Jared Fowler v. Board of Education of the Passaic Valley Regional High School District, Passaic County, 12/24/2020, (#291-20)

291-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jared Fowler,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Passaic Valley
Regional High School District, Passaic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner – employed by the school district as the Assistant Principal of Humanities – appealed the
determination of the respondent Board to withhold his salary increment for the 2019-20 school year as
consequence for his failure to provide administrative oversight of the 2019 yearbook. Petitioner contended that
the Board’s action in withholding his increment was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, arguing, inter alia,
that it was not his job responsibility as Assistant Principal to edit and/or supervise the yearbook. The parties
filed cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:29-14, a board of education may withhold a teacher’s increment
for inefficiency or other good cause; in the spring of the 2018–19 school year, the Board became aware of
inappropriate written content in the 2019 yearbook which sparked controversy and became a “public relations
nightmare” for the school district; in his role as Assistant Principal of Humanities, the petitioner oversees the
English department, which includes an elective Editing and Publishing course that creates and reviews yearbook
content; it is undisputed that the 2019 yearbook contained inappropriate writing that caused controversy among
parents and other members of the public; the inappropriate content was either missed or ignored by district staff
who directly oversaw the yearbook; in responding to the resulting controversy, the Board held the two teachers
in the Editing and Publishing course accountable, as well as those administrators whom the Board deemed to
have failed to provide administrative oversight, leadership and supervision of the yearbook project, including the
petitioner. 	The ALJ concluded that the Board’s decision to withhold petitioner’s salary increment 	was not
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, summary decision was granted in favor of the Board, and
the petition was dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in this matter and adopted
the Initial Decision as the final decision for the reasons thoroughly expressed therein. 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.
December 24, 2020

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 14706-19
Agency Dkt. No. 259-9/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Jared Fowler,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Passaic 	Valley
Regional High School District, Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioner challenges the Board’s decision to withhold his increment for the 2019-
20 school year after an incident involving inappropriate written content which appeared in the
school yearbook. 	Petitioner, the Assistant Principal of Humanities, oversees the English
department, which includes an elective Editing and Publishing course that creates and reviews
yearbook content. 	The yearbook club handles extracurricular activities outside of school hours
but does not edit the content of the yearbook. 	The yearbook advisors report to the Student
Activities Coordinator, who oversees club operations.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Board decision to withhold
petitioner’s increment was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. 	Petitioner had oversight
over the class responsible for creating and reviewing the yearbook content, and it is undisputed
that the 2019 yearbook contained inappropriate content that caused controversy and a “public

2
relations nightmare.” As such, the ALJ found the Board had good cause to withhold petitioner’s
salary increase.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ – for the reasons thoroughly
expressed in the Initial Decision – that the Board was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable its
decision to withhold petitioner’s salary increment for the 2019-20 school year. Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 24, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	December 28, 2020
1 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).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
AGENCY DKT. 259-9/19
JARED FOWLER,
Petitioner,
v.
PASSAIC VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
EDUCATION, PASSAIC COUNTY,
Respondent.
Robert M. Schwartz, Esq., and John Farinella, Esq., for petitioner (Schwartz
Law Group, attorneys)
Raymond B. Reddin, Esq., for respondent (Reddin Masri, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 20, 2020 	Decided: November 9, 2020
BEFORE SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Assistant Principal Jared Fowler (Fowler or petitioner), appeals the
determination of respondent, Board of Education of the Passaic Valley Regional High

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
4
School District, Passaic County (Board or respondent), to withhold his salary increase,
alleging that the Board’s action was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the Commissioner of Education on or
around September 24, 2019, and the Commissioner transmitted the matter to the Office
of Administrative Law, where it was filed as a contested case on October 17, 2019.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. On or around September 4, 2020,
the parties filed cross-motions for summary decision. Respondent filed an opposition to
petitioner’s 	motion 	on 	September 	16, 	2020, 	and 	petitioner 	filed 	an 	opposition 	to
respondent’s 	motion 	on 	September 	18, 	2020. 	The 	record 	closed 	following 	oral
argument on October 20, 2020.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The parties jointly filed a Stipulation of Facts containing the following, that I FIND
as FACT:
1. 	Petitioner currently serves in the position of Assistant Principal of Humanities.
Petitioner 	holds 	an 	administrative 	certificate 	with 	both 	the 	principal 	and
supervisor endorsements.
