Board of Education of the Cumberland County Technical Education Center, Cumberland County v. Board of Education of the Cumberland Regional High School District, Cumberland County and Board of Education of the City of Millville, Cumberland County, 9/19/19, (#242-19)

242-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Cumberland County
Technical Education Center, Cumberland County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Cumberland Regional High
School District, Cumberland County and Board of
Education of the City of Millville, Cumberland County,
Respondents.
Synopsis
Petitioner, the Board of Education of the Cumberland County Technical Education Center (CCTech) filed an appeal
in 2018 seeking to compel the respondent Boards to permit full-time students of CCTech who reside within either
the Cumberland Regional High School District (Cumberland) or the Millville School District (Millville) to
participate in their home district’s athletic programs. The respondent Boards had denied CCTech’s request, citing
financial and other concerns, and contending that they were not required to permit CCTech students to join their
athletic 	programs. 	CCTech 	asserted 	that 	the 	respondent 	Boards’ 	denials 	were 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	and
unreasonable. 	In a June 2018 decision, the Commissioner directed Cumberland and Millville to meet with CCTech
to address logistical concerns and to develop an agreement that would enable CCTech students from Cumberland
and Millville to participate in sports programs in their home districts; subsequently, the Commissioner proposed
mediation as a means for the three schools to reach an agreement. Prior to the July 2019 hearing in this matter,
Cumberland advised that it had reached an agreement with CCTech, and the petition as it pertained to Cumberland
was withdrawn.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the issue here is whether Millville acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable manner when it was unable to reach an agreement with CCTech to permit Millville resident students
to participate in the sports programs of their home district; the Commissioner clearly expected the parties to reach
an agreement within a reasonable period of time after his June 2018 decision; the policies of the New Jersey State
Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA) govern this matter as Millville is an NJSIAA member; the applicable
NJSIAA rule governing this issue clearly states that participation in interscholastic sports is subject to discretionary
agreement between the principals of both the vocational school and the sending public high school; though
discretionary, such determination must 	be 	reasonably based on legitimate considerations; 	CCTech has
demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the reasons advanced by Millville for not coming to an
agreement with CCTech are not legitimate, reasonable or practicable concerns; 	and there was no reason why
CCTech students residing in Millville should be denied the opportunity to participate in Millville’s athletic
programs. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered Millville to admit CCTech students residing in Millville into the district’s
sports programs.
The Commissioner noted that, subsequent to the filing of the Initial Decision, Millville advised that the parties had
reached a settlement. 	Accordingly, as an amicable resolution has been reached whereby Millville students
attending CCTech are now able to participate in their home district sports programs, the Commissioner determined
that the matter herein is now moot.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither
reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
September 19, 2019

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11467-18
Agency Dkt. No. 189-8/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Cumberland County
Technical Education Center, Cumberland
County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Cumberland
Regional High School District, Cumberland
County and Board of Education of the City of
Millville, Cumberland County,
Respondents.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law have been reviewed. Although the parties did not file exceptions to the Initial Decision, the
Millville Board of Education (Millville) advised that the parties have reached a settlement and,
accordingly, the matter should be deemed withdrawn.1
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that because
the parties reached an amicable resolution in this case, enabling students who attend CCTech to
participate in the athletic programs offered in their home districts, the matter is now moot.
Further, now that CCTech students are permitted to participate in athletic programs at Millville,
it is not necessary to evaluate whether Millville’s prior rationale for prohibiting CCTech students
1 The issues raised in the petition of appeal related to the Cumberland Regional Board of Education (Cumberland
Regional) and the Cumberland County Technical Education Center (CCTech) were resolved prior to the ALJ’s
issuance of the Initial Decision, therefore, the ALJ deemed the matter withdrawn with respect to Cumberland
Regional.

2
from participating in its sports program was based on bona fide, legitimate considerations.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 19, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	September 20, 2019
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36.
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

1
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11467-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 189-8/18
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY TECHNICAL
EDUCATION CENTER,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CUMBERLAND REGIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT, CUMBERLAND
COUNTY,3
And
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF MILLVILLE, CUMBERLAND
COUNTY,
Respondents.
Mitchell H. Kizner, Esq., appearing for petitioner Board of Education of the
Cumberland County Technical Education Center (Flaster Greenberg, P.C.,
attorneys)
3 By letter dated July 29, 2019, the OAL was advised that the issues related to the Cumberland Regional
Board of Education and CCTech had been resolved with a Memorandum of Agreement to be approved
by their respective Boards of Education on July 25, 2019, that would permit Cumberland Regional student
residents attending CCTech to participate in Cumberland Regional athletic activities. 	Accordingly,
Cumberland Regional’s involvement in this matter has been resolved and the petition, insofar as it relates
to Cumberland Regional, is withdrawn.

2
John G. Geppert, Jr., Esq., appearing for respondent Board of Education of the
Cumberland Regional High School District, Cumberland County (Scarini
Hollenbeck, attorneys)
Arnold Robinson, Esq., appearing for respondent Board of Education of the City
of Millville, Cumberland County (Robinson and Robinson, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 25, 2019 	Decided: August 6, 2019
BEFORE SUSAN M. SCAROLA, ALJ (Ret., on recall):
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The petitioner, the Board of Education of the Cumberland County Technical
Education Center (CCTech), seeks to compel the respondents, the Board of Education
of the Cumberland Regional High School District (CR) and the Board of Education of
the City of Millville (Millville), to comply with the directive of the Commissioner of the
Department of Education (Commissioner) and to resolve any outstanding issues in
order to permit its full-time students who reside within those districts to participate in
their athletic programs. 	CR has now resolved those issues with a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA); Millville has not, contending that it continues to have reasonable
logistical and financial concerns.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 	a 	previous 	related 	matter, 	EDU 	12252-16, 	CCTech filed 	a 	Request 	for
Emergent Relief to compel CR and Millville to permit its students to participate in sports
in their home districts. 	On August 23, 2016, the request was denied, a decision
adopted by the Commissioner on September 20, 2016.

