TIMOTHY POTOCKI V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE PRINCETON REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MERCER COUNTY, 12/8/08, (#477-08)

#477-08 (OAL Decision: Not yet available online)
TIMOTHY POTOCKI, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	: 	DECISION
PRINCETON REGIONAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, MERCER COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, a tenured custodial supervisor employed by the Princeton Regional Board of
Education, alleged that the Board’s action transferring him from Princeton High School to the
Riverside School, which resulted in a loss of his contractual premium of $1,850, reduced his
salary in violation of his tenure rights. 	The Board contended that the disputed premium was
negotiated specifically for the high school assignment in recognition of its greater complexity,
and was analogous to an extracurricular coaching stipend to which there is no tenure entitlement.
The ALJ found that: 	1) despite the transfer to a different school and regardless of any
contractual provision to the contrary, petitioner is serving within the same position for tenure
purposes; and 2) the disputed premium represents salary for integral duties rather than a stipend
for additional tasks. 	The ALJ concluded that the reduction in petitioner’s compensation as a
result of the transfer violates N.J.S.A. 18A:17-3 and ordered reinstatement of the $1,850
premium.
The 	Commissioner 	adopted 	the 	ALJ’s 	decision 	as 	the 	final 	decision 	in 	this 	matter.
However, the Commissioner clarified that 	petitioner is not necessarily entitled to an additional
$1,850, as ordered by the ALJ, nor is he entitled to the high school premium indefinitely; rather,
petitioner is entitled to immediate restoration of the difference between the total salary (including
premium) he has been receiving as custodial supervisor at the Riverside School and the total
salary (including premium) he was receiving as custodial supervisor at Princeton High School at
the time of his transfer, and to be kept at that level of payment until such time as it is surpassed
by the duly negotiated total salary for the Riverside assignment.
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 8, 2008

2
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 6574-07
AGENCY DKT. NO. 197-7/07
TIMOTHY POTOCKI, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	: 	DECISION
PRINCETON REGIONAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, MERCER COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
:
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions of the Board of Education (Board) and
petitioner’s reply, both filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4.
In its exceptions, the Board reargues the correctness of its own position and
contends that the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is not supported by the
decision 	on 	which 	she 	relies, 	Belen 	v. 	Woodbridge 	Township 	Board 	of 	Education,
142 N.J. Super. 486 (App. Div. 1976) – a case in which the court made no determination on the
particular question at issue herein.1 According to the Board, the decision that should control in
this matter is John Manley v. Board of Education of the Township of Old Bridge, Middlesex
County, Commissioner’s Decision No. 450-05, decided December 19, 2005, wherein the
Commissioner found no violation of tenure rights where the board ceased paying a teacher his
1 As noted by the Board, the court deferred to the Commissioner on the question of tenure entitlement because it was
then pending in a related administrative matter; however, the June 26, 1975 petition referenced by the court does not
appear to have resulted in a Commissioner decision.

subject area coordinator stipend upon the teacher’s transfer to a school that did not utilize subject
area coordinators. (Board’s Exceptions at 1-4)
In reply, petitioner urges adoption of the Initial Decision, conceding that while
Belen, supra, does not offer specific support for the ALJ’s conclusion, the ALJ clearly did not
rely on Belen alone, but cited several other cases – most notably Robert Barratt v. Board
of 	Education 	of 	the 	Borough 	of 	Glassboro, 	Gloucester 	County, 	Commissioner’s
Decision No. 17-01, decided January 10, 2001, affirmed by the State Board of Education,
Decision No. 5-1, decided June 6, 2001 – that the Board has ignored in its exceptions. Petitioner
further distinguishes Manley, supra, from the present matter, noting that in Manley the duties
attached to the disputed stipend were found to be sufficiently distinct from the teacher’s
instructional duties so as to constitute a separate “position” that was not “engrafted” to the
position in which Manley was tenured; whereas here, the duties for which petitioner formerly
received extra compensation were an integral part of his tenured custodial position. 	Indeed,
petitioner stresses, his current position is governed by the same job description as his former, and
there is no substantive difference in his duties. (Petitioner’s Reply at 1-4)
Upon review, the Commissioner finds that the ALJ fully and fairly considered the
arguments of the parties in light of the operative facts and applicable law, and correctly
concluded that – since petitioner remained in the same position for tenure purposes despite his
transfer, with the premium at issue representing salary for integral duties rather than a stipend for
additional tasks – petitioner’s total compensation could not be reduced without violating his
tenure rights.
With respect to the relief ordered, however, the Commissioner does clarify that
vindication of petitioner’s rights does not necessarily entitle him to an additional $1,850, as
3

4
ordered by the ALJ, nor does it entitle him indefinitely to the high school premium. 	Rather,
petitioner is entitled to immediate restoration of the difference between the total salary (including
premium) he has been receiving as custodial supervisor at the Riverside School and the total
salary (including premium) he was receiving as custodial supervisor at Princeton High School at
the time of his transfer,2 and to be kept at that level of payment until such time as it is surpassed
by the duly negotiated total salary for the Riverside assignment.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL, as clarified above, is adopted as the
final decision in this matter, and the Board is directed to restore petitioner’s salary and benefits
as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 8, 2008
Date of Mailing: 	December 8, 2008
2 The record does not permit a determination of the exact amount of petitioner’s entitlement.
3 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36.