M.H., on behalf of minor child, A.H. v. Board of Education of the City of Hoboken, Hudson County, 8/26/26 (#330-26)

330-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01911-26
Agency Dkt. No. 410-12/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.H., on behalf of minor child, A.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Hoboken, Hudson
County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the reasons
stated in the Initial Decision that summary decision is appropriate because none of the material facts are
disputed. Additionally, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ for the reasons stated in the Initial Decision
that petitioner failed to establish that respondent’s denial of A.H.’s request to join the Hoboken High
School Marching Band was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, respondent’s
motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	August 26, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	August 26, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under
N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date of mailing
of this decision.

New Jersey is an equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION SUMMARY DECISON
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 410-12/25
M.H. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, A.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE CITY
OF HOBOKEN, HUDSON COUNTY
Respondent.
____________________________________
M.H., pro se, petitioner
David L. Disler, Esq., (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C., attorneys), for
respondent
Record Closed: July 13, 2026 	Decided: July 16, 2026
BEFORE JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, M.H., on behalf of minor child A.H. has filed a Petition of Appeal against
Respondent, Board of Education of the City of Hoboken challenging their decision
denying the A.H.’s request to join the Hoboken High School Marching Band.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about December 2, 2025, petitioner, M.H. on behalf of minor child, A.H.
(student) filed a Petition of Appeal (Petition) with the Commissioner of the Department of
Education (Commissioner), disputing the decision by the Board of Education of the City
of Hoboken, (the Board) denying the student’s participation in the Hoboken High School
Marching Band (High School Band). 	Petitioner cites N.J.S.A. 18A: 6-9, and N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.1, as their authority to bring the within action. In addition, the Petition requests the
Commissioner to consider a controversy between Petitioner and the Board under
N.J. S.A. 18A: 6-9.
On or about January 26, 2026, the Board filed an Answer to the Petition.
On February 2, 2026, the matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) and filed therein as a contested matter. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq., and
52:14F-1 et seq.
On March 11, 2026, the Board filed a Motion for Summary Decision, arguing that
the Board’s denial of the student’s request was a valid exercise of its discretionary
authority. On March 18, 2026, petitioner filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Decision,
arguing that: (1) the Board’s claim that enrollment in Advanced Instrumental Music is
required for participation in the High School Band is factually unsupported; (2) the Board’s
use of “co-curricular” to describe the High School Band is not legally distinct from
“extracurricular”; (3) the Board’s financial argument is unsupported by evidence; (4) the
Board’s individualized review of the student’s request yielded a result indistinguishable
from a blanket denial; and (5) the distinction between athletics and the arts does not
provide a legitimate basis for denial.
On March 24, 2026, the Board filed a reply brief, arguing that: (1) the High School
Band is not separate from the instrumental music curriculum, but rather an extension of
it; (2) the Board’s compliance with New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association
(NJSIAA) requirements regarding vocational student’s does not establish a waiver of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
3
discretion 	over 	non-athletic 	programming; 	(3) 	Petitioner 	mischaracterizes 	the
Commissioner decision on which it primarily relies; and (4) the Board is not obligated to
supplement the Hudson County Schools of Technology programming.
On March 24, 2026, petitioner requested leave of court to file a sur-reply. Petitioner
was granted permission with the Board’s consent and filed their sur-reply on March 31,
2026. Petitioner’s sur-reply argues that the Board’s inclusion of new factual information
regarding Middle School student participation in the High School Band in their reply is
inappropriate and disputed.
I closed the record July 13, 2026.
FINDINGS
The pleadings filed herein reveal facts in this matter that are generally undisputed.
With some notable exceptions stated below, I FIND the following as FACT herein:
Petitioner is a resident of the City of Hoboken. (District Brief at 4) 1 The attended
Hoboken Public Schools through the eighth grade and participated in school band during
that time. Id. In February 2025, the student expressed initial interest to the Band Director,
Dave Stasiak (Stasiak), in joining the High School Band. Id. Stasiak provided the student
with information regarding the necessary time commitments for the program via email on
February 20, 2025. (Pet. Br., Ex. A).