3
On March 29, 2018, after three days of hearing, an Initial Decision was filed
concluding that both CR and Millville had demonstrated by a preponderance of the
credible evidence that they each had valid, legitimate, reasonable, or practical concerns
for denying CCTech the ability to compel CR and Millville to admit its students into their
respective athletic programs for school year 2016–2017.
On June 7, 2018, the Commissioner of Education issued an Order concurring
with the ALJ that Cumberland and Millville’s decisions barring CCTech’s students from
participating in their sports programs for the 2016–2017 school year were not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. 	However, the Commissioner directed the principals of
Cumberland and Millville to meet with the principal of CCTech within twenty days of his
decision to address the logistical concerns and to develop an agreement that would
enable the CCTech students to participate in sports programs in their home districts of
CR and Millville.4 He reminded the Districts that a blanket policy purporting to bar all of
CCTech 	students 	from 	CR’s 	and 	Millville’s 	athletic 	programs 	was 	“absolutely
impermissible.” CCTech v. Cumberland Reg’l & Millville, EDU 12252-16, Comm’r (June
7, 2018), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.
Following this directive, CCTech met individually with CR (on June 26 and July
18, 24, 2018) and Millville (on July 3, 2018). The relative progress of those negotiations
was disputed, and the parties were then unsuccessful in resolving the issues.
On August 6, 2018, CCTech filed a Petition for Emergent 	Relief 	with 	the
Commissioner 	arguing 	that 	respondents 	were 	engaged 	in 	a 	pattern 	of 	delay 	in
implementing 	the 	Commissioner’s 	June 	7, 	2018, 	decision. 	The 	Commissioner
transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on
4 The Commissioner also set some parameters for the negotiations. Concerns about student enrollment
and State funding were not “bona fide legitimate reasons” for failing to accommodate these students. He
also directed CCTech to give the districts “all of the information necessary to facilitate meaningful
discussion.” In the event an agreement could not be reached or if one of the parties failed to participate
in the process, the Commissioner stated, CCTech “may file another petition of appeal.” Bd. of Educ. of
Cumberland Cty. Tech. Educ. Ctr. v. Bd. of Educ. of Cumberland Reg’l High Sch. Dist., Cumberland Cty.,
Bd. 	of 	Educ. 	of 	Millville, 	Cumberland 	Cty., 	EDU 	12252-16, 	Comm’r 	(June 	7, 	2018),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.

4
August 9, 2018, as OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11467-18. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13.
On August 14, 2018, the application for emergent relief was denied by the Hon.
Kathleen Calemmo, ALJ. 	On September 10, 2018, the Commissioner agreed that
CCTech was not entitled to emergent relief, and directed that “this matter shall continue
with proceedings at the OAL,” and “[W]hile this matter is pending at the OAL, [he would]
designate an individual to facilitate discussions between the parties to assist in reaching
an agreement that will enable the students to participate in sports in their home
districts.” 	Up to that date, no agreement had been reached between the respective
parties.5
On November 21, 2018, CR filed a motion for summary decision, which was
joined by Millville on November 26, 2018, and assigned to me. 	On December 8, 2018,
CCTech filed a response contending that the Commissioner had remanded the matter
for further proceedings and that no reason had presented itself for the matter to be
dismissed. On April 12, 2019, the motion was denied, and the matter continued.
Prior 	to 	the 	hearing, 	CR 	advised 	that 	CCTech 	and 	it 	had 	resolved 	their
differences and that an MOA was pending their respective boards’ approval. 	The
hearing was held on July 25, 2019, and the record closed.
On July 29, 2019, CCTech advised that the MOA had been approved by their
respective boards on July 25, 2019, which would permit CR student residents attending
CCTech to participate in CR athletic activities. 	That matter has been resolved, and the
petition insofar as it related to CR is withdrawn.
5 The first mediation session scheduled for November 29, 2018, was postponed for a
date unknown at Millville’s request.

5
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Background6 (uncontested facts)
CCTech operates one of the five public high schools located in Cumberland
County, New Jersey. From its inception in the 1970’s until the school year ending June
30, 2016, CCTech operated as a part-time educational program whereby students
would attend academic courses at the schools in their home districts (presumably where
they resided) and would attend vocational courses at CCTech.
Commencing in September 2016, CCTech began operating a full-time program
for ninth-graders, consisting of both vocational and academic courses, in new, larger
facilities. Within four years, all students attending grades nine to twelve at CCTech will
have been transitioned to full-time students. CCTech does not offer an athletic program
for its students, although it has some athletic and sports facilities. 	The Bridgeton and
Vineland public school districts have permitted their CCTech students to participate in
their athletic programs. 	No formal protocol to handle disciplinary or other matters is in
effect with those two districts and CCTech.
In April 2016, Millville advised its eighth-grade students and their parents that if
they chose to attend CCTech, they would be unable to participate in sports at Millville.
Millville is a member of the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association
(NJSIAA) and has adopted the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the NJSIAA that govern
high-school sports and athletic activities. 	The applicable NJSIAA rule pertinent to the
issues presented here is found in Article V, Section 4(G), CL3, of its bylaws, which
provides:
If a Vocational/Technical High School/Public Academy does
not offer the particular sport in which one of its full-time
students desires to participate, that student may participate
in that sport at his/her home school upon agreement of both
6 This information was set forth in the Initial Decision of March 29, 2018 and is provided for an
understanding of the present issue.

