SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
HUDSON VICINAGE
Brennan Courthouse
583 Newark Avenue
Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

CHAMBERS OF
BARRY P. SARKISIAN
PRESIDING ruDGE
CHANCERY-GENERAL EQUITY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT
THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

LETTER OPINION
Justin Meyers, Esq.
G. Martin Meyers
35 West Main Street, Suite 106
Denville, New Jersey 07834
.
Attorney for Plaintiffs Moshe Rozenblit
And Won Kyu Rim

Jonathan Riches, Esq. (Pro Hae Vice)
Goldwater Institute
500 East Coronado Road
Phoen~,Arizona 85004
Attorney for Plaintiffs {Pro Hae Vice)

Shantae D. Gray, Esq.
Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Fader
1010 Kings Highway South, Bldg. 2
Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034
Attorney for Jersey City Bd of Educ.

Flavia Komuves, Esq.
Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum &
Friedman
One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 320
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Attorney for Jersey City Educ. Assn . .

Re:

Moshe Rozenblit et al v. Marcia V. Lyles, et al
Docket No. HUD-C-2-17
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2017
Date of Decision: October 31, 2017

I

Dear Counsel:

Introduction
Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment submitted by
Plaintiffs, Moshe Rozenblit and Qwon Kyu Rim ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant, Jersey City
Education Association ("JCEA"). Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this matter on January 04,
2017 under which they sought to have certain provisions of the collectively bargained for
agreement ("CNA") entered into between the Jersey City School District, and the teacher's
union, JCEA, declared unconstitutional as violations of the "Gift Clause" of the New Jersey

1

 Constitution. 1
More specifically, Plaintiffs object to the "release time". provisions in
Sections 7-2.3 and 7-2.4 of the CNA, under which the union president and his/her
designee ("releasee employees") have the right to carry out union business and affairs-futttime, while the District pays them a class-room teacher's salary. This matter last appeared
before this Court as Defendant, JCEA's motion to dismiss pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e), which
was denied by this Court on May 30, 2017.
Pursuant to the Court's amended case management Order of .July 14, 2017
discovery took place. 2 After reviewing all the evidence and statements of material facts
presented by both parties, the Court determines that there are no material facts which
warrant a trial in this matter. For the reasons in this opinion, the Court denies Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment seeking injunctive relief and grants. Defendant JCEA's
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of this action.
Facts

Plaintiff Rozenblit is a resident of the City of Jersey City, and pays property and
sales tax in Jersey City. Plaintiff_ Rim is a resident of the State of New Jersey and pays
income tax thereto. JCEA is a labor union that is the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative for all teachers, attendance counselors, and teacher assistants employed in
the School District of Jersey City.
In June 2015, negotiators from the School District of Jersey City ("District") and the
JCEA reached accord on and ratified a collective negotiations agreement ("CNA'') covering
the period of September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017 for certain certificated teachers,
attendance counselors, and teacher assistants. The CNA includes certain "release time"
provisions as set forth in Sections 7-2.3 and 7-2.4 of that agreement, titled "Association
Rights." Section 7-2.3 provides that the JCEA President and his/her designee "shall be
permitted to devote all of his/her time to the Association business and affairs.lJSection 72.4 provides that the releasee employees shall "notify the Superintendent of his/her
designee as to where-and when he/she is carrying out such Association business during
school time."
\
Similar release time provisions allowing for two (2) full-time releasee employees
have been negotiated in prior JCEA CNAs since at least 1969, under which only the JCEA
president was given full-time release status. In 1998 it was decided that two (2) full-time
release employees would be provided for.
Mr. Greco, the JCEA President and Ms. Thorp, his designee, are the District
employees currently aesignated to receive release time on a full-time basis by the JCEA.
By the terms of the JCEA constitution, these releasee employees are required to be
members of the JCEA as well as employees of the Jersey City Public School system. The
releasees are paid according to the same rates and receive the same benefits as all other
classroom teachers. · The District does not determine who will be appointed JCEA
1
2

As set forth in Article 8, § 2, ,I 1, Article 8, § 3, ,i 2, and Article 8, § 3, ,I 3.
Subject to a Stipulated Protective Order, dated August 15, 2017.