In the Spring of 2025, the student elected to enroll in High Tech High School (High
Tech), which is one of four schools in the Hudson County Schools of Technology (HCST)
high school, providing an academic program in a technology-based environment. 2 The
1 Citations to the pleadings and exhibits will be referred to as follows: Petitioner’s Brief will be Pet. Br., the
District’s Brief will be District Br.; Exhibits will be Ex.; Certifications will be Cert.
2 High Tech High School, a public school of choice offered by the Hudson County Schools of Technology,
provides the children of Hudson County with a challenging academic program in a technology-based
environment. High Tech High School offers four comprehensive vocational programs of study:
Architecture & Design (AACT), Performing Arts, Science Lab Technologies, and Technology & Visual
Arts. ( https://hcstonline.org/)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
4
student chose to attend High Tech in lieu of attending Hoboken High School. 	Id. 	The
student chose to attend High Tech because of its specialized Environmental Science
program knowing that neither it nor any HCST school offered a marching band program,
(Pet. Br.at 3).
On July 15, 2025, the student contacted Hoboken High School Principal Robin
Piccapietra (Piccapietra) via email to request administrative permission to participate in
the High School Band. (Pe.Br., Ex. L). 	In said email, the student stated that she was
writing “at the request of Mr. Stasiak, who invited me to participate in Marching Band for
the coming academic year.” 	(Pet. Br., Ex. L). 	The student is referring to an email from
Stasiak dated February 20, 2025, which appears to be a form letter sent to all students
that expressed interest in the High School Band. (Pet. Br. Ex. A). Stasiak’s February 20,
2025, email indicated that the time commitment for High School Marching Band begins
with weekly practices “from March-May.” (Pet. Br. Ex. A).3 The student sent a follow-up
email on July 21, 2025. Id. Piccapietra did not respond to either of these emails. (Pet. Br.
at 3).
On August 18, 2025, the student contacted the Board via email again requesting
to join the High School Band. (Pet. Br., Ex. B). On August 22. 2025, the Hoboken Public
Schools Superintendent, Dr. Christine Johnson (Dr. Johnson), replied to the student’s
email, scheduling a meeting for August 28, 2025, and noting that a decision would not be
forthcoming until after the Board meeting on September 4, 2025. 	(Pet. Br., Ex. C). 	On
August 28, 2025, the student met with Dr. Johnson. (Johnson Cert. at ¶17).
On September 12, 2025, Dr. Johnson notified the student via email that the Board
had denied her request. 	(Pet. Br., Ex. D). 	Therein, Dr. Johnson cited the following
reasons for the Board’s decision: (1) the student’s knowing selection of high school
without a marching band program; (2) the availability of HCST’s Jazz Club and other
music-related extracurriculars; (3) the Board’s established practice of not allowing High
Tech student’s to participate in Hoboken High School Music and Theater Programs due
3 This commitment had already elapsed prior to the student’s initial request to Piccapietra on July 15,
2025. (Pet. Br., Ex. L).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
5
to course requirements; (4) financial and logistical burdens because of the high number
of Hoboken residents attending HCST schools; and (5) the competitive marching band
season being well underway. (Pet. Br., Ex. D).
On September 14, 2025, the student contacted Stasiak via email, requesting
information regarding “a mandatory marching band class.” 	(Pet. Br., Ex. E). 	Stasiak
responded that while there is a “class that has some marching band kids in it,” “there is
no marching band class,” and requested additional information about the student’s
meeting with Dr. Johnson. 	Id. 	The student responded by requesting a syllabus for the
class. Id. Stasiak responded noting that the syllabus was “available online” but that “most
of the marching band is not in the class,” and reiterating his question about the meeting.
Id.
