Eric Simkin v. Board of Education of the Township of Voorhees, Camden County, 4/11/2023, (#111-23)

111-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Eric Simkin,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Voorhees,
Camden County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner challenged the respondent’s filling of a vacancy created by the resignation of Board
member Rachel Van Aken (Van Aken) on February 24, 2022. 	Petitioner maintained that the Board
lacked the authority to fill this vacancy and sought to overturn the Board’s appointment of Julie Ketover
(Ketover) to fill Van Aken’s unexpired term; petitioner further sought to nullify any votes cast by Ketover
as a Board member. The Board contended that this matter is moot as Ketover was subsequently elected
to a full term as a Board member on November 8, 2022. The Board further contended that the petition
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and filed a motion to dismiss.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	on February 24, 2022, a vacancy on the Board was created by the
resignation of Van Aken; the Board sought to fill the vacant seat for the remainder of Van Aken’s term,
which expired in November 2022; following two unsuccessful attempts to fill the vacancy in March and
April of 2022, the Board rescinded its previous actions regarding the vacancy and voted on June 15, 2022
to appoint Ketover to fill the vacant seat for the remainder of Van Aken’s term; and petitioner
contended that the Board’s actions on June 15, 2022, violated N.J.S.A. 40A:14-201(b)(2) as more than
sixty-five days had passed since Van Aken’s resignation; however, it is undisputed that Ketover was duly
elected to a seat on the Board on November 8, 2022 and petitioner’s argument that Ketover’s
appointment to the seat, three months earlier, could have “dramatically effected the election” is
speculative and has no relevance to the within proceeding. The ALJ concluded that the petition is moot
because Ketover was duly elected as a member of the Board on November 8, 2022, and there is nothing
left to decide in this case. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the case for
mootness.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ, for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the
Initial Decision, that the petition of appeal is moot. 	Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss was
granted, and the petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. 07409-22
Agency Dkt. No. 216-8/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Eric Simkin,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Voorhees, Camden 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, for the
reasons thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision, that the petition of appeal is moot.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
111-23
April 11, 2023
April 12, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION ON
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 216-8/22
ERIC SIMKIN,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF VOORHEES, CAMDEN
COUNTY,
Respondent.
Eric Simkin, petitioner, pro se
Jeffrey P. Catalano, Esq., for respondent (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: February 16, 2023 	Decided: March 10, 2023
BEFORE KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Eric Simkin, filed this action against respondent, the Board of Education
of the Township of Voorhees, Camden County (the Board), as an emergent-relief request
and petition. After emergent relief was denied, the Commissioner of Education continued