2. 	Petitioner has been employed by the respondent since the commencement of the
2008–2009 school term. 	He began his employment with the respondent as a
teacher of English in 2008–2009 school term. 	Upon the commencement of the
2015–2016 school term, petitioner was promoted to the position of Supervisor of
Curriculum.
3. 	Petitioner served as the Supervisor of Curriculum for the 2015–2016 school term.
4. 	Since July 1, 2016, petitioner has served in the capacity of Assistant Principal of
Humanities.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
5
5. 	Petitioner is not part of any collective bargaining unit nor salary guide.
6. 	The Board establishes the salaries of the administrators. 	Petitioner’s salary
increases have occurred annually subject to the approval of the Board.
7. 	As Assistant Principal, petitioner has worked under the job description entitled
“Assistant Principal of Humanities” which was adopted by the respondent on or
about April 26, 2016.
8. 	The Assistant Principal of Humanities’ job description sets forth the performance
responsibilities for which petitioner was held accountable.2
9. 	The respondent has historically assigned teacher advisors to the Yearbook Club,
a stipend position which assists with the Yearbook activities and which falls
under Student Activities unit.
10. 	The Yearbook content is created and reviewed in the class entitled Editing and
Publishing, which is in the English Department and falls under Humanities. 	The
Editing and Publishing class is an official elective course which issues a grade
and edits the content of the Yearbook, falling under the auspices of approved
student activities at Passaic Valley Regional High School. 	The two teachers
assigned to the Yearbook Club are paid a stipend.
11. 	The Yearbook Club handles extra-curricular activity outside of classroom hours,
such 	as 	fundraising, 	and 	does 	not 	establish 	or 	review 	the 	content 	of 	the
Yearbook.
12. 	There is no individual assigned as the Supervisor of Humanities. The position is
vacant. 	The 	petitioner 	in 	his 	role 	as 	Assistant 	Principal 	supervises 	the
2 The job description was attached as an exhibit to the Stipulation of Facts, and is incorporated herein.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
6
Humanities and English departments, wherein the Editing and Publishing course
falls.
13. 	During the 2018–2019 school term, the teachers of the Editing and Publishing
course were Lori Demsey and Leanne Weiss. 	Ms. Weiss reported to the
petitioner. Ms. Demsey reported to the Supervisor of STEM.
14. 	During the 2018–2019 school term, the yearbook advisor stipend positions were
also given to Lori Demsey and Leanne Weiss. 	This was their first year as
advisors to the yearbook.
15. 	Both Ms. Demsey and Ms. Weiss, as teachers of the Editing and Publishing
class, were also assigned to be yearbook advisors by the Superintendent, Dr.
JoAnn Cardillo. 	Their appointment as yearbook advisors had been approved by
the Board of Education.
16. 	Both Ms. Demsey and Ms. Weiss received the payment of a stipend to be the
yearbook advisors.3
17. 	In their capacity as yearbook advisors during the 2018–2019 school term, Ms.
Demsey and Ms. Weiss reported to Joseph Benvenuti, the Student Activities
Coordinator.4
18. 	The job description for the Student Activities Coordinator title provides under
“performance responsibilities” that he is to “oversee club operations” and that he
is to “develop standard operating procedures” for clubs “when necessary.”
3 	Their job description for the yearbook advisors was attached as an exhibit to the
Stipulation of Facts and is incorporated herein.
4 The job description for the Student Activities Coordinator was attached as an exhibit to the Stipulation of Facts,
and is incorporated herein.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
7
19. 	During the 2018–2019 school term, petitioner was never explicitly asked or
assigned to review and/or have oversight responsibilities as to the contents of the
yearbook or any of its activities.
20. 	Petitioner, in his capacity as Assistant Principal, did not supervise the Student
Activities Coordinator either during the 2018–2019 school term, or in any prior
years.
21. 	In the spring of the 2018–2019 school term, the respondent became aware of a
writing in the 2019 yearbook which was deemed inappropriate. 	The writing was
as follows:
Nickname: DaBomb, Bombza
Ambition: To get past TSA without getting stopped
Secret Ambition: To Be a Pilot
I would thank Allah, but I know the FBI is watching
22. 	This sparked controversy among some parents and members of the public.
23. 	As 	a 	result 	of 	the 	controversy, 	by 	way 	of 	a 	letter 	dated 	June 	25, 	2019,
respondent, through its then Superintendent, Dr. JoAnn Cardillo, informed the
petitioner that, at its meeting of June 25, 2019, the respondent voted to “withhold”
his “salary increase for the 2019–2020 school term.” 	The reason was for the
increment withholding was “failure to provide administrative oversight of the
functions of the 2019 yearbook.”