On September 15, 2025, the student responded stating that they mostly discussed
the mandatory marching band class and included a quote from Dr. Johnson’s email
stating that the Board had “established courses that students must take within their years
at Hoboken High School in order to participate. 	These courses require students to be
enrolled with us.” Id.
Arguments
The 	student 	disputes 	the 	Board’s 	characterizations 	of: 	(1) 	the 	Advanced
Instrumental Music course as being a requirement for participation in the Hoboken
Marching Band; and (2) the availability of equivalent musical programming at HCST. (Pet.
Br. at 3). 	These objections primarily address the reasoning for denial supplied by Dr.
Johnson in her September 12, 2025, email. (Pet. Br., Ex. D).
In sur-reply, the student further disputed the Board’s characterization of the
participation of certain Hoboken Middle School Band students in High School Band
Activities, as described in the Certification of Dr. Johnson filed with the Board’s reply brief.
(Pet. Sur-reply at 1-3).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
6
LEGAL ANAYALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. 	Summary Decision standard.
A Motion for Summary Decision shall be granted “if the papers and discovery which
have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a
matter of law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). 	If “a Motion for Summary Decision is made and
supported, an adverse party in order to prevail, must by responding affidavit set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can only be determined in an
evidentiary proceeding.” Ibid.
A Motion for Summary Decision before the OAL must be analyzed, “in accordance
with the principles set forth by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Brill v. Guardian Life
Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).” Nat’l Transfer v. New Jersey
Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 347 N.J. Super. 401, 408 (App. Div. 2002). 	A determination that
there is a genuine issue of material fact requires the motion judge to consider whether
the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged
disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party. Brill, 142 N.J. at 540-41.
In order to defeat the motion, the opposing party must establish the existence of
genuine disputes of material fact relevant to the case. 	The facts upon which the party
opposing the motion relies to defeat the motion must be something more than “facts which
are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, ‘fanciful, frivolous, gauzy or
merely suspicious.’” Brill. at 529 (citations omitted).
In this matter both parties have filed a motion for summary decision, requiring the
same analysis under Brill for both as moving parties. For the reasons discussed below,
this matter is ripe for summary decision

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
7
II. 	Arbitrary and Capricious standard.
In general, a board of education's actions "are entitled to a presumption of
lawfulness and good faith.” Shuster v. Bd. of Educ. Montgomery Twp., 1996 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 620, *35 (April 10, 1996) (citing Schnick v. Westwood Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super.
448 (App. Div. 1960); Quinlan v. North Bergen Bd. of Educ., 73 N.J. Super. 40, 46 (App.
Div. 1962)). 	Where board actions are challenged, the challenger bears the burden of
proving that such actions were unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Id.
The "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable" standard of review imposes a heavy
burden on challengers of board actions. This standard has been defined by the New
Jersey courts as follows:
In the law, "arbitrary" and "capricious" means having no
rational 	basis 	. 	. 	. 	. Arbitrary 	and 	capricious 	action 	of
administrative bodies means willful and unreasoning action,
without consideration and in disregard of circumstances.
Where there is no 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 . . . Moreover, the
court 	should 	not substitute its 	judgement for that of an
administrative 	or 	legislative 	body 	if 	there 	is 	substantial
evidence to support the ruling.
[Piccoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Ramapo Indian Hills Regional
School District, OAL DKT. EDU 1839-98 (January 22, 1999)
(citing Bayshore Sewage Co. v. Dept. of Envir. Protection, 122
N.J. Super. 184, 199-200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff'd 131 N.J. Super.
37 (App. Div. 1974)).]
Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the Commissioner will not substitute
his own judgment for that of the Board of Education. 	Massaro v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Borough of Bergenfield, 1965 S.L.D. 84, 85. In Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of West Orange,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
8
the Appellate Division relied on "the well established rule that action of the local board [of
education] which lies within the area of its discretionary powers may not be upset unless
patently without rational basis or induced by improper motives." 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294
(App. Div. 1960); see also G.M. v. Roselle Park Borough Bd. of Educ., 95 N.J.A.R. 2d
(EDU) 107, 109 (where the Commissioner adopted the decision of the ALJ when in a
challenge to board action, the ALJ stated, "it is the management prerogative of boards of
education that will not be usurped or assumed by the Commissioner of Education absent
a definitive showing of bad faith or arbitrary actions taken in bad faith without a rational
basis.")