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
2
the petition at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for such proceedings as were
deemed necessary to bring the matter to closure.
Petitioner challenged how the respondent filled the vacancy caused by the
resignation of Board member, Rachel Van Aken, on February 24, 2022. 	Petitioner
maintained that the Board lacked the authority to fill this vacancy. Therefore, he sought
to overturn the Board’s appointment of Julie Ketover to fill Van Aken’s unexpired term and
to nullify any votes cast by Ketover as a Board member.
The Board contends that the matter is now moot due to Ketover’s election as a
Board member on November 8, 2022, for her own term. 	The Board further contends that
the petition fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, thereby requiring dismissal
of the petition.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 26, 2022, the Department of Education, Office of Controversies and
Disputes transmitted petitioner’s Motion for Emergent Relief to the OAL to be heard as a
contested case. 	I issued an Order on September 6, 2022, denying the request for
emergent relief. 	On September 14, 2022, the Commissioner issued an Order adopting
the September 6, 2022, Order, and continued the matter at the OAL for such proceedings
deemed necessary to bring the matter to closure.
Following telephone conferences and the exchange of discovery, the Board filed
a Motion to Dismiss. On February 8, 2023, Simkin filed a brief in opposition. On February
15, 2023, the Board filed its reply.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
On February 24, 2022, a vacancy on the Board was created by the resignation of
Rachel Van Aken. The Board sought to fill this seat for the remainder of her term which
would end in November 2022. 	The Board was unsuccessful in two attempts during
meetings on March 16, 2022, and on April 11, 2022, to fill the vacancy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
3
By email, dated April 12, 2022, the Board’s Solicitor advised Executive County
Superintendent, Daryl Minus-Vincent, that the deadline for the Board to appoint a
candidate to fill the vacancy expired on April 30, 2022. 	(Respondent Exhibit A.) 	The
vacancy created by Ms. Van Aken’s resignation was not on the agenda for its May 4,
2022, meeting.
At the June 15, 2022, Board Meeting, Board President Monica Watson added an
agenda item to rescind the previous votes to fill the vacancy. 	The Board then voted to
appoint Ms. Ketover to fill the vacant seat for its unexpired term by a vote of five to three.
Petitioner contends that under N.J.S.A. 8A:12-15(a), the Board lacked the authority to fill
this vacancy because more than sixty-five days had passed since the occurrence of Van
Aken’s resignation.
After appointing Ms. Ketover to the vacant seat on June 15, 2022, the Board
Solicitor sent an email to the new Executive County Superintendent, Carmen Rodriguez,
informing him that the Board filled the vacancy. (Respondent Exhibit B.)
Ms. Ketover was sworn in as a Board member at the August 29, 2022, Board
meeting and voted during that meeting as a member of the Board. She voted to approve
the 2022–2023 curriculum for Social Studies; Science; Math; Language Arts Literacy;
Health and Physical Education; Visual and Performing Arts; and World Language. 	The
motion passed with seven members voting yes and one member abstaining. Even if Ms.
Ketover’s vote was invalidated, this motion would still have passed, and the Curriculum
would have taken effect.
On November 8, 2022, Ms. Ketover was duly elected to a seat on the Board.
The above facts are not disputed. 	Rather, petitioner maintains that the Board’s
actions on June 15, 2022, violated N.J.S.A. 40A:14-201(b)(2), because sixty-five days
had passed since Van Aiken’s resignation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
4
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
As the Board properly argued, mootness is a threshold justiciability determination
rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be exercised only when a party is immediately
threatened with harm. 	Jackson v. Dep’t of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 231 (App. Div.
2000). “A case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been resolved
at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation.” 	DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J.
420, 428 (1993). 	Courts normally will not decide issues when a controversy no longer
exists, and the disputed issues have become moot. Id.
An action is moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the
issues raised have become academic. For reasons of judicial economy and restraint, it
is appropriate to refrain from decision-making when an issue presented is hypothetical;
judgment cannot grant effective relief; or the parties do not have a concrete adversity of
interest. Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976); Fox v. Twp. of E.
Brunswick Bd. of Educ., EDU 10067-98, Initial Decision (March 19, 1999), aff’d, Comm’r
(May 3, 1999) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html>; S.J. v. Bd. of Educ. of
Mountain Lakes, EDU 07081-03, Initial Decision (October 7, 2003), aff’d, Comm’r (Nov.
17, 2003), aff’d, St. Bd. (Feb. 3, 2004) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html>.
When a decision being sought in a particular matter has no practical effect on the
existing controversy, it is considered moot. “Therefore, when there has been a change
in circumstances that raises doubt concerning the immediacy of the controversy, courts
will ordinarily dismiss cases as moot, regardless of the state to which litigation has
progressed.” Anderson, 143 N.J. Super. at 437.
In the instant matter, I FIND as it is undisputed that Julie Ketover was duly elected
to a seat on the Board on November 8, 2022. 	Petitioner’s argument that Ketover’s
appointment to the seat, three months earlier, could have “dramatically effected the
election” is speculative and has no relevance to this proceeding. Any decision rendered
by this tribunal about the Board’s action on June 15, 2022, when it voted to approve
Ketover’s appointment to fill Van Aiken’s unexpired term and on August 29, 2022, when
it voted to approve Ketover as a member of the Board would have no practical effect due

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
5
to Ketover’s election on November 8, 2022. 	As such, I FIND that this action no longer
presents a justiciable controversy. There is no relief that can be afforded to this petitioner,
as there has been no injury shown.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the petition is moot because Ketover was duly
elected on November 8, 2022, as a member of the Board. As such, there is nothing for
this tribunal to decide.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I hereby ORDER that respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on
behalf of mootness is GRANTED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
6
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.
March 10, 2023
DATE 	KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Sent to Parties:
KMC/jns

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07409-22
7
APPENDIX OF MOTION PROCEEDING
For petitioner
Opposition Brief, with supporting Exhibits, filed February 8, 2023
Exhibit A – Roster of Officials
Exhibit B – Emails
Exhibit C – District Policy
Exhibit D – Interrogatories and Answers to Interrogatories
Exhibit E – Correspondence
For respondent
Motion Brief, with supporting Exhibits, filed January 6, 2023
Exhibit A – Solicitor Cavallo’s email to Executive County Superintendent
Minus-Vincent, dated April 12, 2022
Exhibit B – Solicitor Cavallo’s email to Executive County Superintendent
Rodriguez, dated June 21, 2022
Exhibit C – Official Election Results
Reply Brief, filed February 15, 2023