2

 President or who will be appointed his/her designee, and does not have authority to
remove individuals from thos·e positions. The CNA does not require that the releasee
employees keep track of, or report, their daily time records to any supervisor. The
releasee employees also do not receive performance· reviews from any supervisor or
supervisory body.
The releasee employees, of course, conductcontract negotiations, representing the
JCEA, when the CNA is negotiated, which negotiations occur approximately every four (4)
years. When the CNA is not being negotiated, t~e majority of the releasee employee's
time is spent addressing and attempting to resolve conflicts that arise between the District
staff and the administration. This process often involves informal meetings to address
grievances and disciplinary hearings. If the grievance or disciplinary issue is not resolved
informally, the District schedules time to conduct formal hearings on teacher grievances or
administration disciplinary concerns. Mr. Greco, as permitted by Article 36 of the CNA,
also serves on ·various Jersey City School committees or bod.ies and periodically meets
with the District Superintendent, pursuant to Article 9 of the CNA.
The releasee
employees also engage in some advocacy and political activities on behalf of the JCEA,
although such activities are typically scheduled after the school day is concluded.
While the District does not supervise the releasee employees in the same way it
might supervise a teacher or administrator, the District does retain some formal and
informal controls over the releasee employees. The CNA contains a section titled
"Meetings of Superintendent and JCEA President" under which the Superintendent and the
JCEA President "may meet at least once a month during the academic year ... to discuss
and attempt to resolve problems affecting the schools, teacher morale, working conditions,
and other issues pertinent to the implementation of this contract." In practice, the District
administrators are in charge of scheduling administrator meetings, committee meetings,
disciplinary hearings and labor negotiations to which the releasee employees are obligated
to report to and participate in. Mr. Greco and Ms. Thorp, as employees of the District,
report to the District Administration when they take sick leave, personal leave, or other
absence from duty authorized by the CNA.
Pursuant to the CNA, when meeting with
teachers or administrators in school buildings, the releasees report their presence to the
building principal or sign in at the school office. These releasee employees may also be
subject to discipline by the District for conduct related to their employment. The District
administrators have regular face-to-face and other contact with the releasee employees
and have various opportunities to supervise their work.

Discussion
Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to R. 4:46-2(c), summary judgment is appropriate
[l]f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,
· together with the affidavits, if any,· show that there is no genuine issue as to an{
material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order

3

 as a matter of law. An issue of fact is genuine only if, considering the burden of
persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the motion, together with
all legitimate inferences there from favoring the non-moving party, would require
submission of the issue to the trier of fact.

When deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that would preclude
summary judgment, the judge must "consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient
to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the nonmoving party." Brill v. Guardian Life ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520,540 (1995); see also Judson v.
Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 74-75 (1954). All favorable inference must be
drawn in favor of the party opposing the motion. Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 536. The judge's
function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter; rather, it is to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 540. Summary judgment is to
be granted where there is no issue to be decided by the trier of fact based on the evidence.
Id. at 536-37. However, it is not so that every issue of fact is material, "[i]n order to
determine materiality, it is necessary first to set forth the contours of the legal issue
presented." Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209 N.J. 35, 41 (2012).
Plaintiffs, by filing their motion for summary judgment argue that there have been
sufficient facts presented to find that the "release pro'visions" of the CNA violate the New
Jersey Constitution's "gift clause" provisions. Defendants argue that the facts, as they
stand before the Court, warrant a dismissal of Plaintiffs' action pursuant to R. 4:46-1 et.
seq.
This matter requires an interpretation and. application of the relevant "gift clause"
portions of the New Jersey Constitution with regard to the "release provisions" of the CNA
as entered into between JCEA and the District. However, before that determination can
take place, the Court must determine the Plaintiffs' burden of proof.·

Burden of Proof
When challenging a legislative act as being unconstitutional under the New Jersey
Constitution, our Courts have held that the moving party carries a steep burden of proof.
Defendant, JGEA argues that Plaintiffs are required to prove their allegations "beyond a
reasonable doubt" pursuant to Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1, 10 (1957). Defendant asserts
that the Court has held that actions challenging the implementations of a legislative act as
unconstitutional are held to the same standard. Franklin v. New Jersey Dep't of Human
Services, 111 N.J. 1, 16, 17 (1988).
Plaintiffs assert that the Gangemi test is in applicable as a conjunctive two-factor
test that only applies the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard if (1) there is a legislative
act, and (2) that the act is challenged under a constitutional provision that is silent, unclear
or ambiguous. In re P.L. 2001, Chpt. 362, 186 N.J. 368 (2006).
I