As long as the record reflects a rational basis for their action, as well as an absence
of bad faith, the board's action shall be upheld. See e.g. Red Bank Teachers Ass'n v. Bd.
of Educ. of Red Bank, OAL DKT. EDU 5328-80 (April 30, 1981) adopted Comm. Ed. (June
15, 1981); G.M., 95 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU) 107. I agree.
III. 	Both Parties mischaracterize the relevant Commissioner Decision.
Petitioner 	almost 	exclusively 	premises 	the 	instant 	petition 	on 	a 	single
Commissioner decision. See G.W.S. o/b/o A.F.S. v. William Petrino, Superintendent, and
Rahway Bd. of Educ., Union County, 1999 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1338 (November 29, 1999).
Petitioner characterizes that decision as establishing that “excluding students from home
district 	programs 	without 	a 	sound 	rational 	basis 	is 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	and
unreasonable.” (Pet. Br. at 10). The Board argues that G.W.S did not “mandate that all
vocational 	school 	students 	be 	permitted 	to 	participate 	in 	their 	home 	district’s
extracurricular activities” but instead “held only that blanket exclusions targeting a
particular category of students without any articulated rational basis are impermissible.”
(Resp. Br. at 10).
The decision in G.W.S. dealt with Rahway Board of Education Policy 6145, which
originally disallowed participation of any students not enrolled in Rahway High School in
extracurricular activities. 	1999 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1338 at *1. 	The Rahway Board
subsequently revised that policy to allow students residing in Rahway but attending a
vocational school enrolled in grades 10-12 to participate in extracurricular and athletic

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
9
activities at Rahway High School. Id. The petitioner in G.W.S. was a ninth-grade student
residing in Rahway but attending vocational school, seeking to participate in swimming,
soccer, and other extracurriculars such as drama club at Rahway High School. Id. at *5-
6.
In G.W.S. the Commissioner found that the blanket exclusion of ninth-grade
students from participation in athletics violated Article V(G), CL3 of the NJSIAA Bylaws,
which permits vocational student participation in public athletics upon agreement of both
principals, because it had “the effect of precluding Rahway High School’s principal, under
any circumstance, from entering into [such] an agreement.” Id. at *12. The Commissioner
further found that, with respect to non-athletic extracurricular activities, the Rahway Board
revision (emphasis added):
[E]xceeds its discretionary authority because the record is
totally devoid of any rational basis for the Board to have taken
action to allow the participation of Magnet school students
currently enrolled in grades 10, 11 and 12 but to have
excluded the participation of students enrolling in the Magnet
School as ninth graders effective September 1, 1999. 	To
create a blanket exclusion of a particular group or category of
public 	school 	students 	from 	extracurricular 	activities 	or
intramural athletic programs without a sound rational basis for
such 	exclusion 	is 	inherently 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	and
unreasonable. 	Such an exclusion as has occurred in the
instant matter, whether in terms of a particular student or a
group of students, cannot be deemed to be within a board's
lawful discretionary authority in the absence of the board's (or
the principal's, in the case of interscholastic athletic programs)
having determined that participation is not practicable or
reasonable because of scheduling constraints, transportation
costs or logistical difficulties, or other valid considerations.
[1999 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1338 at *14.]
The Commissioner further noted that a board is not required “to take unreasonable
or extraordinary steps to accommodate a county vocational student's participation in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
10
extracurricular activities.” 	Id. at n.2. 	The central issues in G.W.S. were that: (1) the
board’s revision, without providing a rational basis, excluded a class of students (ninth-
grade vocational students residing in Rahway) from participating in activities that were
allowed for similarly situated students (10-12 grade vocational students residing in
Rahway); and (2) the board’s revision, as a blanket policy, precluded reasonable review
of students in the class to even discover a rational basis.
