Suit over Earle students on hold
Tinton Falls sues over schooling non-Navy kids
BY LAYLI WHITE Correspondent

Alegal action brought by the Tinton Falls Board of Education against the Colts Neck Board of Education has been put on hold pending a decision on whether the case should be reassigned to another judge.

Martin Barger, attorney for the Tinton Falls BOE, said in an interview last week that although an administrative law judge has been assigned to the case, the parties are awaiting a decision about a possible conflict concerning that judge.

"Many, many years ago this judge had some business with my firm," said Barger, of Reussille, Mausner, Carotenuto, Barger & Steel, Red Bank. "It has to, of course, be disclosed. I don't have a problem with that, and neither does she, but if the other side does, then we'll just have the case assigned to another judge. No problem."

Cherie Adams, of Adams, Stern, Gutierrez & Lattibourdere, Newark, who is representing the Colts Neck Board of Education, said that she has been put on notice about the possible conflict of interest and relayed that message to her client. She is awaiting its decision as to whether or not to ask for another judge to be assigned.

The lawsuit was brought earlier this year after the Tinton Falls School District learned about plans by the federal government to privatize certain housing at Naval Weapons Station Earle in Colts Neck and make the units available to the general public.

Under an agreement with the U.S. Navy, Tinton Falls schools have educated the children of Navy personnel stationed at Earle for the past 18 years. The students had previously attended Colts Neck schools.

The suit claims that Tinton Falls never agreed to provide schooling for civilian children who live on the base.

The named respondents in the suit include the Monmouth County Superintendent of Schools, the New Jersey State Commissioner of Education, the state Department of Education and the Colts Neck Board of Education.

"We have said all along that we would educate the children of Navy personnel," said Tinton Falls Board of Education President Peter Karavites, "and that is exactly what we have done. But Tinton Falls, to this day, is not legally responsible

to educate anybody other than our students and Navy children."

According to Barger, in 1988 the superintendent of the Tinton Falls School District, along with the then president of the BOE entered into an agreement to educate the children of U.S. Navy personnel stationed in the Colts Neck section of Earle Naval Weapons Station.

According to Adams, she has filed a motion to dismiss this case on the basis that this lawsuit challenges the application of a statute first applied in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2007, and that the statute of limitations for appealing it has passed.

In 2006, according to Barger, the school district became aware of some children who were neither Tinton Falls residents nor children of Navy personnel.

"I think it was one Air Force kid and three Army kids," said Barger. "Tinton Falls did not agree to take any Air Force kids or Army kids. Finally, though, we said, 'It's only a couple of kids. They are military and there is a war on.' It really wasn't a problem."

Adams said that in 2007, after concerns about the additional military children were raised, a reinterpretation of the state statute was requested and the state commissioner of education reaffirmed the language of the statute.

"The statute applies as it reads," said Adams last week. "It states that all children residing on that property are required to go to the receiving district. It doesn't differentiate [between civilian and military children]."

According to New Jersey State Statute 18A:38-7.8, Designated District: "After July 1, 1988, persons of school age who reside on federal property which is located entirely within the geographic boundaries of two or more school districts ... shall be deemed to be domiciled in a district to be designated by the county superintendent of schools."

The statute does not refer to children of military personnel, but only to children residing on federal property and does give the county superintendent of schools the ability to designate a district if another district comes forward to request the designation. It does not give the county superintendent the power to change that designation.

Barger said that after the Tinton Falls BOE discovered that children who were not dependents of Navy personnel were attending the school district, a discussion was held with officials at Earle. That, he said, is when the BOE found out that certain housing on Earle was being prepared for privatization and that the fence that surrounds Earle was going to be moved in order to place this housing outside the perimeter.

The change is due to happen in 2010, according to Barger, and although the housing will still technically be on Earle property, the inhabitants will be civilians and, therefore, not included in the agreement Tinton Falls signed 18 years ago to educate the children of Navy personnel.

"Every letter, every resolution, every contract we ever signed stated that we agreed only to educate the children of naval personnel stationed at Earle," said Barger. "That has been fine for 18 years. We have had no problems, but now they are talking about bringing us 200, 300, 400, 500 new students who are not related to the Navy or the military in any way."

According to Karavites,

New Jersey state law requires

students to be educated in the town of their residence unless another school district requests them. He said that in 1988 the Tinton Falls BOE requested the children on Earle, but that the petition stated specifically that the school district would educate "the children of Navy personnel."

The school district does receive some financial compensation for these children, including both state aid and Federal Impact Aid, totaling about $4,500, according to Barger.

"That's about 40 percent of what it costs to educate a child," he said.

Barger said if Tinton Falls is required to educate these children, it will still receive the state aid, but it will lose the Federal Impact Aid, leaving it with about $2,500 per child. He said that no offer has been made by Colts Neck to subsidize these children.

Adams said that any financial compensation agreements for these students have always been strictly between the Tinton Falls BOE and the U.S. Navy.

"The statute applies as it reads," she said. "It doesn't require any contribution."

"Tinton Falls schools are filled at this point," Karavites said. "There is a little room, and the district could maybe absorb 35 to 50 new students, but we're talking hundreds of kids here. We'd have to build another school. We're talking millions of dollars. To be fair, I'm not sure if Colts Neck could absorb these kids, but we never agreed to take them."

Barger said that the housing units range from two- to four-bedroom units, which also means that local high schools will also be affected, since both Colts Neck and Tinton Falls are each only K-8 districts.

"This just further complicates the matter," he said. "Up until now, there have only been a handful of high school-aged kids on Earle, and Monmouth Regional has taken them. Monmouth Regional never requested these kids. Most of the children from Earle have been young, and by the time they get to high school, often their parents are no longer serving in the Navy. Now that the housing will be privatized and there are three- and four- bedroom units, there are going to be older kids. These students should be going to the Freehold Regional [district]. Neither of these schools has been added to the lawsuit."

Karavites said that at the time the original agreement was signed, the money from the federal government made sense, and that since that time the amount has decreased as the cost of educating a single child has increased.

"It costs $12,000 to educate a child," he said. "Last year alone, Colts Neck received $750,000 from the federal government in lieu of property taxes for the land. We get about $180,000 to educate 90 kids."

Originally, according to Barger, Tinton Falls requested that the suit be heard by the Superior Court of New Jersey, since two of the defendants are state agencies. However, the Superior Court decided recently that the case should be heard by the Office of Administrative Law.

Barger said that he does not expect the case to come to trial until next year.