[l]t is the settled rule of judicial policy in this State that a legislative act will not be
declf1red void unless its repugnancy to the constitution is clear beyond a reasonable

4

 doubt. 'The constitutional limitation upon the exercise of legislative power must be
clear and imperative'; there is to be 'no forced or unnatural construction'; the
limitation upon the general legislative power is to be 'established and defined by
words that are found written in that instrument,'

Gangemi v. Berry,25 N.J. 1, 10 (1957) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs contend that the challenged release time provisions of the CNA are (1) not
a legislative act or an implementation of such, and (2) even if they were construed as a
legislative act or implementation of such, the gift clause provision of the constitution clearly
prohibits the kind of monetary allocation permitted under the release time provisions.
Here, N:J.S.A. 1BA:30-7, while not explicitly authorizing release time leave,
establishes the grounds for it3 by permitting boards of education "to fix either by rule or by
individual consideration, the payment of salary in cases of absence not constituting sick
leave .... " It is true that Plaintiff is not directly challenging the validity of that statute.
Plaintiff is instead challenging the validity of the release time provisions of the CAN and its
nexus to that statute which triggers a significant burden of proof.
On the other hand, the Jersey City Board of Education, through its District
representatives argues that it acted, in negotiating the terms of the CNA, to implement
N.J.S.A. 1BA:30-7 by fixing the payment of teachers' salary in cases of absence for union
business under the collectively negotiated terms of that contract.
It is not clear to the Court that the "gift clause" provisions of the New Jersey
Constitution prohibits the implementation of N.J.S.A. 1BA:30-7 through the inclusion of
"release time" provisions in the CNA. Plaintiff's contention that the release time provisions
of the CNA are plain violations of the "gift clause" is not "established and defined by words
that are found written in that instrument" (i.e., the New Jersey Constitution). The authors of
the New Jersey Constitution obviously did not mean to prohibit all monetary allocation from
government entities to private parties. Gangemi v. Berry, 25 N.J. 1, 10 (1957) (citations
omitted).
Plaintiffs' steep burden of proof is justified by the deference the Court gives to the
constitutional validity of a legislative act that has been in existence without challenge for an
extended period of time. N.J.S.A. § 18A:30-7 has been law for fifty (50) years. P.L. 1967, c.
271. Release time provisions have been included in JCEA CNAs since at least 1969. As_
evidenced by the long life of this statute without the Court's invalidation and without
legislative amendment, a presumption exists that this implementation of the statutory right
set forth in N.J.S.A. 1BA:30-7 is constitutional. See State v. Trump Hotels & Casino
Resorts, 160 N.J. 505, 527 (1999) ("[t]he presumption that a statute is constitutional is
enhanced when that statute has been in effect and implemented without challenge over an
3

The State of New Jersey Commission on Investigation issued a report on release time provisions cited in
Plaintiffs brief in opposition on page 15. That report, while not taking a favorable view of release time,
recognizes that N.J.S.A. 18A: 30-7 "establishes the grounds" for paid release time by "giving boards of
education the power to grant virtually any type of paid time-off through contract negotiations or other means."
(SCI Report, pg. 6).

