Jennifer Bard v. Board of Education of the Borough of Brielle, Monmouth County, 12/9/2024, (#446-24)

446-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02431-24
Agency Dkt. No. 2-1/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jennifer Bard,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Brielle,
Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, the Commissioner’s jurisdiction does not include disputes concerning the conduct of
school elections.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 9, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	December 11, 2024
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 TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02431-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2-1/24
JENNIFER BARD,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF BRIELLE,
MONMOUTH COUNTY,
Respondent.
Jennifer Bard, petitioner, pro se
Cherie L. Adams, Esq., for respondent, Board of Education of the Borough of
Brielle (Adams Lattiboudere Croot & Herman, LLC, attorney)
Record Closed: October 7, 2024 Decided: October 30, 2024
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Jennifer Bard, challenges the eligibility of a member of the respondent,
Board of Education of the Borough of Brielle (BOE), and its actions taken during the
school board election.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 7, 2023, Liam Starkey (Mr. Starkey) was elected to the local BOE.
Mr. Starkey was not on the ballot but received 111 write-in votes. The Monmouth County
Board of County Canvassers certified the election results, and Mr. Starkey was seated
on the BOE in January 2024. On January 3, 2024, the petitioner, Jennifer Bard (Ms. Bard,
petitioner) filed a pro se petition of appeal with the Department of Education asking the
Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) to investigate two claims about Mr. Starkey
and his election to the BOE. On February 15, 2024, the respondent, the Borough of
Brielle Board of Education, filed an Answer to the petition. The contested case was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on February 21,
2024. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to N.J.S.A.
52:14F-13. After several conference calls, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on July
18, 2024. Petitioner submitted her response to the motion on August 20, 2024. A status
conference was held on October 7, 2024, to clarify the parties’ positions, and the matter
closed then.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties do not dispute many of the background facts in this case. I, therefore,
FIND the following FACTS:
On January 3, 2024, the petitioner filed a pro se petition of appeal with the
Department of Education, asking the Commissioner to investigate two claims about Mr.
Starkey and his election to the BOE.

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
3
The petitioner claimed it was never verified that Mr. Starkey was eligible to be a
candidate on election day. The petition alleges that Mr. Starkey was seventeen years
old, too young to register to vote, and therefore ineligible to serve on a school board under
New Jersey law. Ms. Bard claimed this is “potentially a legitimate but unintended loophole
that if nothing else the state legislature might want to review” because “it’s not an equal
playing field for all write-in candidates if some of them would have been eligible to petition
for the ballot and some would not have been.” (See Petitioner’s Petition.)
Ms. Bard claimed that she heard from “dozens” of Brielle residents across all
political affiliations about unsolicited political text messages pertaining to the school board
election. (Ibid.) Ms. Bard alleged that they all were sent around 7:31 or 7:32 a.m. on the
day of the school board’s election, speculating they were likely robo-texts as “defined by
the FCC.” Ms. Bard did not claim to receive one of these texts herself. (Ibid.)
The petitioner took issue with these texts because they appeared to be linked to
New Jersey Senator Vin Gopal’s campaign. The core of her complaint was that these
messages were “potentially illegal” and undermined the “integrity” of the non-partisan
school board. (Ibid.)
Ms. Bard provided two screenshots of texts messages, both from the same
number. One is an incomplete image, and the only words that can be seen are “Hi
Ronald! This is Jessie volunteering with the Gopal, . . . Donlon, and Peterpaul camp . . . .
We have a very important . . . Election coming up in 10 day . . . .” The second says “There
are only 2 candidates on the ballot today for 3 seats on the Brielle Board of Education.
Please vote for Liam Starkey as a write-in candidate for the third seat. He will provide a
young voice for the students. Text Stop to opt out.” (Ibid.)
On February 15, 2024, the respondent filed an Answer to the Petition and
Affirmative Defenses. On July 18, 2024, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
petitioner’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent argues that the petition must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the following grounds: “1) authority over election
enforcement rests with the superintendent of Elections and the Monmouth County Board
of Elections, 2) the Commissioner of Education is statutorily prohibited from ruling on this

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
4
matter, and 3) the proper powers for hearing controversies and disputes concerning
school board election results are exclusively reserved for Superior Court judges.”
(Respondent’s Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 2.)
The respondent further argues that it
[complied] with all relevant election laws and statutes.
Pursuant to applicable provisions in N.J.S.A. 19:16 through
N.J.S.A. 19:19, the Board forwarded election ballots and
required documentation to the Monmouth County Board of
County Canvassers. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:20-9, the
Canvassers then certified the election results of November 7,
2023, and Mr. Starkey, a write-in candidate, as the duly
elected candidate to be seated on the Board of Education of
the Borough of Brielle.
[Id. at 6.]
Mr. Starkey resigned from the Brielle Board of Education for unknown reasons on
August 14, 2024.
On August 20, 2024, the petitioner sent a one-page email1 to the OAL. (P-1.) On
August 26, 2024, this tribunal sent an email to the petitioner inquiring if the email of August
20, 2024, was the petitioner’s response to the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, to which
the petitioner responded “Yes”2. (P-2.) In the petitioner’s response to the BOE’s motion
to dismiss, she stated that even though Mr. Starkey had resigned, it was still “crucial” to
pursue the case “to its full resolution.” She further states:
This matter is not merely about one candidate; it highlights a
potential loophole in our election laws that could undermine
the fairness of future elections if left undressed. Ensuring that
all candidates meet the legal requirements to stand for
election is fundamental to maintaining public trust in our
democratic process.”
[P-1.]
1 For ease of reference this tribunal will mark the email as P-1.
2 For ease of reference this tribunal will mark this email as P-2.

