventions to avoid anything from happening in
the future.
Allison Crowther is a social worker for Cape May and part of the TEAM. Crowther
knew H.H. as a sixth-grade student at Cape May and she would see him at lunch. She
starts her day by standing in the hallway and greeting the students as they arrive.
She learned of this incident from Mulford and Tarr, when they asked for her help
in conducting the threat assessment. 	Her role was to provide support to the students, if
needed. Although she jotted notes on a single sheet of paper, she had no recollection of
what she had written. (J-13, 67.) Her recollection was that H.H. was upset. To reassure
him, she talked to H.H. about dogs and things that would interest him.
Zachary Palombo is the shared Superintendent or Chief School Administrator for
the Cape May and West Cape May School Districts. He serves as the Principal and the
Director of Special Education at both buildings. He is also a trained member of the TEAM.
Palombo determines appropriate discipline when it involves a potentially dangerous
situation or involves harm. He is the sole decision maker when removing a student from
school.
Upon receiving the information from Tarr about a bomb threat he immediately
notified the Cape May City Police Department, as a mandatory reporter. 	Palombo
contacted the police before the student’s bags were searched. He testified that he would
always err on the side of caution and contact the police if there was a potential that
explosives could be in the building.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
10
At his initial meeting with the parents, Palombo told them he did not see this as a
bomb threat. He considered it to be more of a terroristic threat and he would investigate
it more closely.
Palombo believed that H.H.’s conduct required suspension. 	H.H. was a smart
boy, who admitted to participating in the conversation. 	The details of the conversation
showed that there was a plan. The Student Code of Conduct in the Handbook is used as
a guide, but Palombo has the ultimate authority and discretion in determining appropriate
discipline.
Palombo recused himself from the TEAM because he believed discipline is a
separate matter. 	He viewed the purpose of the TEAM was to gain information and be
prepared to offer services when the student returns to school.
After giving H.H. due process, wherein he admitted to having the conversation
about potentially using explosives to blow up the school, Palombo imposed the four-day
suspension to teach H.H. a lesson. All suspensions must be reported to the Department
of Education. Palombo viewed the incident as causing a disturbance in his educational
environment.
Palombo administered the same four-day suspension to both students.
Additional Factual Findings
It is the obligation of the fact finder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. In determining credibility, I am aware that the Board employees were
motivated to ensure the safety of their students and school. 	I am also aware that D.H.
loves his son and wants to protect him from being unfairly impacted by the Board’s
decision. In addition to considering each witness’ interest in the outcome of the matter, I
observed their demeanor, tone, and physical actions. I also considered the accuracy of
their recollection; their ability to know and recall relevant facts and information; the
reasonableness of their testimony; their demeanor, willingness, or reluctance to testify;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
11
their candor or evasiveness; any inconsistent or contradictory statements; and the
inherent believability of their testimony.
When challenged for an answer to justify the suspension, Palombo continuously
relied on his discretionary authority to impose discipline. 	During cross-examination,
Palombo was cavalier in his responses and his demeanor was dismissive when petitioner
questioned why he deviated from the Handbook. 	Palombo did not supply a satisfactory
response explaining why he relied on his discretionary authority and not the Handbook in
imposing discipline.
Tarr, Mulford, and Crowther provided honest assessments of the unusual events
of February 8, 2024, to their best recollection. 	They acted appropriately in swiftly
investigating this incident. 	Any language involving a plan to blow up a school must be
taken seriously. 	They were professional and unbiased in their demeanor. 	They
expressed legitimate concern but not panic. 	Other than the time it took to conduct the
threat assessment; there was no disruption to school services. There was no lockdown
or any other extraordinary measures taken. 	Thus, there was no credible evidence to
support Palombo’ bold assertions that H.H.’s behaviors seriously disrupted the school
environment.
The testimony from the Board’s witnesses about the re-entry meeting contradicted
Palombo’s justification for the need for a four-day suspension. The witnesses seemed to
recall D.H.’s frustration rather than focusing on the purpose and intent of the meeting.
Palombo explained the purpose of a four-day suspension by saying that the student
needed a cooling off period, and the school needed time to plan for his return. There was
no testimony about any consideration of a plan for H.H.’s return or his need for services.
The school social worker, Crowther, and the school psychologist, Mulford, were present
at the meeting but provided no input. Palombo asked H.H. about “anchors” but there was
nothing further discussed and no services offered. 	This lack of attention to the re-entry
meeting undermined Palombo’s assessment of the need for planning to accommodate
H.H.’s return to school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
12
Petitioner questioned Palombo about the internal discipline report that referred to
the incident as a “bomb threat.” (J-3.) Palombo created the discipline report that assigned
the incident code “205 - High 5 Rule #2,” to this incident. However, he could not articulate
why this section of the Student Code of Conduct was applicable, or why the words “bomb
threat” were included. (J-20, 358.) Under the Handbook, the discipline for students who
do not adhere to the District High Five Rules is detention. 	(J-20, 368.) 	In imposing
suspension, contrary to the Handbook, Palombo relied on his discretionary authority to
impose discipline as he deemed appropriate without any explanation why he assigned
alternative consequences.