6
Principals, regardless of the number of sports programs
offered 	at 	the 	Vocational/Technical 	High 	School/Public
Academy.
TESTIMONY
For Petitioner CCTech
Gregory McGraw is the principal of CCTech and participated in the transition of
CCTech from part-time to full-time. 	He is familiar with sports in the public-school
setting, having previously served as a coach at CR for a number of years.
After the Commissioner’s decision in June 2018, he tried to resolve the issues
with CR and Millville. Those with CR were resolved with an MOA that was to be signed
by the respective boards on July 25, 2019.
McGraw met with Millville on July 3, 2018, and presented a proposed agenda to
resolve the issues. 	Millville responded to the agenda about a month or two later (P-1).
Much of the proposal responses, including paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were
satisfactory to CCTech, but particular areas of disagreement remained in paragraphs 3,
4, 6, 7, and 11. McGraw reviewed each of the responses.
Paragraph 3 of the proposal response reads as follows:
3. 	Academic Clearance.
Millville agrees to the proposal outlined by Mr. McGraw
whereby 	CCTEC 	students 	would 	adhere 	to 	Millville
academic standards for sports eligibility. 	CCTEC will assign
an 	employee 	to 	monitor 	CCTEC 	student 	academic
performance and email 	weekly status 	reports 	to 	Millville
coaches.
Millville indicated that the second sentence needed to be clarified. 	CCTech was
willing to permit Millville athletic directors to access CCTech’s Genesis system to check

7
on students’ academic progress. CCTech was also willing to assign a counselor and to
provide weekly reports to Millville to ensure academic eligibility.
McGraw noted that CCTech students played sports on Vineland and Bridgeton’s
teams, and that their athletic directors have access to CCTech’s computer system and
there have been no issues. 	McGraw agreed that Millville coaches needed to monitor
their athletic activities in Millville to ensure eligibility.
Paragraph 4 of the proposal response reads as follows:
4. 	Transportation.
Millville 	agrees 	to 	the 	offer 	of 	CCTech 	providing
transportation to CCTech students at its own expense.
CCTech must transport its students and arrive on the same
schedule as Millville students for practice and games so as
not to create additional supervision burdens for Millville staff.
CCTech must provide transportation at the end of each
student’s athletic activity back to CCTech for parental pickup
so as not to create additional supervision burdens for Millville
staff of CCTech students.
CCTech must transport its students to and from all Millville
athletic program activities so that CCTech students adhere
to the same schedule as Millville students including college
recruitment interviews.
McGraw testified that CCTech would transport its students to practices at the
same times that practices commence. 	McGraw stated that it is unreasonable for
CCTech to transport students from Millville back to CCTech after activities when they
would be in Millville, where they presumably live. 	They could go home just like any
other Millville athletes on the team. 	That was how it was working for Vineland,
Bridgeton, and soon CR. 	CR was a bit different since its student athletes attending
CCTech were from different areas, so CR had agreed to send an activity bus to CCTech
to transport students.

8
As for the provision that “CCTech must transport its students to and from all
Millville 	athletic 	program 	activities 	so 	that 	CCTech 	students 	adhere 	to 	the 	same
schedule,” McGraw had no problem with practices, but he wanted some flexibility, for
example, if a student were taking a test. 	Practices and games start at different times,
and CCTech would be willing to transport its students to the away games. 	Sometimes
parents can transport the students, or the security team. In some cases, CCTech might
be on the way to the game, so pickup could occur that way. They would try to match up
transportation with the schedule.
CCTech was willing to make every effort to get students to college recruiting
interviews, but wanted some flexibility in working it out. McGraw has been able to work
out any issues with Vineland and Bridgeton when this came up, and has had no major
problems with these towns when it came to the student athletes.
Paragraph 6 of the proposal response reads as follows:
6. 	Student Discipline.
Millville cannot agree to disparate disciplinary standards and
systems for CCTech and Millville students participating in the
sports program. 	Such disparities would result in unequal
treatment of CCTech and Millville students which would be
perceived as fundamentally unfair by both our students and
our community.
CCTech and its students would have to agree to be bound
by Millville school and team disciplinary standards for their
conduct while participating in the Millville sports program and
further agree to submit themselves to the Millville disciplinary
system 	including 	final 	review 	by 	the 	Millville 	Board 	of
Education.
CCTech’s position was that team discipline was Millville’s and its coaches’
decision and that CCTech would support that decision. But if those infractions rose to a
team punishment, that should be a collaborative decision with CCTech and Millville.
CCTech wants to hold its students accountable and will discipline them as much as
possible as Millville does, but wants the opportunity to work it out with Millville. 	For

9
example, if a student athlete were to cause a problem, but that student was in the
process of being evaluated for an IEP, that would be something that CCTech would
want to decide.
McGraw agreed that all students should be held to the same standards and that
there should be no disparate treatment. 	He thought potential disparities could be
resolved with collaboration. 	It was unreasonable for CCTech to not have any say in
discipline of a student attending its school.
McGraw did not see collaboration as a problem. 	He recalled an incident a year
or two ago where a fistfight occurred between two girls. 	The principal of the school
wanted a ten-day suspension for both. 	Although CCTech thought the punishment was
excessive, the principal ultimately agreed to keep it the same for both students. 	In the
MOA with CR, they agreed on team discipline, with the coach having that authority, but
for infractions within school, CCTech needed input.
Paragraph 7 of the proposal response reads as follows:
7. 	Other Logistical Issues.
Participation in the sports program is a privilege that must be
earned 	by 	Millville 	students 	by 	adherence 	to 	higher
standards of conduct including fostering school spirit, serving
as role models and school leaders and involvement in the
community. 	It would not be fair to have Millville students
earn the privilege of participation and not require the same of
CCTech students. Millville must run one sports program with
rules 	that 	apply 	equally 	to 	all 	participants. 	Therefore,
CCTech students would have to meet the same standards
by participating in the same activities on the same schedule
as their teammates. 	For example, Leader’s Club activities;
pep rallies; nutritional program; student mentoring activities;
community 	activities. 	CCTech 	must 	also 	transport 	its
students to these activities at its sole expense.
McGraw noted that not all athletes are members of the Leader’s Club, as it is tied
to physical education and teachers’ recommendations. It is not inclusive of all students
or athletes. 	As for other activities, such as pep rallies, or other entire-team events