I CONCLUDE 	that the decision in 	G.W.S. does not mandate participation as
petitioner contends, nor is it limited to groups of students as the Board contends. Rather,
I CONCLUDE the G.W.S. standard provides only that a board of education cannot, under
a blanket policy, exclude a particular student or group of students from participating in an
extracurricular activity without a sound rational basis. Id.
This 	standard 	has 	been 	repeatedly 	upheld 	by 	subsequent 	administrative
decisions. See S.G. o/b/o R.G. v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Educ., 2000 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 552
(August 8, 2000) (upholding board policy denying vocational student access to public
district scholarship program on the rational basis of logistical and administrative burden);
D.M.T. o/b/o A.R.T. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cumberland Regional High School District,
2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 796 (September 22, 2016) (denying emergent relief to vocational
student challenging board decision denying her participation in athletics on the rational
basis of financial and logistical difficulties); Bd. of Educ. of the Cumberland County
Technical Education Center v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cumberland Regional High School
District, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 721 (August 23, 2016) (denying emergent relief to
vocational school challenging a public school decision to bar vocational students from
participating in athletics because there was no blanket policy mandating the bar); Bd. of
Educ. of the Cumberland County Technical Education Center v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Cumberland Regional High School District, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 214 (March 29, 2018)
(upholding public school decision to bar vocational students from participating in athletics
on the rational bases of finances, logistics, eligibility, and discipline).
IV. 	Petitioner mischaracterizes the standard of review.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
11
Petitioner claims that the central issue in this matter is not “whether the Board has
articulated reasons” for its decision, but instead “whether those reasons are grounded in
fact.” (Pet. Br. at 10). This is a mischaracterization of the relevant standard. As discussed
above, the heavy burden lies with the challenger, not the Board. 	Once the Board
articulates a rational bases for its decision, the burden rests with A.H. to make a definitive
showing that the Board’s decision was either premised on bad faith or that it was not
premised on the rational bases articulated.
In rebutting the Board’s policy at issue herein, petitioner characterizes the Board’s
reasons 	as: 	(1) 	“a 	financial 	argument 	unsupported 	by 	financial 	evidence”; 	(2) 	“a
coursework requirement contradicted by the program’s own director and not enforced
against current participants”; and (3) “a regulatory distinction that misidentifies the source
of the right at issue”; and dismisses these as “unsupported assertions.” Id. However, for
the reasons explained below, I CONCLUDE that the Board has met its minimal burden to
demonstrate a rational basis in each of these instances and petitioner’s characterization
otherwise does not amount to the definitive showing required to upset the Board’s stated
reasoning.
The standing policy of the Hoboken Public School District regarding eligibility for
extracurricular activities states that (emphasis added):
To be eligible to participate in extra-curricular activities, a
student must be enrolled in the district. Hoboken residents
enrolled in a school that is not operated by the Hoboken Board
of Education (charter schools or private schools) shall not be
eligible to participate in extra-curricular activities. However,
pursuant to NJSIAA guidelines, if a charter school does not
offer a particular sport that is offered by the district, resident
students attending that charter school may participate in that
sport upon the agreement of the Hoboken High School
Principal and the Principal of the charter school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
12
[Hoboken Board of Education District Policy #2430 – Co-
Curricular Activities.4]
Financial Considerations
Here, the Board cited two distinct financial concerns in its initial moving papers: (1)
because of the large number of Hoboken residents that attend school outside of Hoboken
Public Schools, deviation from the above policy would represent a burden that the Board
“cannot financially or logistically accommodate”; and (2) because the Board is required to
pay 	tuition 	for 	vocational 	students 	like 	A.H., 	“requiring 	the 	Board 	to 	also 	fund
extracurricular participation for non-enrolled students would create a double financial
burden.” (Resp. Br. at 12-13). The standard here does not require the Board to produce
“financial evidence” as petitioner argues, it instead requires petitioner to provide evidence
demonstrating 	that 	requiring 	Hoboken 	High 	School 	to 	allow 	non-enrolled 	student
participation in extracurricular activities would not represent a financial burden.