Based on the credible testimony and the documentary evidence, I FIND the
following as ADDITIONAL FACTS:
Cape May acted appropriately when it immediately questioned the two students
involved and assembled the TEAM to conduct a threat assessment. 	The TEAM’s
assessment showed that H.H. did not pose an immediate threat or a continuing danger
to persons or property.
From the interviews conducted by Tarr, Palombo, and Mulford of H.H. a consistent
description of the incident was determined. 	H.H. was visibly upset, forthcoming, and
remorseful. 	H.H.’s involvement was limited to an inappropriate bus conversation about
an inflammatory topic. H.H. admitted his role in the conversation and plausibly revealed
that at first the conversation was meant as a joke but when he realized the other student
might be serious, he started to feel uneasy.
Palombo’s testimony that he was required to recuse himself from the TEAM
because discipline must be separate from the threat assessment is inconsistent with the
Guidebook and the Handbook (J-1.) Under the Guidebook, the School Administrator has
a role on the TEAM to consult with the School Psychologist, assist in conducting
interviews, and determine discipline when appropriate. 	(J-1, at 4.) 	The Handbook also
provides a role for the Superintendent because a terrorist threat is only a Type Four
Offense, pending a threat assessment. 	In contradiction to the Handbook, Palombo

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
13
continued to refer to H.H.’s conduct as a Type Four Offense after the threat assessment
proved otherwise. (J-5, 28.)
Palombo imposed the suspension without considering the Handbook’s discipline
ladder. (J-20, 362-364.) He made no effort to consider interventions or impose discipline
at the lowest level possible.
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(b)(6), at a minimum Palombo’s disciplinary response
should have considered the severity of the offense, the developmental age of H.H., and
his history of inappropriate behaviors. 	When pressed, Palombo disciplined H.H. solely
based on the offense. He did not consider that H.H. was a gifted ten-year-old sixth grader
with no disciplinary history, who posed no continuing threat.
On the date of suspension, February 8, 2024, Palombo provided petitioner with
written notification of his son’s four-day suspension for “making comments that could be
potentially dangerous to others” without identifying any code provision in the Handbook.
(J-2 and J-20.) 	The required notification under N.J.A.C. 6A:17-7.2(a)3.iii, must include
the “provision(s) of the code of student conduct the student is accused of violating.” On
February 8, 2024, Cape May prepared an internal discipline report that contained
“Incident Code 205- High Five Rule #2: Be Responsible (Bomb Threat).” (J-3.) Palombo
told the parents that he did not consider the incident to be a bomb threat but reversed
course without informing the parents or providing an adequate explanation.
Under the Handbook, a student who does not adhere to the High Five Rules may
receive detention. 	(J-20, 368.) 	Suspension is reserved for a student who “shows
disregard or defiance to authority, purposely violates school rules and regulations, brings
weapons or weapon-like objects to school, engages in unsafe practices, uses obscene
language or gestures, or violates the rights of others and interferes with the normal
classroom routine.” (J-20, 369.) 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2 provides examples of conduct which
constitute good cause for suspension. The testimony did not support that H.H.’s conduct
met those parameters.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
14
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Commissioner of Education will not overturn the decision of a local school
board in the absence of finding that the board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. 	T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision
(February 6, 2008) (citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332
(App. 	Div. 	1965), 	aff’d, 	46 	N.J. 	581(1966)), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	7, 	2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. 	Further, the Commissioner will not substitute
his judgment for that of the board of education, whose exercise of its discretion may not
be disturbed unless shown to be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App.
Div. 1960). 	New Jersey courts have held that “[w]here there is room for two opinions,
action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration,
even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.”
Bayshore Sewage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199–200 (Ch. Div.
1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). 	Thus, to prevail, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances
before 	it. 	T.B.M., 	EDU 	2780-07, 	Initial 	Decision 	(February 	6, 	2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal>.
Here the Board solely relied upon the discretionary authority of the Superintendent
and 	Chief 	School 	Administrator 	to 	assign 	alternative 	consequences 	for 	student
infractions.
The conduct was described as a conversation between two sixth grade students
about blowing up the school on a weekend with dynamite. They chose the weekend so
no one would get hurt. They allegedly wanted to steal the computers to play video games
and not have to go to school. The other student was also overheard planning where he
would put the bombs, after the students arrived at school. 	This was a concerning
communication.
