State Strikes Down RIH Board's Conduct Policy

The state Department of Education has ruled that the regional school board's policy of imposing discipline on students for out-of-school infractions is unlawful.

The Ramapo Indian Hills administration has indicated that it still could appeal acting Commissioner Rochelle Hendrick's decision, which largely upheld the findings of an administrative law judge by determining that the board went beyond the scope of applicable state regulations in asserting its right to restrict extracurricular involvement for unlawful conduct off school grounds.

"The board is currently reviewing the decision and will be determining whether or not to revise its policy in accordance with the commissioner's directive or appeal the commissioner's decision to the Superior Court, Appellate Division," read a release issued by the administration on Tuesday.

Should the board decide not to accept the decision, issued Monday and delivered to the relevant parties Tuesday, the family that contested the policy is "more than ready to meet any appeal," said Terri Meese of Franklin Lakes.

"The board never listened to parents," said Meese, who, with her husband Gregory, brought the suit on behalf of their children. "Trying to pass an unlawful policy is unacceptable."

Meese, who said the decision to contest the policy was "truly a fight we took on principle," hopes the board will relent and accept the decision by the commissioner.

"As much as I'm happy, that happiness is tempered a little bit by the fact that taxpayer money has been wasted," she said.

Last year, the board adopted a policy in response to concerns about teenage alcohol and drug use that required students at Ramapo and Indian Hills high schools to conform to "reasonable standards of acceptable behavior" and to refrain from conduct that constitutes "criminal offenses or juvenile delinquency as defined by law."

The policy allowed the board to potentially suspend students from extracurricular activities, including sports, if they were "formally charged and/or arrested by law enforcement for an alleged violation of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice and/or applicable municipal codes or ordinance provisions."

"The board was giving itself the authority to deal with any and all infractions," Meese said.

Hendricks agreed, ruling that while the board may have had a legitimate interest in trying to maintain lawful behavior, it simply went too far.

"It is undisputed that the board has an obligation to establish a code of conduct for students, and that the board's desire to limit drug and alcohol abuse is a reasonable objective," the commissioner wrote.

However, state regulations "place limits on a board's authority to deny participation in extracurricular activities for conduct that occurs off school grounds that is unrelated to a school event," Hendricks wrote.

A school board can deny extracurricular participation for out-of-school conduct, but only under certain conditions, the commissioner wrote. Such a regulation would have to be "reasonably necessary for the student's physical or emotional safety, security and well-being" or the conduct would have to interfere with "the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."

Hendricks found that board arguments that its policy was a "non-disciplinary consequence" were "unfounded" although she agreed with the board that participation in extracurriculars is a "privilege, not a right." However, that "does not negate the fact that a board's decision to revoke a student's ability to participate amounts to a form of discipline," the commissioner wrote.

"It is too much of a stretch to find that all off-school-grounds conduct that may result in one of those violations (state or municipal codes) would automatically make it necessary for the board to suspend or revoke a student's ability to participate... to protect the well-being of the student, other students or the school staff."

Hendricks did not go as far as Administrative Law Judge Richard McGill, whose opinion upon which the decision was based found the conduct policy to be an unconstitutional infringement upon parental rights.

"In light of the fact that (the policy) does not comply with the governing regulatory provisions, there is no need to explore the constitutional arguments," Hendricks wrote. "The board is directed to revise its policy to bring it into compliance with the requirements of (the applicable statutes)."

The dispute was initially sparked by the Meeses' daughter's refusal to sign the conduct policy while a senior at Indian Hills High School.

"It is clear in our home that we don't tolerate underage drinking or drug use," Meese said, explaining that she felt that the board was infringing upon her authority as a parent.

Although the Franklin Lakes family "didn't jump right away into litigation," she felt the board had gone "above and beyond" its rights and "didn't hear the community members" who argued against the policy.

Meese hopes "reason will prevail" and the board will accept the commissioner's decision.

"I hope the board finds their way back to the business they were elected to do," she said.