Petitioner’s claim that “permitting one student who provides her own instrument
and transportation to join . . . at no identified cost to the Board” is similarly unavailing.
(Pet. Br. at 11). 	While A.H. may be one student, petitioner’s requested relief is
representative of many students, especially given that “approximately 27% of the student
population in Hoboken attend charter schools and 12% of the high school student
population in Hoboken attend the county vocational school.” (Resp. Br. at 2). The Board
is shielded by the above policy and the individualized review extended to student requests
made by A.H.-were the Board to allow A.H. to join the High School Band, it would stand
as a precedent that would preclude the Board from applying the Board policy in the future.
Coursework Requirement
4 	Retrieved from https://www.straussesmay.com/seportal/Public/DistrictPolicy.aspx?policyid=2430&id=
f4cd983ee69e4d99afcd2d19e7826d19. This policy is further demonstrative of the inapposite nature of the
argued distinction between “co-curricular activities” and “extracurricular activities.” While titled “Co-
Curricular Activities,” the body of this district policy refers exclusively to “extra-curricular activities.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
13
While there is some dispute about the exact nature of the Advanced Instrumental
Music course, the Board’s claim that it is a requirement for participation is supported by
the record. See (Johnson Cert., ¶¶ 6-9) (Disler Cert., Ex. C). Petitioner repeatedly seeks
to characterize this coursework requirement as “the Board’s primary rationale” for its
decision, despite it appearing third in Dr. Johnson’s list of reasons, and raises myriad
arguments attacking it, including: (1) Dr. Johnson’s use of “linked” and failure to state that
enrollment in the course is required; (2) no formal board action adopting the requirement;
(3) the requirement not currently being enforced; (4) middle school student participation;
(5) color guard participation; (6) Stasiak’s statement that there is not a marching band
class; 	(7) 	marching 	band 	practice 	occurring 	after 	school; 	and 	(8) 	participation
requirements being communicated at an internal school event. (Pet. Br. at 6-7).
However, these arguments are unavailing. First, Dr. Johnson’s certified statement
is that Hoboken High School “linked participation in co-curricular activities to required
coursework.” 	(Johnson Cert., ¶ 6) (emphasis added). Second, no evidence has been
offered that a “formal board action” is necessary to change the requirements for co-
curricular participation at a single district school. Third, there is insufficient evidence that
the requirement is not currently enforced. 	While petitioner claims that multiple current
band members are participating without being enrolled in the course, no evidence thereof
has been offered. Fourth, Hoboken Middle School students are “students enrolled in the
district” and their participation is consistent with the above policy in a way that student’s
status would not be. Fifth, color guard is distinct from marching band and does not involve
instruments. 	Sixth, Stasiak’s statements do not override school policy, as admitted by
petitioner, and further are not inherently inconsistent with the requirement. Stasiak stated
that: (1) “there is no marching band class”; and (2) “most of the band is not in the class.”
(Pet. Br. Ex. E). The requirement begins “with the class of 2028” and applies to “students
engaged in either the marching band or concert band.” (Disler Cert., Ex. C).
Consequently, Advanced Instrumental Music could be properly characterized as
“not a marching band class” because it is more than that, comprising a music elective that
is additionally a requirement for both marching and concert band. Similarly, “most of the
band” could be comprised of students in the classes of 2026 and 2027. Seventh, practice
occurring after school in no way precludes a required class being associated. 	Finally,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
14
petitioner offers no basis for the underlying claim that the course requirements “purport
to affect” non-enrolled students – to the contrary the requirements are focused on enrolled
students and their communication at an internal school event is reasonable. (Pet. Br. at
7). For these reasons, I CONCLUDE the Board’s claim that the Advanced Instrumental
Music course is a requirement for participation in the High School Band is supported by
the record.