10
during the school day, CCTech would make every effort to get the student there, subject
to whatever may be happening at CCTech, such as testing. 	It would be a collaboration
between the principals. 	If every team member were expected to perform community
service, 	then 	the 	Millville 	student 	attending 	CCTech 	would 	also 	be 	expected 	to
participate.
McGraw agreed that team unity was important and that having all members of a
team following the same rules and standards was important. 	He expected that they
would be able to work out a way for CCTech and Millville students to meet the same
standards and follow the same rules, just as CCTech had done with the other districts.
Dina Rossi Elliott, Ed.D., testified that she has been the superintendent of
CCTech for seven and a half years. 	She stated that McGraw was accurate in his
responses to Millville’s concerns as presented in the agenda response proposals. 	She
addressed the remaining proposal issues:
Paragraph 8 of the proposal responses reads as follows:
8. 	[Financial Concerns.]
Millville will pay for the general cost of the sports programs
utilized by CCTech students but will not incur extra out of
pocket 	expenses 	for 	CCTech 	students, 	e.g., 	uniforms—
equipment—supplies or need for additional staff solely due
to CCTech student participation. 	CCTech must pay those
out of pocket expenses for its students. 	The estimated cost
per student would be in the $300–500 range depending
upon the sport.
It would be unfair to ask the Millville district to use its scarce
resources to pay the extra out of pocket costs for CCTech
students.
Dr. Rossi was familiar with the Commissioner’s decision of June 2018. Although
the decision said nothing about requiring CCTech to pay for sports, CCTech decided to
offer a financial reimbursement for sports because it was clear that finances were an
issue. So CCTech came up with a plan that it could afford and that also would not be a

11
financial barrier to students participating in sports. 	The financial incentive to Millville
also included Vineland, Bridgeton, and CR.
In determining the financial assistance to offer to districts sending students to
CCTech, it created a $100,000 fund. 	Each of the four sending districts (Vineland,
Bridgeton, 	CR, 	and 	Millville) 	would 	receive 	a 	portion 	based 	on 	their 	respective
percentage of students enrolled as of October 15 of each year. 	CCTech used this
number because it is part of the ASSA,7 and the ASSA not only must be agreed upon
with the sending district, but also was subject to State audit. CCTech could not use the
number of students who participated in sports, because this number was always in flux
and was not reliable because students get cut or quit a team. 	Some students might
participate in three sports; others might participate in just one. It would be an unreliable
statistic to count athletes because they could not be tracked financially or accurately.
CCTech thought its formula was a solid way to pay the districts. 	It looked at
funding for 2018–2019 and used that year as the basis for their calculation. 	The
amount it agreed upon was affordable and had minimal impact on the financial status of
the district. 	For 2018–2019, Vineland had 317 students attending CCTech (44.77% of
the total CCTech enrollment); Bridgeton had 137 students (19.35%); CR had 103
students (14.55%); and Millville had 151 students (21.33%). 	For year 2018–2019,
Millville would have received $21,327.68. 	Based on the projected enrollment for 2019–
2020, Millville will have approximately 21.84% of CCTech’s student enrollment and
would receive a payment of $21,835.44. 	The payment would be made to Millville in
December when the ASSA is finalized.
CCTech also polled its students to see how many were interested in participating
in sports, and determined that those numbers were unreliable. Some students said they
might try but were not sure. 	Others picked sports whose seasons overlapped or were
duplicates. It looked at Vineland and Bridgeton to try to get a sense of how many of the
CCTech students participated in sports and what percentage participated in those
7 Application for State School Aid.

12
towns. 	Using those numbers, it estimated that approximately thirty to forty Millville
students attending CCTech would be participating in sports.
Taking all sports into consideration, CCTech made a reasonable estimate of
$300–500 per student. 	If forty Millville students decided to play sports, the total using
the highest amount of $500 per student was $20,000. 	Using the funding formula as
determined by CCTech will provide Millville with $21,853, more than the estimated cost.
Dr. Rossi noted that the Commissioner did not say that CCTech had to pay anything for
its students to participate in sports activities in their resident districts. 	She also noted
that a number of students had declined the offer to attend CCTech, and of those who
declined and gave a reason, approximately twenty-five students said it was because of
sports. 	Dr. Rossi agreed with McGraw that CCTech’s cooperation with Vineland and
Bridgeton has been running smoothly.
Paragraph 11 of the proposal responses reads as follows:
11. 	[Term of Agreement.]
Any agreement will be for a term of 12 months and then
renegotiated by the parties.
Millville wants the agreement to be renegotiated after a year. 	CCTech sees this
as a barrier to its students participating in sports. 	An ongoing cycle of starting and
stopping negatively impacts students.
CCTech was able to resolve this issue with CR in their MOA by agreeing that at a
specific time each year (February), they would meet to tweak the agreement before the
end of the school year so that the athletes could remain on the fields and to provide
their respective boards with notice of the resolution. 	CCTech would offer this same
resolution to Millville, and objects to an automatic termination of the agreement.
As to CCTech offering sports, Dr. Rossi noted that at this time, CCTech had no
plans for interscholastic sports. This was because it has a student population that may
not be sizable enough to field a team; because it may have student athletes on another