5

 extended period"). Moreover, although not binding on this Court, the validity of release
time provisions have been consistently upheld in numerous decisions of the New Jersey
Public Employment Relations Commission. See~ I/M/O Brick-Twp. Bd. Of Ed. v. Brick
. Twp. Educ. Assn. Docket No. CO-2011-210 (Jan 28, 2011 ), City of Newark, PERC No. 90122, 16 NJPER ,121, 164 (PERC Jun. 26, 1990). Similar release time provisions have also
been held to withstand constitutional challenge under other state's constitutional gift clause
provisions. See Cheatham v. DiCiccio, 379 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Supreme Ct. 2016) and Idaho
Freedom Foundation v. Ind. Sch. Dist. Of Boise City, No. CV-OC-2015-15153 (Idaho 4 th
Dist. Ct. Oct. 25, 2016).
Thus in order for Plaintiff to succeed in having the Court determine that Sections 72.3 and 7-2.4 (the "release-time provisiqns")of the June 2015 Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the New Jersey Education Association and the Jersey City School
District violates the New Jersey Constitution, Art. VIII,§ 3, ,I,I 1-3, Plaintiffs must show that
the release-time provisions in the aforementioned contract are repugnant to the
constitution beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gift Clause Challenge
Plaintiffs challenge the release time prov1s1ons of the collective bargaining
agreement as being in violations of the "Gift Clause" of the New Jersey Constitution, Article
8, § 2, ,I 1, Article 8, § 3, ,I 2, and Article 8, § 3, ,I 3.
Article 8, § 2, ,I 1 provides, in full, that: "The credit of the State shall not be directly
or indirectly loaned in any case."
Article 8, § 3, ,I 2 provides, in full that:
No county, city, borough, town, township or village-shall hereafter give any money or
property, or loan its money or credit, to 6r in aid of any individual, association or
corporation, or become security for, or be directly or indirectly the owner of, any stock
or bonds of any association or corporation.

Article 8, § 3, ,I 3 provides, in full, that: "No donation of land or appropriation of
money shall be made by the State or any county or municipal corporation to or for the use
of any society, association or corporation whatever."
New Jersey-Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191 (1964), is the
seminal case discussing th~ "gift clause" of the New Jersey Constitution. Historically, the
constitutional prohibitions of Article VI 11 were motivated by the myriad of abuses that
followed efforts by the State to encourage the development of railroads through grants of
financial aid. Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191,206 (1964). "The strictures of Article VIII, which
were adopted in 1875 were simply a retreat to a fundamental doctrine of government, i.e.,
that public money should be raised and used only for public purpose." kl In Roe, the
New Jersey State Treasurer sought a judgment that the New Je_rsey State Area

6

)

 f

Redevelopment Assistance Act ("ARAA"), 4 as overseen· by the commissioners of an
independent state agency, violated the "gift clause" provisions of the New Jersey
Constitution by allowing public credit to be lent to private entities. In upholdJng ARAA's
constitutionality, Roe set forth a two-part test for the Court to use when determining
whether a government provision of financial aid is unconstitutional: First [the Court must
determine], whether the provision of financial aid is for a public purpose, and second,
whether the means to accomplish it are consonant with that purpose. !g. at 212; see also
Bryant v. City of Atlantic City, 309 N.J. Super.596, 612 (App. Div. 1998).
I.

Public Purpose

The determination of whether the provision of some financial aid by the government
body exists for a public purpose or whether that provision is instead for a private purpose is
one that "is incapable of exact or perduring definition." Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191, 207
(1964). "In each instance where the test is to be applied, the decision must be reached
with reference to the object sought to be accomplished." kt Where a government
allocation of financial aid provides an "incidental private benefit" as part of an overall
contract that meets the other factors of the Roe test, that incidential benefit will not make
the contract unconstitutional as long as the overall public purpose is being adequately
served. kl at 231. A public purpose is generally described as one that "_serves to benefit
the community as a whole." kl at 207. A governmental determination of what constitutes a
public purpose "is entitled to great weight in the courts. It should not be set aside as
violative of the [Constitution] unless there is no reasonable basis for sustaining it." kl at
229-30. "If the.re be reasonable difference of opinion as to validity of a plan devised to
effectuate a public purpose, the judiciary should defer to the legislative judgment." kl at
230. Moreover, "[i]t is fair to say that our courts have adopted the view that compensation
paid to public employees, whatever the label, is not a gift so long as it is included within the
conditions of employment either by statutory direction or contract negotiation." Maywood
Ed. Assn. Inc. v. Maywood Bd. of Ed., 131 N.J. Super. 551,557 (Ch. Div. 1974) (retirement
payments by district· board for unused sick leave did not violate gift provisions of the
Constitution).