Petitioner argues that the Board’s attempt to differentiate policy for athletics under
NJSIAA and extracurriculars in the arts is a misapplication of the holding in G.W.S. (Pet.
Br. at 9-10). 	As discussed above, this argument is premised on an overly expansive
reading of the case law precedent. 	While petitioner is correct in stating that G.W.S.
addresses extracurriculars independently from its treatment of athletics, that case notably
does not establish a “right to participate in her home district’s marching band” as petitioner
claims. Id. In fact, even if the student sought to participate in athletics, under the more
restrictive standard, G.W.S. would still not compel action from the Board as even the
NJSIAA rule is “permissive, not mandatory.” 1999 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1338, *12. G.W.S.
does not mandate that districts allow participation by non-enrolled students, it merely
precludes 	district 	policies 	that 	would 	foreclose 	the 	agreement 	between 	principals
contemplated by the NJSIAA Bylaws. 	The standard for non-athletic extracurricular
activities affords districts even more leeway, as it is unburdened by the NJSIAA regulatory
framework. Consequently, I CONCLUDE petitioner’s reading of G.W.S. is inappropriate
and the argument derived therefrom is unavailing.
V. 	The factual disputes in this matter do not rise to the level of “genuine issue
of material fact.”
Under the Brill standard, a genuine issue of material fact exists when “competent
evidential materials [are] presented [which], when viewed in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged
disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). 	Notably, a
“non-moving party cannot defeat a motion for summary [decision] merely by pointing to
any fact in dispute.” Id. at 529.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
15
Here, the factual disputes amount to: (1) whether Advanced Instrumental Music is
an actively enforced requirement of participation in the High School Band; (2) whether
HCST offers musical programming substantially equivalent to the High School Band; and
(3) the nature of Hoboken Middle School student participation in the High School Band.
For the reasons already stated herein, I CONCLUDE that none of these disputes rise to
the level of a genuine issue of material fact, as their resolution would not permit a ruling
in petitioner’s favor.
Based on the G.W.S. standard, the Board must only articulate a sound rational
basis for its decision, which it did when Dr. Johnson cited the logistical and financial
burdens that would ensue if the Board’s extracurriculars were opened to non-enrolled
students. 	The Board has consistently supported and elaborated on this rational basis
throughout its briefings in this matter. 	Factual issues related to additional reasons
provided by Dr. Johnson and the Board do nothing to challenge that sufficient rational
basis. 	See Cumberland, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 214, *54 (noting that even if the
impermissible purpose of discouraging district students from attending vocational school
were proven, it would not outweigh the overriding rational bases of finances, logistics,
eligibility, and discipline). Put more simply, Dr. Johnson and the Board did more than was
required of them in providing a list of reasons to petitioner– they would have satisfied their
burden by merely citing to the financial and logistical concerns – consequently, I
CONCLUDE that factual disputes of those unnecessary additional reasons do not on their
own permit a ruling in petitioner’s favor.
While I am sympathetic to A.H.’s reasonable desire to pursue an extracurricular
activity, and would gladly see the New Jersey education system reformed in such a way
that her desire to pursue a specific area of study did not require the necessary sacrifice
of her interest in marching band, the law is clear in this matter. The logistical and financial
concerns cited by the Board represent a sufficiently sound and rational basis for their
decision. Petitioner has not argued that allowing the significant vocational student
population to enroll in Hoboken High School extracurriculars would not represent a
financial and logistical burden, nor have they argued that the Board acted in bad faith by
claiming such. Consequently, petitioner has simply failed to adequately challenge the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
16
rational basis for the Board’s decision. All else in this matter is immaterial, emotionally
compelling though it may be.
For these reasons, I CONCLUDE that the Board is entitled to summary decision
as the motion papers they submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact challenged and that the Board as moving party is entitled to prevail as a
matter of law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a), and their motion is GRANTED herein.