13
district’s field, which could negatively affect student recruiting or team unity in ongoing
sports; and because CCTech’s mission is academic and technology oriented for career
and college.
Sports programs take money from the budget, and academic and technology
training is costly. 	For example, CCTech must pay for shop equipment and culinary
kitchens that are commercial grade. 	Combining this with academic funding makes
sports teams not currently feasible. 	CCTech focuses its resources on career and
college, and has extracurricular activities tied to that. 	If CCTech had a sports program,
those monies would have to be budgeted as in any other district, so the cost would be
included in calculating tuition and the costs would go up to sending districts.
Dr. Rossi was aware that Millville had been an Abbott district and that it was an
economically challenged community. 	Ninety percent of its budget was from State aid.
She agreed that Millville was facing budget deficits and had been cutting programs and
staff, which could hurt students. 	She also agreed that it was a reasonable concern of
Millville’s that the cost of CCTech students participating in Millville sports be “cost
neutral.”
For Respondent Millville
Stephanie DeRose testified that she is the principal of Millville Senior High
School. 	Her concern was discipline, and that the perception of disparity in discipline
could affect the students. 	She did not want students to feel discriminated against and
that students could be placed in a bullying situation if discipline were disparate. School
discipline could result in a student being disqualified from participating in sports, so it
was important that CCTech students participating in Millville sports be held to the same
standard as Millville students.
As far as collaboration with McGraw, she noted that he may not always be there.
Millville has in-school suspension but CCTech does not, and this could result in

14
students not being eligible to play sports. 	CCTech does not have the middle level of
discipline that Millville has.
DeRose noted that Millville has budgeting issues and not enough money. Sports
costs vary, but the high school would have to absorb the additional costs if CCTech
students played on Millville teams. 	She might have to cut other budget items to
accommodate the students. 	Millville is in the process of developing its own vocational
program, and she would have to sacrifice something to make sports possible. 	DeRose
wanted the cost of sports for CCTech students in Millville to be cost neutral, and
CCTech’s formula was based on speculation. She acknowledged that Millville would be
receiving over $21,000 under the formula developed by CCTech. 	Costs could change
over time. She wants cost neutrality so that Millville does not have to sacrifice any of its
programs to pay for CCTech students to play sports in Millville. 	This can be done by
having costs itemized for each student athlete.
Michael Jones, a teacher of history at Millville Senior High School, is also head
coach of the men’s basketball team, and the spring and fall weight team. 	He is familiar
with the dynamics of sports in Millville.
He expressed how important it is for a coach to have all his athletes adhere to
the same standards and rules. 	Students vocalize if they see disparity. 	If a CCTech
student participates in Millville sports and is treated differently, such disparity would
affect team unity, which could negatively impact team performance.
Millville students are held to certain expectations to play sports. 	They are
expected and required to participate in community activities and community service,
such as cleaning up streets, charity work, and fundraisers. 	These are team bonding
experiences. 	Millville set these parameters to help the community and to get its
students to experience helping others. 	If CCTech students played in Millville and did
not perform all these activities, it would be detrimental to the sports program.

15
Jones did not recall any student who did not participate in these activities, but if
they did not, he would try to come up with alternatives. He could not think of any reason
why CCTech students would not participate, but if they did not, he would try to find out
the reason and to find something else for the student to do.
Findings
For testimony to be believed, it must not only come from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it also has to be credible in itself. 	It must elicit evidence that is from such
common experience and observation that it can be approved as proper under the
circumstances. 	See Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 (1954); Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J.
Super. 1 (App. Div. 1961). A credibility determination requires an overall assessment of
the witness’s story in light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in
which it “hangs together” with the other evidence. 	Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d
718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). 	Also, “‘[t]he interest, motive, bias, or prejudice of a witness
may affect his credibility and justify the [trier of fact], whose province it is to pass upon
the 	credibility 	of 	an 	interested 	witness, 	in 	disbelieving 	his 	testimony.’” 	State 	v.
Salimone, 19 N.J. Super. 600, 608 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 10 N.J. 316 (1952)
(citation omitted).
A trier of fact may reject testimony because it is inherently incredible, or because
it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common experience, or because it is
overborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282,
287 (App. Div. 1958).
Here, the witnesses appeared to testify credibly. 	Each one answered the
questions directly. 	Each of these educator witnesses was knowledgeable, insightful,
and forthright about his or her respective educational and athletic programs. 	They
appeared to care deeply for their students and expressed their concern about how their
respective programs would be impacted by the decisions being made. 	No witness
appeared to be unreasonable in his or her view about sports participation, or in his or
her ability to collaborate with others. 	I accept their testimony as fact. 	The real issue is

16
how these facts can be applied to the particular concerns of Millville and its relationship
with its students who attend CCTech and who wish to participate in Millville sports
activities.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The 	issue 	presented 	by 	CCTech 	is 	whether 	Millville 	was 	acting 	arbitrarily,
capriciously, and unreasonably when it was unable to reach an agreement with CCTech
to permit Millville student residents who had enrolled at CCTech to be able to participate
in its athletic and sports programs.
It is clear that the Commissioner expected the parties to reach an agreement
within a reasonable period of time after his decision of June 2018. The original petition
covered school year 2016–2017. 	School year 2019–2020 is now fast approaching and
no agreement has yet been reached between Millville and CCTech. 	Students who
entered as freshman may graduate next year without having had the opportunity to play
sports in their home district.
Because Millville did not have a formal policy addressing the participation of
vocational-school students in its athletic programs, the policies of the NJSIAA govern.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:11-3, a board of education may join a voluntary association, such
as the NJSIAA, which regulates the conduct of student activities between and among
members. “The said rules and regulations shall be deemed to be the policy of the board
of education and enforced first by the internal procedures of the association.” 	N.J.S.A.
18A:11-3. 	The applicable NJSIAA rule pertinent to the issues presented here is found
in Article V, Section 4(G), CL3, of its bylaws, which provides:
If a Vocational/Technical High School/Public Academy does
not offer the particular sport in which one of its full-time
students desires to participate, that student may participate
in that sport at his/her home school upon agreement of both
Principals, regardless of the number of sports programs
offered 	at 	the 	Vocational/Technical 	High 	School/Public
Academy.