24. 	The Student Activities Coordinator who had oversight responsibilities for the
yearbook activities did not receive an increment withholding.
25. 	The Student Activities Coordinator received a letter of reprimand that was placed
in his personnel file regarding his role in the incident. 	The two teachers, Ms.
Weiss and Ms. Demsey, received an increment withholding and remained on
their current step on the salary guide. The Principal and Assistant Principal both
had their salary increases rescinded for lack of supervision and oversight. Lastly,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
8
the Board passed a public reprimand against the Superintendent for lack of
supervision and oversight. 	As the principal retired in or about October 2019,
petitioner is the only remaining administrator to have had his increment withheld
which he has appealed through this action.
26. 	Petitioner received an effective evaluation at the conclusion of the 2018–2019
school term. The evaluation was conducted by the Principal and was completed
prior to the yearbook incident.5
I also FIND the following FACTS, as they are undisputed:
Petitioner’s salary as an administrator is set by the Board, and any salary
increase is not subject to any collective bargaining agreement or salary guide, but
subject to the Board’s consideration and approval. 	The petitioner has no right to an
automatic salary increase every year, despite the fact that he received salary increases
annually in the past, and this year.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The 	parties 	seek 	relief 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5, 	which 	provides 	that
summary decision should be rendered “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.” 	Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c) which provides that “the judgment or order
sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, 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 a
judgment or order as a matter of law.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to consider whether the competent evidential
5 Petitioner’s evaluations as Assistant Principal were attached as exhibits to the Stipulation of Facts, and
incorporated herein.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
9
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the allegedly disputed issue in
favor of the non-moving party. 	Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party
offers . . . only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla,
‘fanciful frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the
court grants summary judgment.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520,
529 (1995) (citing Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” 	Brill, at 540, (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct.
2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 213 (1986)). 	When the evidence “is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the trial court should not hesitate to grant
summary judgment. 	Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 251-252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L .Ed.
2d at 214.
Following the Brill standard, and after considering the Stipulation of Facts,
attached joint exhibits, and briefs, I CONCLUDE that there are no genuine issues of
material fact that require a plenary hearing and that this matter is ripe for summary
decision.
Petitioner essentially makes two arguments in support of his motion for summary
decision. 	First, petitioner argues that the Board’s action to withhold his salary increase
was arbitrary and capricious because it was not his job responsibility as Assistant
Principal to edit and/or supervise the yearbook. 	Petitioner asserts that it was the
Yearbook Advisors and Student Activities Coordinator who made the editing error here,
and the responsibility of advising and supervising the Yearbook, and of supervising the
Coordinator 	of 	Student 	Activities 	was 	outside 	the 	scope 	of 	petitioner’s 	job
responsibilities. 	Therefore, petitioner argues that no inefficiency or other good cause
exists upon which the Board could impose such a disciplinary consequence against
him. 	Petitioner also argues that the fact that he supervised the work in the classroom
associated 	with 	the 	teaching 	assignments 	of 	the 	Yearbook 	Advisors 	does 	not
demonstrate a lack of “administrative oversight.” Moreover, petitioner points out that he

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
10
received an effective evaluation from the building principal for the 2018–2019 school
year, and asserts that he and the Principal were only “targeted” because of their
administrative positions and not because of how they performed their job duties.
Second, petitioner argues that the Board “acted inconsistently” disciplining him
with 	an 	increment 	withholding 	while 	only 	reprimanding 	the 	Student 	Activities
Coordinator who “had the responsibility of supervising the editing and the publication of
the yearbook.”
The Board argues that petitioner fails to acknowledge his responsibility to provide
supervision and oversight to the Editing and Publishing course that is responsible for
editing the yearbook. 	The Board disputes petitioner’s assertion that the Student
Activities Coordinator should be held responsible because the Yearbook Club, which
the Student Activities Coordinator supervises, is involved in editing and publishing the
yearbook. 	In its reply, the Board points out that the petitioner’s statements concerning
the Student Activities Coordinator and Yearbook Club contradict paragraphs 9 and 10 of
the Stipulated Facts, and that the Yearbook Club only handles extra-curricular activity
outside of classroom hours, such as fundraising and does not establish or review the
content of the Yearbook. (Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 10.) The Board maintains that it is the
Editing and Publishing Course that has complete control over the Yearbook content
while 	the 	Yearbook 	club 	has 	none. 	Because 	petitioner 	supervises 	the 	English
department that controls the Editing and Publishing Course, the Board determined that
petitioner failed to properly perform his supervisory duties.