Cape May appropriately investigated the conversation and determined that H.H.
did not have the capacity to carry out the plan. While the threat assessment established

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
15
that there was no immediate or potential threat to the school, it was entirely appropriate
for Palombo to search the students’ backpacks. 	As Palombo initially viewed this
communication as a threat to his school, his decision to refer the matter to law
enforcement will not be disturbed or second-guessed.
The bus communication between the students did not fit neatly into any of the
enumerated causes for suspension under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2. 	In any attempt to justify
suspension, Palombo determined that H.H. was a “pupil whose presence poses a
continuing danger to persons or property, or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic
process.” (J-4, 28, and J-20, 359.) The Handbook’s language corresponded to N.J.S.A.
18A:37-2(c), “[c]onduct of such character as to constitute a continuing danger to the
physical well-being of other pupils.” 	In referencing the Handbook’s disciplinary ladder,
Palombo labeled that offense as a “Type Four Offense – Terrorist threats.” (J-4, and J-
20, 361.) 	Despite Palombo’s characterizations, the evidence from the threat assessment
established that H.H. did not “have the capacity to carry out an act of targeted violence, .
. ., was not violent, . . . [showed] no pattern of behavior, . . . and no likelihood of following
up on this instance.” (J-6, 42-43.)
Petitioner demonstrated that respondent acted in disregard of the circumstances
before it, and that its decision was not supported by credible evidence. 	While it was
legitimate to conduct a threat assessment, it was unreasonable for respondent to ignore
the results of the threat assessment and arbitrarily impose discipline.
By all accounts, H.H. was a remorseful, scared, ten-year-old, who did not fully
understand the ramifications of engaging in a conversation, serious or not, about blowing
up a school. 	There was no proof that H.H. was a disruptive or dangerous student.
Moreover, the evidence showed that H.H. did not pose a continuing threat.
The practical wisdom in the Guidebook (J-1) was not heeded in this instance. “The
central question in a threat assessment inquiry or investigation is whether a student poses
a threat, no whether the student has made a threat.” I CONCLUDE based on the credible
evidence that H.H. did not pose a threat or a disruption to the school environment.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
16
The absence of substantial, credible evidence in this case renders the Board’s
decision unreasonable. 	Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that respondent acted in a manner
that is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. I FURTHER CONCLUDE that the charges
that H.H. committed a Terrorist Threat - Type Four Offense, constituted a continuing
danger or a disruptive presence, or made a bomb threat are unfounded.
Based upon 	the 	foregoing, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	the 	respondent’s 	actions 	in
suspending H.H. were improper. 	I further CONCLUDE that the petitioner has met his
burden and is entitled to expungement and removal of disciplinary action in H.H.’s school
records regarding the incident date of February 8, 2024.
ORDER
I ORDER that the respondent’s decision to impose a four-day out-of-school
suspension upon H.H. for the incident that occurred on February 8, 2024, is REVERSED.
I further ORDER that respondent expunge from H.H.’s student records the following: the
letter, dated February 8, 2024, from Zachary Palombo, CSA, to the parents and guardians
of H.H.; the Cape May City Elementary School District Discipline Report; and any other
disciplinary record pertaining to the incident of February 8, 2024. 	Petitioner’s appeal is
GRANTED.
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 09625-24
17
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. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
June 10, 2025
DATE 	KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KMC/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
18
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
D.H., father of H.H.
For Respondent:
Leeanne Tarr
Shawna Mulford
Allison Crowther
Alexis Cartagena
Zachary Palombo
Exhibits
Joint:
J-1 	Guidebook
J-2 	Letter, dated February 8, 2024
J-3 	Internal Discipline Report
J-4 	Emails
J-5 	Letter, dated February 26, 2024
J-6 	Threat assessment – Eleven Key Questions
J-7 	Request under OPRA
J-8 	Letter, dated May 16, 2024
J-9 	Appendix B: Threat Assessment case Worksheet
J-10 	Letter, dated April 16, 2024
J-11 	Petitioner’s Answers to Interrogatories

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09625-24
19
J-12 	School Security Incident Report
J-13 	Handwritten Notes
J-14 	Tarr’s Notes
J-15 	Safety and Security Plan
J-16 	Certification of Palombo
J-17 	Threat Assessment in Schools (Guide)
J-18 	Security Drill Form
J-19 	BTAM
J-20 	Handbook
J-21 	Stipulation of H.H.
Petitioner:
None
Respondent:
R-1 	Letter, dated March 15, 2024
R-2 	Email, dated March 18, 2024
R-3 	Emails from February 14, 2024, to February 21, 2024, between D.H. and
Palombo