17
Thus, participation in interscholastic sports is subject to the agreement of the
principals of both the vocational school and the public high school.
In G.W.S. ex rel. A.F.S. v. Petrino & Rahway Board of Education, Union County,
EDU 09797-99, Comm’r (November 29, 1999), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/,
the Rahway school district had permitted vocational students in grades nine through
twelve to participate in extracurricular activities and sports programs in their home
districts. 	Starting 	in 	September 	1999, 	participation 	was 	denied 	to 	ninth-graders
enrolling in the vocational school. 	The Commissioner noted that under the NJSIAA
rules, vocational-technical-school students may participate in the sports programs of
their home districts upon the agreement of the (high-school) principals. 	Although the
decision to allow participation is discretionary, “that discretionary authority must be
reasonably 	exercised 	based 	on 	bona 	fide, 	legitimate 	considerations.” 	The
Commissioner 	has 	noted 	that 	participation 	in 	interscholastic 	sports 	may 	not 	be
practicable or reasonable because of “scheduling constraints, transportation costs or
logistical difficulties, or other valid considerations.”
The question, then, is whether Millville, a member of the NJSIAA, and the
superintendent or principal in the high school have continuing bona fide, legitimate
reasons for denying CCTech students the opportunity to participate in the Millville
athletic program.
Each of Millville’s concerns as set forth in its proposal responses to CCTech’s
offers will be addressed.
3. 	Academic Clearance.
Millville agrees to the proposal outlined by Mr. McGraw whereby CCTEC
students would adhere to Millville academic standards for sports eligibility.
CCTEC will assign an employee to monitor CCTEC student academic
performance and email weekly status reports to Millville coaches.
As to whether this remains a reasonable concern, Millville indicated that it agrees
with the first sentence, but wants a better way to verify academic eligibility. 	CCTech

18
agreed 	that 	Millville 	coaches 	needed 	to 	be 	able 	to 	monitor 	student 	academic
performance. 	CCTech was willing to permit Millville to access CCTech’s Genesis
system to check on students’ academic progress. 	CCTech was also willing to assign a
counselor and to provide weekly reports to Millville to ensure academic eligibility.
CCTech students play sports on Vineland and Bridgeton’s teams and their athletic
directors have direct access to CCTech’s computer system, with no issues. 	The same
policy would also apply to CR students as set forth in their MOA. 	No reason was
presented why this plan would not also work for Millville.
It is not reasonable for Millville to deny CCTech students the opportunity to play
sports based on this concern. Each principal can designate one or two people available
for daily contact if the Millville coaches have concerns over the academic qualifications
of any CCTech student athlete playing in Millville.
4. 	Transportation.
Millville agrees to the offer of CCTech providing transportation to CCTech
students at its own expense.
CCTech must transport its students and arrive on the same schedule as
Millville students for practice and games so as not to create additional
supervision burdens for Millville staff. CCTech must provide transportation
at the end of each student’s athletic activity back to CCTech for parental
pickup so as not to create additional supervision burdens for Millville staff
of CCTech students.
CCTech 	must 	transport 	its 	students 	to 	and 	from 	all 	Millville 	athletic
program activities so that CCTech students adhere to the same schedule
as Millville students including college recruitment interviews.
Millville expressed concern that if CCTech students arrived at times not in sync
with its program, students would be unsupervised. 	CCTech has agreed to transport its
students to practices at the same times as practices commence to avoid this problem.
As for CCTech transporting its students back to CCTech after games or practices
in Millville, it is unreasonable for CCTech to have to transport students from Millville
back to CCTech when they would already be in the city in which they reside, Millville.

19
The students could go home, or be picked up by their parents, just as any other Millville
resident athlete on the team. 	This was how it worked for Vineland and Bridgeton and,
soon, CR, although is a bit different for CR, as its student athletes attending CCTech
were from different areas. To handle this, CR will be using an activity bus to CCTech to
transport its students.
As for the provision that “CCTech must transport its students to and from all
Millville 	athletic 	program 	activities 	so 	that 	CCTech 	students 	adhere 	to 	the 	same
schedule,” 	CCTech had 	no 	problem 	with 	this, 	but 	wanted 	some flexibility, 	if, for
example, a student were taking a test. Practices and games start at different times and
CCTech was willing to transport its students to the away games. Parents or the security
team could also assist with transportation as agreed. In some cases, CCTech might be
on the way to a game from Millville so the students could be picked up at CCTech.
CCTech would try to match up transportation with the practice, game, and event
schedules.
CCTech was willing to make every effort to get students to college-recruiting
interviews, but wanted some flexibility in working it out. 	Any issues that arose with
Vineland and Bridgeton were resolved amicably and no major problems have occurred.
CCTech thought that some flexibility and collaboration with Millville would resolve any
issues. No reason was presented to believe that the principals involved could not come
to a reasonable resolution of any transportation issue that might arise.
It is not reasonable for Millville to deny CCTech students the opportunity to play
sports based on this concern. 	Each principal or his or her designee can review the
practice, game, and event schedules and can work out times for pickup and drop-off
that do not cause students to be unsupervised, and get the students to their games,
practices, and recruiting interviews on time.
6. 	Student Discipline.
Millville cannot agree to disparate disciplinary standards and systems for
CCTech and Millville students participating in the sports program. 	Such
disparities would result in unequal treatment of CCTech and Millville

