Final Ruling on RIH Conduct Policy Expected in Sept.

A disputed conduct policy at the high school district will continue to stand while the state commissioner of education reviews a decision that found the policy unconstitutional.

Commissioner Bret Schundler will need more time to review files associated with the decision, which declared a policy that levied in-school penalties on students for out-of-school behavior null-and-void.

"As it turns out, in this matter the commissioner requested from the Office of the Administrative Law Judge and was granted an extension," said Richard Vespucci, media coordinator at the Department of Education, due to the "expanded size of the case file."

Schundler had until Thursday to accept, reject or modify a decision issued June 11 by Administrative Law Judge Richard McGill that rejected the district's policy of potentially suspending students from activities, including sports, should they run into trouble with alcohol and drugs off school grounds. 

Schundler has until Sept. 13 to make a decision, Vespucci said. The commissioner has sole authority in the matter, despite McGill's decision that said the policy interferes with parental rights. 

"It's not unusual... where the commissioner needs more time," he said.

Vespucci said more than 60 pages of exceptions were filed following the judge's decision, with interested parties defending or agreeing with the judgement. The regional school board is among those who have expanded on their case by filing paperwork with the state.

Dr. C. Lauren Schoen, district superintendent, said, "It does not surprise me that he is taking more time on this important issue."

The school board has let the policy stand, pending the final decision, and will not review the policy until Schundler issues his ruling, Schoen said this week.

McGill's decision "is just an opinion until a decision is granted by the commissioner," Schoen said.

The school board kept the policy in place after McGill's decision was issued, although there was little chance it could affect students with a final decision expected in the summer. Schoen said the district would "absolutely" abide by the policy should a student run afoul of its strictures at the start of the school year.

The policy, adopted at the start of the 2009-10 school year, has Ramapo and Indian Hills' students sign a pledge acknowledging they will face suspension from extracurriculars should they get into trouble with alcohol or drugs, whether on school grounds or off. Suspected students are granted  a hearing, and should the school board find them in violation of the policy, students can be suspended from activities for as little as seven days to as many as 180 days on a third offense.

The Board of Education did not adopt the policy until after several years of talks and hearings, prompted by data showing relatively high rates of teen drug use.

"Participation in board-sponsored extracurricular activities is a privilege... earned through compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. This policy is intended to be a positive statement in support of our students as they strive to remain free of all drugs and alcohol as required by state law," stated the resolution that put the policy in place.

However, it would be challenged almost immediately after going into effect.

Terry and Gregory Meese, Franklin Lakes residents who had two children in the district, believed that the policy infringed on their parental rights and informed the board that their daughter, then a senior, would not sign the policy.

The dispute was brought to the Department of Education and later referred to the Office of Administrative Law, which rejected a motion by the board to dismiss the matter, as well as the policy itself, in McGill's decision. 

The board "has disregarded the limitations on its authority over conduct of students away from school grounds. Moreover, (RIH board) has no authority whatsoever to enforce, determine guilt or otherwise impose a consequence for alleged violations (or violations) of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice and/or applicable municipal codes or ordinance provisions," McGill wrote.

The board "disregarded parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It seems evident that dealing with charges against a teenager unrelated to school is the proper function of the parents without interference from school authorities. This is particularly true where the student's alleged misconduct occurred in the parent's home. In short, (the policy) is grossly overbroad," McGill concluded.

Terry and Gregory Meese were not available for comment.