Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; August 9, 2012; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Maureen Castriotta, an elected member of the Roxbury Board of Education, appeals the Acting Commissioner of Education's decision that denied her request for indemnification of legal costs associated with defending against a censure resolution passed by the Board. Castriotta challenged the Board's jurisdiction to review her actions and impose sanctions. The Acting Commissioner agreed with her that the Board acted beyond its authority, as the School Ethics Act designates the School Ethics Commission exclusively responsible for enforcing the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. However, the Commissioner denied indemnification, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) preliminary decision that the Board's disciplinary action was not a “legal proceeding” under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20.
The court reversed this determination, asserting that the Board's actions constituted an adjudicatory process. The Board's censure decision followed a notice of charges, provided the right to counsel, and allowed testimony from both sides, fulfilling essential judicial functions. Therefore, the Board’s actions were deemed a “legal proceeding.” Additionally, on April 26, 2010, Castriotta learned about a planned student protest regarding state aid cuts. Despite school policy prohibiting unauthorized student departures, she went to the high school to assess participation. Unbeknownst to her, the school administrators had authorized the protest for safety reasons. The details of the interaction between Castriotta and school officials during the protest remain contentious.
Petitioner approached Principal Swanson to inquire about the handling of a student walkout, during which Swanson admitted to knowing about the event beforehand but stated he could not manage the discipline for the large number of students involved. Petitioner asserted that she did not raise her voice or criticize Swanson and that he did not instruct her to leave the school grounds. In contrast, Swanson recalled being confronted by Board member Mrs. Castriotta, who questioned his actions regarding the walkout in an accusatory manner.
After her conversation with Swanson, petitioner contacted Superintendent Rossi to discuss strategies for addressing the protest. Rossi reportedly responded harshly, asserting that it was not her business and accusing her of trespassing. Petitioner defended her position as a school board member and long-time resident, expressing disbelief at Rossi's antagonism. Rossi, however, claimed petitioner was confrontational and disregarded safety concerns regarding the large number of students. Both Swanson and Rossi noted that petitioner was seen interacting with students around the school.
The walkout concluded with most students returning to class by 10:46 a.m. News reports included quotes from petitioner suggesting that Rossi and Swanson should be reprimanded for their handling of the situation. Upon returning home, petitioner received an email from the Governor's press secretary emphasizing that students should be in class and that efforts should be made to prevent walkouts.
Department of Education Commissioner Bret Schundler emphasized the importance of schools enforcing attendance policies and not allowing students to leave class. Following a student walkout at Roxbury High School, a reporter from the Daily Record sought the opinion of a Board member, who clarified that her views were personal and not representative of the Board. She expressed that the school board should evaluate whether any policies were violated, without suggesting that any administrator should face reprimand. This exchange of opinions preceded formal actions by the Board, which included Superintendent Rossi's letter expressing outrage over the treatment he and Principal Swanson received from Board member Maureen Castriotta during the walkout. Rossi accused the Board member of violating the New Jersey School Administrative Code, and Principal Swanson supported this view in a similar letter.
On May 14, 2010, the Board's Secretary sent a certified letter to the Board member, indicating that her conduct on April 27 would be reviewed for potential censure at the May 24 meeting. The letter outlined her right to request a private session, present witnesses, and be represented by counsel at her own expense. During the May 24 meeting, despite the absence of oaths for testimony, Rossi and Swanson provided accounts of the events, while the Board member defended herself against the allegations. Ultimately, the Board passed a resolution of censure against her.
Maureen Castriotta, a member of the Roxbury Board of Education, engaged in actions deemed inconsistent with her responsibilities and harmful to the Board and School District. On April 27, 2010, during a planned student protest against State-aid cuts, Castriotta entered Roxbury High School grounds uninvited and without proper notification to school administrators, violating District procedures. She confronted protesting students, publicly criticized the Superintendent and Principal, and attempted to address students from outside classroom windows, disrupting educational activities. Despite multiple requests to leave from school officials, she refused. Subsequently, she publicly criticized the District's handling of the protest in interviews with the press. The Board expressed dissatisfaction with her conduct, leading to a formal censure and a warning to adhere to appropriate conduct for the remainder of her term. A copy of the censure resolution will be forwarded to the Commissioner of Education and the Executive County Superintendent. Additionally, the document notes that the interpretation of statutes by the Acting Commissioner is not binding in legal proceedings.
Analysis will focus on the plain language of the statute regarding the actions of the Board against the petitioner. The Acting Commissioner determined that the Board lacked the authority to censure the petitioner, and the Board did not appeal this decision. The petitioner is seeking indemnification for defense costs incurred against the Board’s actions under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, which mandates that boards of education cover defense costs for members involved in certain legal proceedings arising from their duties. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected the petitioner's claim, stating that the Board’s censure did not constitute a "legal proceeding" as defined by the statute, which requires a legal forum such as a court or administrative agency. The ALJ noted the petitioner's contradictory position, arguing against the Board’s process while simultaneously seeking indemnification based on that same process. The Acting Commissioner upheld the ALJ's decision. Previous case law indicates that indemnification should be construed liberally to encourage diverse viewpoints in education, but the statute's scope was expanded in 2001 to include various types of legal proceedings. The determination of what constitutes a "legal proceeding" involves assessing whether an administrative agency is exercising quasi-judicial functions, as established in prior cases, which require the agency to consider evidence and apply the law to the facts.
In Cunningham v. Department of Civil Service, 69 N.J. 13 (1975), the court clarified the distinction between an agency's legislative and judicial functions, focusing on whether fact-finding involves specific individuals whose rights are affected and if the subject matter allows for evidence receipt. Legislative facts relate to general policy questions, while adjudicative facts pertain to specific actions and intents of parties involved, akin to jury case facts. The Board acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when it found the petitioner in violation of the local code of conduct, having provided her with charges, the right to counsel, and the opportunity to present a defense. The Board evaluated testimonies, legal objections, and evidence before concluding the petitioner committed conduct unbecoming a member. Although the lack of prehearing discovery and oath under N.J.R.E. 603 may raise fairness concerns, they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the proceedings. The decision denying the petitioner indemnification for her defense costs is reversed, and the case is remanded for determination of counsel fees based on criteria established in Walker v. Giuffre and Rendine v. Pantzer. Additionally, Superintendent Rossi noted the administration's decision to allow student protests for safety reasons after consulting with student leaders about their intentions. An amendment to indemnification standards for exemplary or punitive damages is mentioned but deemed irrelevant.
