Once the briefs are in, Judge Joseph F. Martone will have 45 days to render his decision, which will be forwarded to the state commissioner of education, whose decision can be appealed to the state Board of Education. And, the BOE’s decision could appealed to the state Appellate Court.
By John Tredrea
With Judge Joseph F. Martone presiding Tuesday morning, the state Office of Administrative Law (OAL) held its first hearing on a 10-month-old citizens’ petition against Hopewell Valley Central High School’s football program.
The petition’s three signatories (Anthony Arnone, Joseph Dutko and Walter Bittner, all of Hopewell Township) say the defeat of the April 17, 2001, $75,027 ballot question which included $53,500 for the start of an interscholastic football program at CHS means the district shouldn’t have started a football program last year. The April 2001 question also included money for a new lacrosse team at Timberlane Middle School and a freshman softball team at CHS. The question was defeated 2,847-1,364.
A fourth signatory, Mary Ellen Curtin, had her name removed from the petition when she ran for the school board in the April 2003 election. She was narrowly defeated by Linda Mitchell and Lisa Marie Main in a close three-way race for two seats.
In the July 11, 2002 petition, the petitioners ask the commissioner of education to "restore and reaffirm our right to determine how moneys will be spent for cocurricular activities outside of the normal budgetary limits." They also ask the commissioner to "intercede and prevent the establishment of the program based on the eventual expenditure" of public money on the football program. They claim "district moneys will be spend starting the third year. This is in direct conflict with the result of the election" (April 17, 2001). They continue: "If the school district enters into a contract with a parents’ group, a coach or arranges a football schedule without public support, they will place the public at financial risk in order to correct or reverse these arrangements."
The petitioners also say the "addition of football to the sports program will likely create a Title IX conflict, further subjecting taxpayers to an additional liability now not existing." Former petitioner, Ms. Curtin, said May 28, 2002 (in a statement to the school board): "If we fund football at quite a moderate level, we will be spending $1.51 or boys sports for every $1 we spend on girls."
SCHOOL OFFICIALS have said there was nothing improper about starting football, since none of the funding for it came from tax money. A nonprofit citizens group, HIKE, paid the full cost of football last year and has pledged to pay the full cost this year as well. HIKE and the school district signed an agreement to that effect on May 12. Under that pact, HIKE must come up with $76,760 by July 1, if the 2003 season is to be played. HIKE committee member, Kris Kley, said May 12: "We’ll definitely have the money."
At the OAL hearing Monday, Judge Martone accepted stacks of documents from attorneys Robert Martinez, representing the school district, and David Rubin, representing the three petitioners against football. The judge vowed to review the papers thoroughly and to make as fair and informed a ruling as possible.
But, that ruling could take at least three months and, in all probability, more.
Just before adjournment, Judge Martone said Mr. Rubin had three weeks to file a closing brief in the case. Mr. Martinez will have three weeks to respond to that brief with one of his own. Once the briefs are in, Judge Martone will have 45 days to render his decision, which will be forwarded to the state commissioner of education, who has the last word almost.
After having reviewed Judge Martone’s ruling, the commissioner will decide in favor of the district or the plaintiffs. Under state law, however, the commissioner’s decision can be appealed. That appeal would be made to the state Board of Education (BOE). The BOE’s decision could appealed to the state Appellate Court.
After court adjourned Tuesday, Mr. Rubin said his clients felt the April 2001 ballot question was not just about whether tax money should be spent on football. He said "the perception" of his clients, and of many other Hopewell Valley voters, was that they were "voting on whether or not the high school should have a football program." He said that perception was derived from talks with school officials at school board meetings and elsewhere.
Mr. Martinez scoffed at that argument. "What matters is what the words of the referendum said," he declared. "The words didn’t ask the voters if they wanted a football program. The words asked the voters if they wanted to spend tax money on football. The voters said ‘no’ and the tax money never was spent. End of story."