Here, the Court finds that the release time provisions of the CNA serve valid public
purposes. The release time provisions in the CNA are implementations of a statutory right.
As set forth above, the Court understands the release time provisions of the CNA to be the
District's implementation of the right to grant teachers non-sick day leave pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 1BA:30-7. Therefore, the Court will give deference to the legislative determination
that there are public purpose reasons for granting the District authority to grant such nonsick-day leave.
However, even if we were not to defer to the legislative's decision to authorize
release time, the Court finds that the release time provisions facilitate important functions
that serve the District in their constitutional obligation to provide education to the children of
4

N.J.S.A. §§ 13: 1B-15.13 et seq.

7

 Jersey City. These functions include, but are not limited to, engaging in the collective
negotiations process; facilitating an effective disciplinary hearing process for employees of
the District; facilitating an effective grievance process for employees of the District; limiting
the expense to the public of prolonged arbitration and facilitating labor-management
communication to ensure labor peace.
Our courts have long recognized that the collective bargaining process, in and of
itself; serves an important public purpose. Robbinsville Twp. Bd. Of Ed. V. Washington
Twp. Educ. Ass'n., 227 N.J. 192, 204 (2016); I/M/O Hunterdon Bd. Of Freeholders, 116
N.J. 332, 338 (1989). Granting certain District employees release time to engage in that
process in negotiating contracts for the JCEA se_rves the public by facilitating a collectively
negotiated agreement between the JCEA and the District.
The Court also recognizes that the majority of the releasee employees time is not
spent negotiating contracts, rather, the majority of their time is spent engaging in the
disciplinary/grievance hearing process outlined in the CNA. In addition to the conciliation
and resolve of grievance and/or disciplinary clai.ms, the releasee employees also attend
various meetings with District Administrators to ensure that labor-management relations
run smoothly. The release employeee's function as a peace-keeping force in the labormanagement relationship in the District serves the purpose of ensuring that its employees
and · administration can cooperate in order to serve the District in implementing its
constitutional obligation to educate the children of Jersey City. 5 Moreover, the full-time
availability of the releasee employees for their attendance to labor and management
conflicts benefits the District financially by resolving matters that might otherwise evolve
into costly and time-consuming arbitration through informal and cost-effective conciliatory
meetings. The Court is satisfied that Defendants have demonstrated that these release
time provisions serve the dual public purposes of facilitating the collective negotiations
process and keeping labor peace in the Jersey City Public Schools.

II.

Means to Accomplish Public Purpose

Under the second prong of the test set forth in Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191 (1964),
the Court must examine ·a variety of factors to determine whether the means fit the
purpose, such as whether the government: (1) retains sufficient control over the
expenditure, see New Jersey Citizen Action, Inc. v. County of Bergen, 391 N.J. Super. 596,
604 (App. Div. 2007); and (2) if the transaction is contractual in nature, whether the
expenditure is "based upon a substantial consideration." New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v.
State, 387 N.J. SupeL 24, 53 (App. Div. 2006).

5

In the Arizona Supreme Court case of Cheatham v. DiCiccio: 379 P.3d 211,217,218 (Ariz. Supreme Ct.
2016) the court recognized that when determining the public purpose of release time provisions in response to
a gift clause challenge under the Arizona State Constitution, the public purpose of the collectively negotiated
contract should be viewed as a whole. The Court here adopts this view in that the release time provisions
cannot be viewed in isolation from the public purpose behind the CNA.

8

 Plaintiff asserts that the controls in place by the District are not adequate for the
District to determine whether the funds expended in paying these releasee employee's
salaries are primarily being used for a public or private purpose. The Court disagrees.
It is undisputed that Mr. Greco and Ms. Thorp report to the District administration
when they take sick leave, personal leave or other absence from duty authorized by the
CNA. The CNA also provides that when the releasee employees meet with teachers or
administration in school buildings, releasees are to report their presence in the school
building to the principal or sign in at the central office. Whether the releasees are present
in a school at the principal or administrator'_s request, or are present at a school as a result
of a request they initiated on their own, the releasees are monitored by the principal and/or
vice principal. The building and central administration are kept apprised of the releasees'
activities when they go to schools to help conciliate· disputes that may arise between
teachers and administrators. In fact, . the D.istrict sets the schedule for all formal
negotiations related to grievance and disciplinary hearings as well as negotiations related
to the releasee's collective bargaining duties. The releasee employees have regular faceto-face, telephonic and other contact with members of the District administration as well as
record keeping of their attendance as described above. Lastly, the District maintains
authority to discipline the releasee employees for employment-related misconduct.
-

