Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5746-11T2
09-23-2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION OF THE REGIS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, CAMDEN COUNTY
Kevin John Mitchell argued the cause for appellant Regis Academy Charter School (Mitchell & Falkenstein, LLC, attorneys; Joseph F. Kunicki, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Mitchell, on the brief. Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Commissioner of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Stark, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Grall, Waugh and Nugent. On appeal from the Department of Education. Kevin John Mitchell argued the cause for appellant Regis Academy Charter School (Mitchell & Falkenstein, LLC, attorneys; Joseph F. Kunicki, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Mitchell, on the brief. Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Commissioner of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Stark, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by GRALL, P.J.A.D.
Pursuant to the Charter School Program Act of 1995, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to -18, Regis Academy applied to the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) for a charter authorizing it to serve as "a public school operated under a charter granted by the commissioner." N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-3(a). A charter school "is operated independently of a local board of education and is managed by a board of trustees." Ibid.
"The application process is governed by the Act, see N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-4, -4.1, -5, and implementing regulations, see N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1." In the Matter of Proposed Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group, 216 N.J. 370, 373 (2013). "Ultimately, the Commissioner has the 'final authority to grant or reject a charter application.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-4(c) and citing N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(a)).
The two phase application process — approval of the application as qualified and grant of a charter — is fully described and discussed in Proposed Quest Academy Charter School, supra, 216 N.J. at 374-78. Pertinent here, if the Commissioner determines that "the applicant is a 'qualified applicant'" the applicant moves to phase two where the Commissioner determines whether a charter should issue to a qualified applicant. Id. at 376. In the second phase, a qualified applicant must provide information about, among other things, its "facilities." Ibid.
To assist the Commissioner in considering the application, the local board of education must review the application and submit a recommendation on whether it should be granted or denied. Id. at 377. The Commissioner's decision must take account of the impact a grant of the charter will have on segregation and on the local school district's ability to comply with its obligation, N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1, to "'deliver a thorough and efficient education.'" Id. at 377 (quoting In the Matter of Grant of Charter Sch. Application of Englewood on the Palisades Charter Sch., 164 N.J. 316, 329, 334-35 (2000)). The applicant has the burden of showing that "it can meet the requirements for obtaining permission to educate public school children in a charter school setting." Id. at 389-90.
With respect to appeals to this court, in addition to the appeal of a State agent's or agency's action addressed in Rule 2:2-3(a)(2), N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-4(d) provides the applicant and the local board a statutory right to appeal the Commissioner's determination. Proposed Quest Academy Charter School, supra, 216 N.J. at 383. On appeal of the Commissioner's decision, "[a]n appellate court may reverse [the Commissioner's determination] if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Id. at 385. Unless the Commissioner has violated "express or implied legislative policies," or the record does not include "substantial evidence to support" the Commissioner's findings, or the Commissioner's conclusion could not be reasonably reached "on a showing of the relevant factors," this court may not intervene. Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995); see Proposed Quest Academy Charter School, supra, 216 N.J. at 385-86 (quoting Mazza and stating, at 386 n.4, "[s]ome cases have made this standard for judicial review of agency action a four-part inquiry" but "adher[ing] to the test as formulated in Mazza" (internal citation and parenthetical omitted here)). This "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard applicable in the review of administrative agency decisions subsumes the need to find sufficient support in the record to sustain the decision reached by the Commissioner." Proposed Quest Academy Charter School, supra, 216 N.J. at 386.
Regis Academy submitted an application to operate the school facility at a Cherry Hill address, owned by the Solid Rock Worship Center, which it would lease. Regis Academy also advised that it expected to draw students from several districts including Cherry Hill and Voorhees. Both districts opposed the application citing, among other things, concerns about Solid Rock's ownership of the facility and its ability to lease it to Regis Academy. The Commissioner approved the application filed by Regis Academy "contingent upon receipt of outstanding documentation not included in [the Academy's] application, successful participation in the preparedness process and compliance with applicable state and federal regulations." The Commissioner's letter went on to advise that "[o]nce the preparedness process is successfully completed and all documentation is approved, you will enter into [a] formal charter agreement with the New Jersey Department of Education."
Following the Commissioner's approval of Regis Academy as a qualified applicant, Cherry Hill and Voorhees filed separate appeals. Those appeals are not before us. By consent order signed by a judge of this court, the Commissioner filed an amplification of his decision.
While the appeals were pending, Cherry Hill moved for reconsideration before the Commissioner, and the Commissioner filed a motion with this court requesting a remand of both appeals. A two-judge panel of this court granted that motion, expressly stating the jurisdiction in this court was "not retained." Neither Cherry Hill nor Voorhees appealed following the remand.
This is Regis Academy's appeal from the Commissioner's denial of a charter during the second phase of the approval process. Following the remand, the Commissioner concluded that Cherry Hill's motion for reconsideration and the question of a grant of a charter to Regis Academy at the second phase of the approval process were linked. On July 6, 2012, the Commissioner denied Regis Academy a charter because Regis Academy did not have a facility suitable for its charter school by the June 20, 2012 deadline. The Commissioner's final decision details the efforts made during the second phase of the process to obtain information about the facility Regis Academy plans to use as its charter school and the Academy's inaccurate and incomplete responses that were misleading. The record includes substantial support for the underlying factual findings. Because the Commissioner's determination is "supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole," we affirm. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). There is nothing in the least arbitrary about denial of a charter to an entity that fails to establish that it has a place to operate a school.
Having considered the arguments advanced in Regis Academy's initial and reply briefs in light of the record and the law, we have determined that none has sufficient merit to warrant any additional discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION