Administrative Decision No. EDU 3066-03, Education

• Docket Number: EDU 3066-03
• Record Number: 93-3/03
• Year: 8705
• Decision Date: Invalid date
• Parties: Board of Education of the Borough of Lincoln Park, Morris County, Petitioner, Commissioner of Education V. Decision Board of Education of the Town of Boonton, Morris County,
• Type of Document: Final
• Issuer: Education

OAL DKT

. NO. EDU 3066-0

3

AGENCY DKT

. NO. 93-3/0

3

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TH

E

BOROUGH OF LINCOLN PARK

,

MORRIS COUNTY

,

PETITIONER,



COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATIO

N

V

.



DECISIO

N

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TH

E

TOWN



OF

BOONTON

,

MORRIS COUNTY,

RESPONDENT

.

The record of- this matter'

.

and

thek Initial Decision of =the Office o

f

dministrative

; Law (OAL)__have been reviewed

. Pursuant to

N

.JA C

.

1

:1-18

.4, th

e

=respondent Board of Education- (Boonton) filed-exceptions to he OAL decision, to

. whic

h

=the p t tianing Board ofEdu t n (Lincohi-Park) zluly replied

.

hi its exceptions,

Boonton su$stantally

feiterates

arguments made in

it

s

post-hearing submissions and contends that the Administrative Law Judge

(AU

)

misunderstood the central issue in this matter

.

. In Boonton's view, the AU focused o

n

inapplicable law in a misguided attempt to differentiate "capital expenditure" fro

m

"current expense," a distinction which has no

meaning

in the current context, where th

e

real issue is the effect of the parties' contract on a properly budgeted and allocate

d

facility maintenance expenditure

. Boonton opines that the AU should have found in it

s

favor because

: 1) the disputed expenditure was correctly budgeted and allocated unde

r

school law

; 2) the work it represents falls squarely

within

the "required maintenance"