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The first issue is whether the Commissioner of Education and the Office of
Administrative Law have jurisdiction to rule on school election controversies challenging
the eligibility of a member of a BOE and the actions he took during the campaign. The
second issue is whether the Commissioner of Education and the Office of Administrative
Law have jurisdiction over campaign communications, specifically unsolicited text
messages sent by a third-party political campaign.
The Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over all disputes arising under
school laws but has no jurisdiction over the procedural process of school elections.
The commissioner shall have jurisdiction to hear and
determine, without cost to the parties, all controversies and
disputes arising under the school laws, excepting those
governing higher education, or under the rules of the State
board or of the commissioner. For the purposes of this Title,
controversies and disputes concerning the conduct of
school elections shall not be deemed to arise under the
school laws.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 (emphasis added).]
All “alleged violations of the procedural process for school elections” must instead be
brought in Superior Court. City of Orange Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. City of Orange Twp., EDU
01996-17, Order for Emergent Relief (February 28, 2017),
<https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal>, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. When a
party brings a procedural election claim to the Office of Administrative Law, it must be
dismissed because the “Superior Court is the proper forum.” City of Orange Twp. Bd. of
Educ. v. City of Orange Twp., 451 N.J. Super. 310, 315 (Ch. Div. 2017).
Elections can be challenged on multiple procedural grounds, including that an
“incumbent was not eligible to the office at the time of the election.” N.J.S.A. 19:29-1(b).
These challenges “shall be heard” by the “Superior Court assigned to the county” where
the election was held. N.J.S.A. 19:29-2. Election challenges are “commenced by the

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
6
filing of a petition . . . signed by at least 15 voters of the country or by any defeated
candidate.” Ibid. The petition must be “verified by the oath of at least 2 of the petitioners,
or by the candidate.” Ibid.
Notably, all election challenges must be brought no later than thirty-two days after
the election, even when this allows an official to hold a position for which they might not
be eligible. N.J.S.A. 19:29-3; see also Davis v. City of Plainfield, 389 N.J. Super. 424,
432 (Ch. Div. 2006); Jones v. Mitchell, 194 N.J. Super. 387, 392 (Law Div. 1983).
Challenging Starkey’s Eligibility
There is no statutorily enumerated age requirement to serve on a board of
education; however all members must be registered to vote in the district in which they
serve, and citizens must be eighteen years old to vote. U.S. Const. amend XXIV, § 2;
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-1. In 1973, a sixteen-year-old’s petition to run as a candidate for the
school board was denied based on his age, and the Superior Court upheld the denial,
reasoning that the legislature decided candidates not old enough to vote were not
“qualified to occupy the office of board member.” Vittoria v. West Orange Bd. of Educ.
122 N.J. Super. 340, 357 (App. Div. 1973). Therefore, school board members must be
eighteen years old to serve, but there is no case law addressing if a candidate needs to
be eighteen by election day or by the beginning of their term.
The crux of the petitioner’s complaint is that if Starkey had petitioned to be on the
ballot, he would have probably been deemed ineligible based on his age, and so instead,
he skirted the law by mounting a write-in campaign. The complaint argues that he was
probably ineligible to run for the school board on election day but admits that he may have
been eligible through an unintended, but unfair, loophole. The petitioner does not claim
that the BOE or the Commissioner committed any wrongdoing or violated any rules and
even goes so far as to say that this is something the “state legislature might want to
review.” Therefore, this is a procedural election claim beyond the authority of the
Commissioner and the Office of Administrative Law. Because this is a statutory
interpretation question about state election law procedure, I CONCLUDE that it must be
brought before the Superior Court.

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
7
Furthermore, this claim is time-barred. The election was held on November 7,
2023, and the petitioner did not file the complaint until January 3, 2024. This was fifty-
seven days after the election and twenty-five days past the statutory limit. N.J.S.A. 19:29-
3. For this reason, I also CONCLUDE that this matter is time-barred.
Unsolicited Campaign Text Messages
The petitioner also claimed that the unsolicited text messages were “potentially”
linked to New Jersey Senator Vin Gopal’s campaign, which she felt “in addition to being
potentially illegal . . . grossly undermines the integrity of the board.” As with the first claim,
she does not allege any wrongdoing by the Commissioner or the BOE but rather by the
Gopal campaign and the sender of the text messages. I therefore CONCLUDE that this
is not a claim against the Commissioner or the BOE, and jurisdiction is improper.
ORDER
Accordingly, and for the reasons articulated above, it is ORDERED that the motion
of respondent Board of Education of the Borough of Brielle for an Order Granting
Dismissal pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 is hereby GRANTED, and the petition of appeal
is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting 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 DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
8
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
October 30, 2024
DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JMB/sg/jm

OAL DOCKET NO. EDU 02431-24
9
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner
Pro se Petition of Appeal
P-1 Email Response to Motion to Dismiss, August 20, 2024
P-2 Email Response to OAL, August 26, 2024
For respondent
Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss with Exhibits 1–3