I CONCLUDE that petitioner is not entitled to summary decision in accordance
with N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a), as the factual disputes they argue do not rise to the level of a
genuine issue of material fact, and their resolution would not permit determination in
petitioners favor, and consequently, their motion is DENIED.
ORDER
IT IS hereby ORDERED that for the reasons set forth herein, the Board’s motion
for summary decision is GRANTED and petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED.
IT IS hereby ORDERED that for the reasons set forth herein, petitioner’s cross
motion for summary decision is DENIED.
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 01911-26
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, 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.
July 16, 2026
DATE 	JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 16, 2026
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	July 16, 2026
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
18
APPENDIX
For Petitioner:
Pleadings
Opposition and cross-motion for summary decision
Sur-reply
Exhibits
Exhibits A through L, submitted with Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's
Motion for Summary Decision and Cross-Motion for Summary Decision, filed
March 18, 2026. Exhibits M and N, submitted with Petitioner's Sur-Reply in
Further Support of Petitioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Decision, filed March
31, 2026.
Exhibit A 	Email from Band Director David Stasiak, February 20, 2025
Exhibit B 	Letter from A.H. to the Hoboken Board of Education, August 18,
2025
Exhibit C 	Email from Superintendent Dr. Christine Johnson to A.H., August
22, 2025
Exhibit D 	Email from Superintendent Dr. Christine Johnson, September 12,
2025, denying A.H.'s request to participate in the Rockin' Redwings
and setting out the Board's stated reasons for the denial.
Exhibit E 	Email correspondence with Band Director David Stasiak,
September 14–15, 2025
Exhibit F 	Excerpted passages from G.W.S. o/b/o A.F.S. v. Petrino and
Rahway Board of Education, OAL Dkt. No. 9797-99, 1999 WL
33883913 (Comm'r Educ. Nov. 29, 1999).
Exhibit G 	Hoboken Board of Education resolution, September 2024,
appointing co-curricular advisors, listing among the positions so
classified library monitor, Saturday detention, and drill instructor.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
19
Exhibit H 	Email from Hudson County Schools of Technology transportation
staff
Exhibit I 	Screenshot of search results from the Hoboken Board of
Education's BoardDocs public meeting records portal
(go.boarddocs.com)
Exhibit J 	Screenshot of the Rockin' Redwings program website, "D.C. Trip"
Exhibit K 	Email from High Tech High School guidance staff
Exhibit L 	Emails from A.H. to Hoboken High School Principal Robin
Piccapietra, dated July 15, 2025, and July 21, 2025.
Exhibit M 	Email from Band Director David Stasiak, dated June 3, 2024
Exhibit N 	Screenshots of the Rockin' Redwings official public calendar
(rockinredwings.com) for September 2025 and October 2025,
For Respondent:
Pleadings
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision
Letter brief in support of motion for summary decision
Letter brief in reply to opposition to motion for summary decision and in opposition
to cross motion for summary decision
Certification of Dr. Christine Johnson
Certification of David L. Disler, Esq., In Support Of Motion For Summary Decision,
with exhibits
Exhibits
Exhibit A 	December 1, 2025, petition and exhibits served on the Hoboken
Board of Education.
Exhibit B 	Hoboken 	Public 	Schools’ 	co-curricular 	and 	athletic 	activities,
captured via PageVault.
Exhibit C 	Hoboken High School music programs, captured via PageVault.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01911-26
20
Exhibit D 	2023-2024 Hudson County Schools of Technology District NJ School
Performance Report.
Exhibit E 	2025-2026 District Calendar for the Hudson County Schools of
Technology, captured via PageVault.
Exhibit F 	New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (“NJSIAA”)
2025-2026 Bylaws.
Exhibit G 	High Tech High School Clubs, captured via PageVault.
Exhibit H 	County Prep’s After-School Enrichment Programs Brochure.