RHONDA WILLIAMS BEMBRY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, BERGEN COUNTY, 11/7/13, (#392-13)

#392-13 (OAL Decision: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu07817-12_1.html)
RHONDA WILLIAMS BEMBRY, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
CITY OF HACKENSACK,
BERGEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
____________________________________
SYNOPSIS
Petitioning member of the Hackensack Board of Education (Board) challenged the manner in
which the March 28, 2012 meeting of the respondent Board was conducted, contending that the
respondent violated terms of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq.,
when it failed to contact petitioner by telephone to participate in a vote on the 2012-2013 school
budget. Petitioner sought an order from the Commissioner invalidating all of the votes and
resulting actions taken by the Board at the March 28, 2012 meeting. 	The respondent Board
contended that the Commissioner is without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims because
they do not arise under the school laws, and filed a motion to dismiss. 	The parties agreed to
summary disposition of the matter.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	pursuant to Sukin v. Northfield Board of Education, 171 N.J.
Super. 	184 	(App. 	Div. 	1979), 	an 	underlying 	school 	law 	controversy 	over 	which 	the
Commissioner has primary jurisdiction is necessary in order to invoke the Commissioner’s
jurisdiction in an OPMA matter; petitioner’s claims in this matter do not involve a controversy
or dispute arising under the school laws, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, as she alleges only OPMA violations
and does not make any claim that educational action was taken at the meeting in question; and
petitioner was present at the March 28, 2012 meeting, but chose to leave prior to the vote on the
school budget – which was on the meeting agenda. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the
Commissioner lacks jurisdiction with regard to petitioner’s claims – which solely involve alleged
violations of the OPMA – and granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.
Upon independent review of the record and the Initial Decision, the Assistant Commissioner, to
whom this matter was delegated pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:4-34, concurred with the findings and
conclusions of the ALJ. The Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this
matter.
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.
November 7, 2013

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 7817-12
AGENCY DKT. NO. 144-5/12
RHONDA WILLIAMS BEMBRY, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
CITY OF HACKENSACK,
BERGEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
____________________________________
In the instant controversy, petitioner has asked the Commissioner to invalidate
certain votes and actions which took place at a March 28, 2012 public meeting of the
Hackensack Board of Education. 	More specifically, petitioner alleges that respondent violated
the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq., because it failed to solicit her
vote via telephone when the school budget was presented for approval.1
The parties agreed to summary disposition of the matter on September 18, 2012
and the record closed on October 29, 2012. 	On September 23, 2013 the Initial Decision of the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) was issued, granting summary disposition to respondent
and dismissing the petition. 	The Administrative Law Judge agreed with the respondent board
that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over this matter, since the only alleged
violation(s) relate to provisions of OPMA.
1 Petitioner had attended the meeting in question but had departed prior to the budget vote.

2
Upon independent review of the record and Initial Decision,2 the Commissioner3
adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this case. 	Provisions of OPMA may be
decided by the Commissioner only when they are married to school law issues. See, e.g., Sukin v.
Northfield Board of Education, 171 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 1979). 	Given that the alleged
OPMA 	violations 	stand 	alone 	in 	the 	present 	controversy, 	the 	Commissioner 	is 	without
jurisdiction to adjudicate.
Accordingly, summary disposition is granted to respondent and the petition is
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: November 7, 2013
Date of Mailing: 	November 7, 2013
2 No exceptions were filed by the parties.
3 This matter has been delegated to the undersigned Assistant Commissioner pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:4-34.
4 This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).