The Board argues that it has the authority and the discretion to impose a
monetary sanction in the form of withholding a merit-based raise on an Administrator
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:29-14, and that its actions here were neither arbitrary, without
good cause, nor an abuse of discretion with improper motives. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:29-14,
which addresses a board’s withholding of a teaching staff member’s increment provides
in part:
Any board of education may withhold, for inefficiency or
other 	good 	cause, 	the 	employment 	increment, 	or 	the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
11
adjustment increment, or both, of any member in any year by
a recorded roll call majority vote of the full membership of
the board of education . . . .”
Burden of Proof
Petitioner asserts that it is the Board who has the burden of proof in this matter
because 	the 	action 	taken 	against 	petitioner 	was 	disciplinary 	and 	not 	based 	on
performance, and had this matter gone through arbitration, the Board would have had to
demonstrate just cause for denying the increment. 	Petitioner’s argument, which is
unsupported by any caselaw, is misplaced. 	The Board withheld a salary increase for
Fowler’s “failure to provide administrative oversight” of the Yearbook—i.e., failure to
adequately perform his supervisory duties. 	Petitioner’s classification of this matter as
“disciplinary,” is irrelevant to determining who has the burden of proof, and it is also
immaterial that the burden of proof may have been different had Fowler been part of a
collective bargaining unit or had this matter been handled in arbitration. 	Kopera v. W.
Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 1960), which was cited by the
Board, holds that “[w]hen challenging an increment withholding, the teacher has the
burden of proof to show that the board of education acted arbitrarily without rational
basis or was induced by improper motives.” Kopera also holds that “[i]n the absence of
clear and convincing proof that a board of education acted unreasonably or in a cursory
manner in withholding an increment, the Commissioner will not substitute his judgment
for the board of education’s judgment.” Id. at 296. I CONCLUDE that it is the petitioner
who carries the burden to prove to establish that the Board lacked good cause to
withhold Fowler’s salary increase, and that its decision was arbitrary and capricious or
induced by improper motives.
The Board maintains that there was no improper motive and the action taken
against Fowler was not unreasonable. 	Six staff members were sanctioned for this
incident, including Fowler, and the Board’s managerial prerogative to take this action
has a presumption of correctness. 	According to the Board, the incident with the
Yearbook had a tremendous negative public relations impact on the Board, and the
Yearbook’s content is created and reviewed in the Editing and Publishing class, whose
teachers Fowler supervises. 	The teachers of that class, who also happen to be the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
12
“Yearbook 	Advisors,” 	were 	sanctioned, 	as 	was 	the 	Principal 	who 	supervises 	the
petitioner, and the Superintendent even received a verbal reprimand of no confidence
due to this incident.
Here, while Fowler may not have been expressly assigned to review the content
of the Yearbook, he is not completely disconnected from this mishap. He had oversight
of the class responsible for creating and reviewing the content of the Yearbook, and of
at least one of its teachers. 	It is undisputed that the 2019 Yearbook contained
inappropriate writing that caused controversy among parents and other members of the
public, and the Board was faced with having to respond to this controversy. 	This
inappropriate and controversial writing was either missed or ignored, and the Board
chose to act not only by holding the two teachers in the Editing and Publishing course
accountable, but also those administrators who in their estimation failed to provide
administrative oversight, leadership and supervision which resulted in “a public relations
nightmare.” 	Fowler was one of these individuals who in his administrative capacity
could have done something to prevent this mishap. While Fowler may consider the
Board’s response as harsh or unfair, it acted rationally and within its authority. I
CONCLUDE that the evidence does not support petitioner’s assertion that the Board’s
decision 	to 	withhold 	petitioner’s 	salary 	increase 	was 	an 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	or
unreasonable one; and that the Board had good cause to withhold Fowler’s salary
increase. 	I also CONCLUDE that summary decision must be granted in favor of the
Board, and that the petition should be dismissed.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for summary decision filed by the Board of
Education 	of 	the 	Passaic 	Valley 	Regional 	High 	School 	Board 	of 	Education 	is
GRANTED, and the motion for summary decision filed by the petitioner is DENIED. 	It is
further ORDERED that the petition be and hereby is DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
13
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.
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.
November 9, 2020
DATE 	SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14706-19
14
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
None
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
Brief and reply brief
For Respondent:
Brief and reply brief