20
students which would be perceived as fundamentally unfair by both our
students and our community.
CCTech and its students would have to agree to be bound by Millville
school and team disciplinary standards for their conduct while participating
in the Millville sports program and further agree to submit themselves to
the Millville disciplinary system including final review by the Millville Board
of Education.
The issue of discipline and disparate treatment of CCTech students playing on
Millville teams is a genuine concern for Millville, as well as for CCTech. 	Millville wants
to retain all control over discipline of CCTech students playing sports in Millville, while
CCTech wants to have input and use a collaborative practice to resolve any disciplinary
issues that might arise.
Millville did not want students to feel discriminated against and wanted to prevent
any bullying situations. 	Because school discipline could result in a student being
disqualified 	from 	participating 	in 	sports, 	it 	was 	important 	that 	CCTech 	students
participating in Millville sports be held to the same standards as Millville’s students.
Millville has in-school suspension but CCTech does not, and this could result in
students not being eligible to play sports. 	CCTech does not have the middle level of
discipline that Millville has.
CCTech’s position was that team discipline was Millville’s, and its coaches’,
responsibility and that CCTech would support their decisions. 	But if those infractions
rose to a team punishment, CCTech thought that it should be a collaborative decision
between it and Millville. CCTech wants to hold its students accountable and was willing
to discipline them as much as possible as Millville does, but wanted the opportunity to
work it out with Millville and have input and cooperation on any decision. 	CCTech
proffered the example of a student athlete who might be in the process of being
evaluated for an IEP. 	In such case, CCTech would want to have input into what
discipline should be imposed.
CCTech agreed that all students should be held to the same standards and that
there should be no disparate treatment. 	It felt that potential disparities could be

21
resolved 	with 	collaboration 	between 	the 	principals 	or 	their 	designees. 	It 	was
unreasonable for Millville to insist that CCTech not have any input into the discipline of
its students participating in Millville sports and to yield final decision-making authority to
the Millville BOE.
CCTech did not see collaboration as a problem. 	The principal of CCTech was
previously able to resolve a disciplinary issue between two students. Although CCTech
thought the punishment was excessive, the principal ultimately agreed to keep it the
same for both students to avoid the appearance of disparate treatment. 	In the MOA
with CR, CCTech agreed on team discipline with the coach having that authority, but for
infractions within school, CCTech received input.
While disparate disciplinary treatment is a valid consideration for Millville, it would
be unreasonable for it to have final say in imposing discipline on a CCTech student
participating in Millville sports. The principals of the schools appeared to be reasonable
and cooperative educators, seeking the best for their students. 	No reason was
presented why they, or their designees, could not collaborate and reach agreement on
any discipline to be imposed, except that they may not always be employed in these
positions. This is not a sufficient basis to determine that CCTech and Millville would not
be able to reasonably address any disciplinary issues that might arise.
Accordingly, it is not reasonable for Millville to deny CCTech students the
opportunity to play sports based on this concern. The principals, or their designees, can
collaborate and resolve any disciplinary issues that may arise.8
7. 	Other Logistical Issues.
Participation in the sports program is a privilege that must be earned by
Millville students by adherence to higher standards of conduct including
fostering school spirit, serving as role models and school leaders and
involvement in the community. 	It would not be fair to have Millville
students earn the privilege of participation and not require the same of
CCTech students. 	Millville must run one sports program with rules that
apply equally to all participants. 	Therefore, CCTech students would have
to meet the same standards by participating in the same activities on the
8 If this becomes an issue, the parties can develop alternate methods for resolving disciplinary issues.

22
same 	schedule 	as 	their 	teammates. 	For 	example, 	Leader’s 	Club
activities; pep rallies; nutritional program; student mentoring activities;
community activities. 	CCTech must also transport its students to these
activities at its sole expense.
Both districts agreed that team unity was important and that having all members
of 	a team following the same rules and standards was also important. 	Millville
contended that its students are held to certain expectations to be able to play sports.
They are expected, and required, to participate in community activities and community
service, such as cleaning up streets, charity work, fundraisers, and team bonding
experiences.
Millville set these parameters to help the community and to get its students to
experience helping others. 	It argued that if CCTech students played in Millville and did
not perform all these activities, it would be detrimental to its sports program. 	If all the
athletes did not adhere to the same standards and rules, the disparity would affect team
unity, which could negatively impact team performance.
As to the activities listed by Millville, CCTech noted that not all athletes are
members of the Leader’s Club. 	As for other activities such as pep rallies, or other
entire-team events that might occur during the school day, CCTech would make every
effort to get its students there, subject to whatever may be happening at CCTech, such
as testing. 	If every team member were expected to perform community service, then
the Millville student attending CCTech would also be expected to participate. 	CCTech
and Millville students could meet the same standards and follow the same rules, but this
would require collaboration between the principals, recognizing that some flexibility was
necessary. 	If a student could not participate in these activities, an alternative could be
found that satisfied Millville.
It is not reasonable for Millville to deny CCTech students the opportunity to play
sports based on this concern. 	Each principal or his or her designee can exchange
schedules and proposed activities, and can reach a reasonable accommodation for
Millville students attending CCTech, recognizing that some flexibility is required to
assure that students are able to achieve academically as well as athletically.

