August 1, 2012 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 5 FLOW Area Court denies RIH appeal on extracurricular policy by Frank J. McMahon The Appellate Court has denied the Ramapo Indian Hills Board of Education’s appeal of a New Jersey Department of Education ruling on a regional high school district regulation. The court upheld the NJDOE’s finding that the regulation, which would withhold extracurricular activities from a student for illegal conduct on or away from school grounds, was unlawful. The court ruled that the regulation was overbroad and exceeded the authority conferred upon boards of education by state statutes and regulations. The board has a revised regulation in place, which was found lawful by the NJDOE, and that policy will continue to be implemented. The 31-page opinion of the court was delivered by Presiding Appellate Court Judge Jose L. Fuentes after oral arguments from Stephen R Fogarty, the attorney for the school board, and Gregory D Meese, an attorney and parent of a former district student. Meese and his wife Terri have challenged the school district’s regulation since it was first introduced in 2007. In its appeal, the school board argued that the commissioner of education misconstrued state board of education regulations because the only sanction imposed for a violation of the regulation is the loss of a privilege, which enjoys no special protection under the law. The court disagreed. “After considering the record developed before the commissioner, and mindful of the prevailing standard of review, we affirm,” the decision stated. “Regulation 6145 is facially overbroad and exceeds the authority conferred upon boards of education by state statutes and regulations.” The court declined to consider the alternative constitutional arguments for invalidating the regulation presented by the Meeses in their cross-appeal because their argument had prevailed in their legal challenge on the basis that the regulation was too broad and exceeded the board’s authority. The Meeses had argued that the regulation constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of their right to privacy, and their daughter’s right against self-incrimination and to a thorough and efficient education under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. “We are pleased with the court’s decision and hope that this matter is finally concluded,” Greg Meese stated after the court decision was released. “After having been found unlawful by an administrative law judge, the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, and now the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, we hope that no more taxpayer dollars will be spent by the school board in its attempt to save this misguided policy.” When the regulation was invalidated, Rochelle Hendricks, who was then acting commissioner of education, directed the school board to revise its student disciplinary policy regulation to comply with the prevailing state regulations. While this appeal was pending, the board revised its student disciplinary policy regulation to conform with the acting commissioner’s direction. That revision stated that no consequence would be imposed upon a student for conduct occurring away from school grounds unless the administrative personnel finding a violation of the policy and regulation also determines that the imposition of the proposed consequences is reasonably necessary for the student’s physical or emotional safety, security, and well-being, or for reasons relating to the safety, security, and well-being of other students, staff, or school grounds; and that the conduct which is the subject of the proposed consequences materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline (continued on page 9)