Here, the Court finds that Defendant, JCEA has demonstrated that the District
retains sufficient control over the use of release time by those releasee employees. The
Court, having reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties on this issue, finds that the
District retains sufficient control over the release time expenditure to ensure that the public
p~rpose of those release time provisions is carried out by the releasee employees for the
benefit of the District.
The Court notes that language in the cases cited by the plaintiffs discussing the
terms of control as necessarily peing "strict" and set forth in applicable statutes or contracts
primarily deal with direct government loans to private entities, which this case is not. It
would make sense that when a government loans money to a private entity that a high
amount of control over how that asset is used is necessary to ensure that the government's
public purpose of lending the money is accomplished. However, here, where the
challenged government financial aid is the allocation of two salaries to individuals
authorized to engage in union business and activities full-time, the government body, here
·the District, must maintain control over how those funds are allocated. However, the control
necessary to achieve that purpose is obviously different from the control necessary to
ensure proper use of loaned funds to private entities. Moreover, the legislature has
statutorily limited the amount of control the District might have over the JCEA and its
releasee employees. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(2) (providing thatthe public employers cannot
"dominat[e]" or "interfere[e] with",a Union's administration).
As set forth above, the District maintains a significant amount of supervisory
authority and is directly involved with the work the releasee employees perform on a daily
basis. The terms of that supervisory authority are negotiated in good faith and set forth in
the provisions of the CNA. Thus, although the District does not maintain the same type of
9

 controls a government agency might maintain over a private entity it is lending money to,
the' Court finds that, given the nature of releasee employee's role in the District, the District
exercises a "reasonable measure of control" over the release employees. New Jersey .
Citizen Action, Inc. v. County of Bergen, 391 N.J. Super. 596, 604 (App. Div. 2007).
Lastly, the Court finds that the expenditure of funds for the releasee employees
salaries is supported by substantial consideration. When an agreement "involves the
transfer of public funds to a private entity, but is unsupported by consideration flowing to
the government entity" that agreement may violate the gift clause provisions of the New
Jersey Constitution. New Jersey Citizen Action, Inc. v. County of Bergen, 391 N.J: Super.
_) 596, 605 (App. Div. 2007) (citing City of Bayonne v. Palmer, 47 N.J. 520 (1966)). Even if
there is some benefit received by the government body, the sufficiency of that benefit
compared to the size of the monetary allocation will be analyzed in determining whether
that allocation is an unconstitutional gift. City of East Orange v. Board of Water
Commissioners, 79 N.J. Super. 363,371 (App. Div), aff'd on other grounds 41 N.J. (1963).
However, our Courts havef also recognized that "compensation paid to public employees,
whatever the label, is not a gift so long as it is included within the conditions of
employment, either by statutory direction or contract negotiation." Maywood Educ. Ass'n v.
Maywood Bd. Of Ed. 131 N.J. Super. 551 (Ch. Div. 1974).
Here, the release provisions of the CNA are contractually negotiated provisions of
compensation for employees of the District. Moreover, the District is authorized by N.J.S.A.
1BA:30-7 to provide this sort of compensation when teachers are absent from their ordinary
teaching duties. As set forth above, the District receives a substantial benefit from
employing the releasee employees in the form of facilitating labor peace and cost-effective
conciliation of grievances and disciplinary issues. In addition to the monetary benefit of
stemming these disputes before they turn into costly arbitration proceedings, the District
also receives value in the form of non-monetary compensation through the facilitation of
communication between the staff and administrators of the District. For the reasons set
forth herein, the Court finds that it has enough factual information to determine that there is
adequate consideration flowing to the District in exchange for its allocation of public funds
to cover the releasee employee's salaries.

Conclusion
Given Plaintiff's steep burden of proof and this Court's determination that the
- releaseJtime provisions in the CNA are not unconstitutional gifts, the Court denies Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. For the same reason, the Court hereby grants Defendant,
JCEA's motion for summary judgment and dismisses this case.~

10