[brief] Page  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. ii  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..............................................................................  1  STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................  4  A.  Respondents’ Initial Efforts To Create An All-Purpose Regional School District With [...]’s Participation ...........................................  4  B.  The Respondent Boards’ March 2023 Referendum Petition And [...]’s Separate Request For Relief To The Commissioner .............  8  C.  The Commissioner’s September 2023 Decision ............................................  9  LEGAL ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................  13  THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE IT IS A REASONABLE AND PRACTICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SCHOOL LAWS THAT READILY MEETS THE HEIGHTENED DEFERENTIAL STANDARD  APPLIED BY APPELLATE COURTS TO AGENCY DECISIONS INTERPRETING STATUTES THAT THE AGENCY IS ENTRUSTED TO APPLY AND ENFORCE.  ..................................................................................  13  A.  The Court Should Affirm The Commissioner’s Decision Because The Decision Is Entitled To Substantial Deference And Should Not Be Overturned Unless It Is Plainly Unreasonable, Which It Clearly Is Not ...........................................................................................................  14  B.  The Commissioner’s Determination That Municipalities Such As [...] Are Among The Entities Enumerated In N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11 And Permitted To Seek Withdrawal From A Regional Or Consolidated School District Is Supported By The Statute’s Plain Language And The Overall Statutory Scheme.  .......................  17  C. Appellants’ Arguments That The Legislature Expressly Chose To Exclude Municipalities Such As [...] From Withdrawing From Regional Or Consolidated School Districts  Both Ignores The Wider Legislative Scheme And Leads To An Absurd Result ......  25  #  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES  ## CASES | Case | Page(s) | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | Allstars Auto. Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 234 N.J. 150 (2018) | 15 | | City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 82 N.J. 530 (1980) | 15 | | DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) | 21, 22, 24 | | E. Bay Drywall, LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Workforce Dev., 251 N.J. 477 (2022) | 14, 16, 30 | | In re Election L. Enf’t Comm’n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 201 N.J. 254 (2010) | 16 | | State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (2014) | 22, 29 | | State v. Green, 62 N.J. 547 (1973) | 21 | | Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015) | 14 | | In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) | 15 | | Melnyk v. Bd. of Educ. of the Delsea Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 241 N.J. 31 (2020) | 14 | | Messick v. Bd. of Rev., 420 N.J. Super 321 (App. Div. 2011) | 15 | | In re N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. Am. Fed’n of State, County, & Mun. Employees, Council 73, 150 N.J. 331 (1997) | 16 | | Nordstrom v. Lyon, 424 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2012) | 12 | | Pine Belt Chevrolet v. Jersey Cent. Power, 132 N.J. 564 (1993) | 23 | | In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370 (2013) | 15 | | Reilly v. AAA Mid-Atl. Ins. Co. of N.J., 194 N.J. 474 (2008) | 16 | Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14 (2011)