FLOW Area July 20, 2011 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 7 Revised extracurricular regulation deemed unlawful by Frank J. McMahon An administrative law judge has concluded that the regulation on extracurricular activities that was revised by the Ramapo Indian Hills Board of Education last October to bring it in line with state law is itself unlawful, unconstitutional, and an overreach of the school board’s authority. The judge further ruled that the regulation should be null and void. Administrative Law Judge Caridad F. Rigo ordered that a motion for a summary decision filed by Terry and Gregory Meese, the parents of a Ramapo Indian Hills student, be granted while the motion for a summary decision by the school board be denied. Judge Rigo also ordered that the school board refrain from enforcing or applying the revised regulation while the decision is sent to the commissioner of education for consideration. Rigo explained that a summary judgment is one in which the papers filed by one of the parties, together with the affidavits, “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.” The school board originally adopted a regulation on extracurricular activities in June 2009. That regulation required students to refrain from the use, possession, or distribution of any alcoholic beverage or other drugs, unless prescribed by a physician, both on and off school grounds, during the season or activity in which the student wishes to participate in the extracurricular activity. A violation would occur if a student were formally charged and/or arrested by law enforcement for an alleged violation of the state’s code of criminal justice and/or applicable municipal codes or ordinance provisions. According to the regulation, such a violation would result in a conference with the student and his or her parents after which it would be determined if a violation occurred. If it is determined that a violation occurred, the student would be prohibited from participating in extracurricular activities for seven school days or through the next scheduled competitive event. A second violation would result in a 90 day prohibition, and a third violation would result in a 180 day prohibition. That regulation was also challenged by the Meeses. An administrative law judge found it to be a violation of constitutional principles concerning parental rights and said the board disregarded its authority over conduct of students away from school grounds and had no authority to enforce the regulation. The administrative law judge’s decision was confirmed by the commissioner of education in September 2010, and the commissioner directed the board to revise its policy to bring it into compliance with state law. In October 2010, the board revised its regulation by adding language that provided that there would be no consequence imposed upon a student for conduct occurring away from school grounds unless it was determined that the consequences were reasonably necessary for the student’s safety or the safety of other students, staff, or school grounds, or unless there would be interference with the appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. Judge Rigo found that the revised regulation still contained the same language, “both on and off school grounds” as the original version of the regulation. The two matters considered by Judge Rigo were whether the Meeses’ petition should be dismissed under the doctrine of “res judicata,” which precludes a party from raising the same issue in a subsequent litigation once a matter had been adjudicated, and whether the revised regulation complies with the commissioner’s direction in the final decision rendered on the original regulation. Rigo found that the board’s claim that the Meeses’ petition should be dismissed by the doctrine of res judicata was without merit because the Meeses maintain that requiring the student to attend a conference with district personnel constitutes a “consequence” which must meet the same standards of the state law as the original regulation, and that issue was not raised in their first challenge to the regulation. According to Rigo, the board’s argument ignores the fact that the Meeses are not challenging the same conduct policy that was the subject of the prior action, but they are (continued on page 8)