Page 4 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • January 30, 2013 FLOW Area Supreme Court ends extracurricular regulation case by Frank J. McMahon The New Jersey Supreme Court ended the six-year battle between the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District and the parents of a former Indian Hills High School student over the right of the school district to discipline students for illegal conduct, on or off the school campus, at any time, by restricting their participation in extracurricular activities. The court recently denied the petition filed by the school district’s attorney to review the July 2012 decision of the Appellate Division of Superior Court. That decision affirmed the finding of then acting Commissioner of Education Rochelle Hendricks that the regulation exceeded the authority conferred on local school boards to regulate student conduct under state law. Gregory D. Meese, an attorney, and his wife Theresa, have been challenging the district’s original regulation since it was introduced in 2007. The plaintiffs claimed the regulation exceeded the school district’s authority. According to Meeses, a school’s authority is derived from state law. With regard to a school’s authority to discipline a child, they say the state legislature has clearly limited that authority. “No action may be taken by the school, including the mandatory conference with student, parents, and school officials,” Gregory Meese stated after being notified of the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review, “unless it is first determined that the student’s conduct would have a material and substantial impact on the operation of the school. In addition, it is not sufficient that the school’s involvement is necessary for the student’s physical or emotional safety, or the well-being of other students and staff. The school’s authority can only be exercised when the conduct which is the subject of the proposed consequence materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Meese maintains that the school board’s original regulation gave the board authority to punish students who are charged with the violation of any law or municipal ordinance, no matter when or where that conduct was alleged to have occurred, even out of town or on a family vacation, and whether or not the conduct had any impact on the school, which they claimed intruded into the private lives of families. An administrative law judge, a former acting commissioner of education, and the Appellate Division of Superior Court all agreed with the Meeses. The Appellate Division also found that, under the common meaning of “consequence,” both the suspension from participating in extracurricular activities and the mandatory conference between the school administrator and the student and his or her parents would be consequences that would occur according to the original regulation following a student’s violation of the code of conduct. The Meeses’ claim that, as a result of the Appellate Court ruling, neither consequence could be imposed by the school district unless the student’s conduct has “a material and substantial impact on the school environment” and that any impact on the student’s health is not enough. Following the ruling by the Appellate Division the district revised its regulation to include a section that reads: “Notwithstanding any provision of this or any board policy or regulation to the contrary, no consequence shall be imposed upon a student for conduct occurring away from school grounds/events unless the administrative personnel finding a violation of the policy and regulation, as set forth above, also determine that the imposition of consequences, as set forth above, 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 the conduct which is the subject of the proposed consequence materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” That revised regulation was found to be lawful by Chris Cerf, the current acting commissioner of education, and it was not challenged by the Meeses. It was implemented by the school district in the 2011-12 school year. After revising and implementing that revised regulation, however, the district authorized its attorney, Stephen Fogarty, to petition the New Jersey Supreme Court to reconsider the validity of the original regulation. He argued that the Appellate Court erred in agreeing with the administrative law judge and the commissioner of education because participation in extracurricular activities is a privilege and not a right, and the Appellate Court’s ruling was an overly literal reading of the state regulation. Fogarty also claimed that the Appellate Court’s ruling conflicted with a 2003 court decision involving the Hunterdon Central Regional High School Board of Education, which upheld a random drug testing policy that imposed the same suspension from extracurricular activities. He argued that the Appellate Court’s ruling runs counter to legislative policies that favor a proactive approach by school districts to deter student misconduct away from school grounds. Fogarty further claimed that “responsibility matters” and he pointed out that the school board put in place a policy that uses extracurricular activities as a means to challenge students to discover the actual meaning of those words. (continued on page 8)