23
8. 	[Financial Concerns.]
Millville will pay for the general cost of the sports programs utilized by
CCTech students but will not incur extra out of pocket expenses for
CCTech 	students, 	e.g., 	uniforms—equipment—supplies 	or 	need 	for
additional staff solely due to CCTech student participation. 	CCTech must
pay those out of pocket expenses for its students. The estimated cost per
student would be in the $300–500 range depending upon the sport.
It would be unfair to ask the Millville district to use its scarce resources to
pay the extra out of pocket costs for CCTech students.
In his decision of June 2018, the Commissioner stated, “[C]oncerns regarding the
impact on student enrollment at Cumberland and Millville and corresponding State
funding do not equate to bona fide legitimate reasons for denying CTech students the
opportunity to participate in sports programs.” 	CCTech v. Cumberland Reg’l & Millville,
EDU 12252-16, Comm’r (June 7, 2018), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. 	The
cost 	for 	permitting 	students 	to 	participate 	in 	sports 	was 	not 	addressed 	in 	the
Commissioner’s decision. 	Neither does NJSIAA Article V, Section 4(G), CL3, mention
any reimbursement for expenses incurred by the resident student district:
If a Vocational/Technical High School/Public Academy does
not offer the particular sport in which one of its full-time
students desires to participate, that student may participate
in that sport at his/her home school upon agreement of both
Principals, regardless of the number of sports programs
offered 	at 	the 	Vocational/Technical 	High 	School/Public
Academy.
Millville wants the cost of permitting CCTech students to play on its teams to be
“cost neutral.” It cites budgetary concerns, the development of new projects, and State-
aid losses. No statutory or regulatory basis for this proposition has been cited.
In order to address this concern, CCTech created a fund of $100,000 as a
financial incentive to be distributed to the four districts (Vineland, Bridgeton, CR, and
Millville) whose students attend CCTech. 	It was not mandated by the Commissioner or
the statute or regulations and was seen by CCTech as a reasonable way to address
Millville’s concerns and to reduce the costs to the districts where CCTech students play.

24
In determining the amount distributed from the fund, CCTech would provide each
of the four districts with a portion based on their respective percentage of students
enrolled as of October 15 of each year (the ASSA number). 	CCTech used this number
because the ASSA must be agreed upon with the sending district, and was also subject
to State audit, so it could be verified by any district. 	CCTech could not use the number
of students who participated in sports because this number was always in flux and was
not reliable. It is a statistic that cannot be accurately tracked or verified.
Using 2018–2019 as the basis for their calculation, Millville had 151 students
attending CCTech (21.33% of the total CCTech enrollment) and would have received
$21,327.68. 	Based on the projected enrollment for 2019–2020, Millville would have
approximately 21.84% of CCTech’s student enrollment and would receive a payment of
$21,835.44. 	The payment would be made in December when the ASSA is finalized by
the State.
CCTech estimated that approximately thirty to forty Millville students attending
CCTech would be participating in sports. 	Taking all sports into consideration, CCTech
made the reasonable cost estimate of $300–500 per student. 	If forty students decided
to play sports, the total using the highest amount of $500 per student was $20,000.
Using the funding formula as determined by CCTech would have provided Millville with
$21,853, more than the estimated cost.
Millville objected to CCTech’s proposal and countered that it wanted to be paid in
accordance with an itemized list of the cost for each student athlete: 	Millville did not
want to receive more than it was entitled to for the cost of athletic participation, nor did it
want to receive less. 	However, CCTech felt that this counter-proposal was unwieldy.
Students may try out for a sport or start and drop out. Or they may switch sports. They
may participate in several sports. 	An accounting would not be available with any
reasonable accuracy for verification by the public, unlike CCTech’s proposal, which is
capable of verification.

25
Accordingly, it is not reasonable for Millville to deny CCTech students the
opportunity to play sports in Millville based on this concern, as CCTech has made a
very reasonable proposal that addresses this issue for Millville and its three other
sending districts.
11. 	[Term of Agreement.]
Any agreement will be for a term of 12 months and then renegotiated by
the parties.
Millville wants the agreement to be renegotiated after a year. CCTech objects to
an automatic termination and proposes to resolve this issue as it did with CR in their
MOA by agreeing that, at a specific time each year (February), they would meet to
tweak the agreement before the end of the school year so that the athletes could remain
on the fields and to provide their respective boards with notice of the resolution.
The position of CCTech is reasonable. 	Given that it has been more than three
years since this litigation commenced and the end is not yet in sight, and its students
are not yet participating in sports, it would be most unreasonable to terminate the
agreement after twelve months and have to start anew. 	It is not reasonable for Millville
to want to renegotiate each year with the likely attendant delay in implementing the
Commissioner’s directive to permit the CCTech students to play sports in the district
where they reside.
Accordingly, it is not reasonable for Millville to deny CCTech students the
opportunity to play sports based on this concern.
CONCLUSION
Under the NJSIAA rules as adopted by Millville, vocational-school students may
participate in the sports programs of their home districts upon the agreement of the
principals. 	Although 	the 	decision 	to 	allow 	participation 	is 	discretionary, 	that
discretionary authority must be reasonably exercised based on bona fide, legitimate
considerations. 	Here, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	CCTech 	has 	demonstrated 	by 	a

26
preponderance of the credible evidence that the reasons advanced by Millville for not
coming to an agreement with CCTech for the participation of its students in Millville’s
athletic activities, as directed by the Commissioner, are not legitimate, reasonable, or
practicable concerns. CCTech has addressed each concern of Millville with reasonable
and practical solutions. 	Accordingly, there is no reason why CCTech students residing
in Millville should be denied the opportunity to participate in Millville’s athletic program.
ORDER
I ORDER that the application of the petitioner, Cumberland County Technical
Education 	Center, 	Cumberland 	County, 	to 	compel 	the 	respondent, 	the 	Board 	of
Education of the City of Millville, Cumberland County, to admit its students residing in
Millville into Millville’s athletic and sports programs, is GRANTED. The principals of the
high schools shall collaborate in effectuating this decision.
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.

27
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.
August 6, 2019
DATE 	SUSAN M. SCAROLA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
SMS/cb

28
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner Cumberland County Technical Education Center:
Gregory McGraw
Dina Rossi Elliott
For respondent City of Millville:
Stephanie DeRose
Michael Jones
EXHIBITS
For petitioner Cumberland County Technical Education Center:
P-1 	Meeting Agenda, dated June 27, 2018
P-2 	Memorandum of Agreement between CCTech and CR (not provided)
P-3 	Allocation of Fund
P-4 	CCTech Proposed Athletic Compensation
For respondent City of Millville:
R-1 	Millville Response to 7-3-18 Meeting
OAL exhibit:
OAL-1 Letter dated July 29, 2019, approving MOA between CCTech and CR