Judge: RIH Went Too Far with Conduct Policy

A judge has opined that the Ramapo Indian Hills Board of Education exceeded its authority in enforcing an off-campus behavior policy, although the policy remains in force and could be upheld by the state.

The Department of Education has until July 29 to accept, modify or reject Administrative Law Judge Richard McGill's June 11 decision that the school board's policy to levy punishment on students for out-of-school drug and alcohol use is null and void. However, the DOE also could simply not respond at all, letting McGill's opinion stand and effectively striking down the conduct policy.

Until the state acts, the Board of Education will maintain the policy, which forces students to sign a pledge stating they will face suspension from extracurricular activities if they violate school rules or the law as it relates to alcohol and drugs. Those found to have ran afoul of the policy are afforded a hearing, with consequences ranging from a seven-day suspension from activities, including sports, after a first offense to a 180-day suspension on a third offense.

Board President Wayne Peterson has said the board would file written exceptions to a policy it still supports, as is the board's right under the judge's opinion.

Limited Authority

McGill cited statutes and legal precedents to argue that the "authority of a district board of education over students is subject to limitations... With limited exceptions, the authority of the board of education applies to student conduct on school grounds and at various school-sponsored functions. The right to impose a consequence for conduct away from school grounds is specifically limited to situations where the exercise of that authority 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."

The Ramapo Indian Hills Board of Education, McGill continued, "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."

Refusal to Sign

McGill's decision was sparked by a suit brought by Terry and Gregory Meese, Franklin Lakes residents whose senior daughter refused to sign the conduct policy at Indian Hills High School when it was adopted at the start of the 2009-10 school year.

Discussion of the policy dates back to 2007, when the former board and administration proposed it in response to survey data showing high rates of teens using drugs and alcohol. Public hearings were held several times from 2007 to 2009, and Terry Meese attended almost all of them.

When finally adopted, the resolution stated that "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."

Students at Ramapo and Indian Hills had been informed of the regulation and were asked to sign the policy along with their student handbook. Believing that the regulation infringed on their parental rights, the Meeses informed the board their daughter and son, then in ninth grade, would not comply. 

The pair filed a petition with the commissioner of education in September 2009, and the board moved to have the matter dismissed. The issue was referred to the Office of Administrative Law, which rejected the board's motion with the opinion in favor of the Meeses on June 11.

Terry and Gregory Meese were unavailable for further comment.

In the written decision, McGill opines that the board did infringe on the Meeses' parental authority with a policy punishing behavior outside its purview.

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 wrote.

At least four students were suspended from Ramapo High School this year for drug activity. Three were recently disciplined for a scheme to distribute Xanax that allegedly occurred on district grounds. However, a male student was suspended earlier this year for allegedly providing a female student with a marijuana brownie off school grounds, although the female student subsequently fell ill from it while at the high school.

A drug sweep conducted by the county and requested by the district in the fall did not turn up any illegal materials.