Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hib Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board attorney David Del Distler trains Berkeley Heights board on HIB law, investigation timelines
Summary
At a Nov. 3 special meeting, Berkeley Heights Board of Education counsel David Del Distler gave detailed training on New Jersey harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) law, explaining the three-prong test, reporting forms and board roles across the two-meeting process; board members pressed for clearer information before votes.
David Del Distler, counsel to the Berkeley Heights Board of Education, told the board at a Nov. 3 special meeting that districts must apply a three-part test to determine whether an incident constitutes harassment, intimidation or bullying (HIB), and that boards must be careful when overturning administration findings.
Distler opened the training by walking members through the HIB definition: (1) an act (written, verbal, physical or electronic), (2) a target with an actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic, and (3) a nexus to school operations or a "substantial disruption" to the victim or school environment. He used multiple case examples, from classroom remarks to group-chat incidents, to show how commissioners and courts have applied the test.
"If you're going to overturn that decision and it goes against the investigation report, you as a board are required to explain in that decision why you have reversed the administration," Distler said, cautioning that the commissioner has overturned board decisions when the board failed to describe why it disagreed with the investigator's factual findings.
Distler also described post-2022 procedural requirements: districts now have a standardized state form (identified in the training as form 338) for reporting HIB, school principals or administrators must receive and process reports, and certain actors (board members and school employees) are statutorily required to report suspected HIB. He summarized the timeline expectations the training emphasized: an investigation should begin promptly (the presenter noted an expectation of initiation within one school day) and be completed no later than 10 school days, with follow-up reporting obligations to parents and the board under the statutory schedule.
Board members asked how to exercise oversight without operating as a fact-finder. Distler said that, absent an appeal, boards typically review whether procedures were followed and whether the three legal prongs were addressed by the investigation, rather than conducting a jury-like reexamination of witness testimony.
He stressed the difference between HIB findings and code-of-conduct discipline: a district may impose disciplinary measures under its code of conduct even when an incident does not meet the HIB statutory standard, and conversely an HIB finding may not itself impose separate discipline beyond administrative remedies and services.
Distler also addressed privacy and records: the statute requires a letter or notation be placed in the student file after certain HIB procedures; he said that letter typically remains in the file and that disciplinary records (if any) are what colleges or other third parties would normally see.
The training closed after a question-and-answer session in which members sought clarification about what information they should expect in meeting No.1 (where the board is informed) versus meeting No.2 (where the board may affirm, reject, or modify findings and parents may appeal). Distler encouraged board members to request additional, targeted information from the superintendent between meetings rather than treating meeting No.2 as a complete fact-finding forum.
The board followed the training with other agenda items before adjourning.
