NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0844-16T4
FREDERICK CHATMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX
COUNTY,
Respondent-Respondent.
________________________________
Argued January 30, 2018 – Decided July 10, 2018
Before Judges Reisner and Hoffman.
On appeal from the Commissioner of Education,
Docket No. 283-9/14.
Dennis McKeever argued the cause for appellant
(Sciarrillo, Cornell, Merlino, McKeever &
Osborne, LLC, attorneys; Dennis McKeever, of
counsel and on the brief; Marcie L. Mackolin,
on the brief).
Ramon E. Rivera argued the cause for
respondent (Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC,
attorneys; Ramon E. Rivera, of counsel; Jason
T. Mushnick and Shana T. Don, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent Commissioner of Education (Eric
L. Apar, Deputy Attorney General, on the
statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner appeals from a September 12, 2016 decision of the
Commissioner of the Department of Education (Commissioner),
denying his petition seeking tenure in the position of principal,
and seeking reinstatement as principal at Harriet Tubman
Elementary School (Tubman school) in the City of Newark State
Operated School District (District). We affirm substantially for
the reasons stated in the Commissioner's decision. We add these
comments.
Petitioner was promoted from vice principal to interim
principal on August 22, 2012. That promotion was accomplished
through the established, legal process of appointment by the Board
of Education. Pursuant to the Teacher Effectiveness and
Accountability for the Children of New Jersey Act (TEACHNJ), L.
2012, c. 26, as of August 6, 2012, time served in a position no
longer sufficed to permit a newly-promoted principal to obtain
tenure in the promotional position. Instead, a principal who was
promoted after the Act's effective date of August 6, 2012, could
not attain tenure without achieving an evaluation of "effective"
or "highly effective" in two annual summative evaluations within
2 A-0844-16T4
the first three years of employment in the new position. N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6(b).
Petitioner did not attain tenure under the TEACHNJ standards
because he received annual ratings of "partially effective" and
"ineffective" for the two school years following his August 22,
2012 appointment. As a result, he was removed from the principal
position and returned to a vice principal position. He filed a
petition with the Commissioner, claiming a right to tenure as a
principal based on the pre-TEACHNJ standards, set forth in N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6(a).
Prior to his appointment as interim principal, petitioner
held the appointed title of vice principal at the Tubman school.
There was evidence that, after the appointed principal at the
Tubman school retired in December 2011, petitioner unofficially
functioned as the acting principal until the end of that school
year. However, during that time frame, the Board did not appoint
petitioner to the acting principal position or otherwise approve
his appointment to any position other than vice principal.
On April 27, 2012, petitioner wrote a letter to the District
Superintendent describing himself as a "principal" and expressing
his hope that he could continue in that position. The
Superintendent did not respond, but on May 25, 2012, the Board
served petitioner with a written notice that his position at the
3 A-0844-16T4
Tubman school had been eliminated effective at the end of the
school year, and he would have to find another position in the
District. The letter did not acknowledge that petitioner held any
position at the school other than vice principal. However, the
letter made clear that whatever position petitioner held at that
time was eliminated.
According to petitioner, in June and July 2012, he interviewed
for a principal position. On August 22, 2012, petitioner was
appointed as an interim principal, a position for which he signed
a contract. A September 24, 2012 letter, confirming petitioner's
August 22, 2012 appointment, stated that petitioner's "Current
Position" was "Vice Principal" and his "New Position" was "Interim
Principal."
In her decision, the Commissioner rejected petitioner's claim
that his unofficial, un-appointed service filling in for the former
principal entitled him to be grandfathered under the old tenure
standards set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6(a).1 Rather, the
Commissioner construed N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6(b) "to mean that the date
upon which a teaching staff member is approved by the board is the
relevant date for determining whether new tenure rules established
1
The Commissioner rejected an administrative law judge's initial
decision in petitioner's favor. The initial decision relied
heavily on pre-TEACHNJ administrative decisions, concerning the
calculation of service credit for tenure purposes.
4 A-0844-16T4
pursuant to TEACHNJ, or previous tenure rules, apply." The
Commissioner concluded: "In the instant matter, petitioner was
officially promoted from vice principal to interim principal on
August 22, 2012, which is after August 6, 2012. As such N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6(b) applies because petitioner was promoted subsequent to
the effective date of TEACHNJ."
The Commissioner reasoned that the time-in-service issue on
which petitioner relied was not dispositive, because to obtain
tenure, petitioner needed good evaluations in addition to service
credit:
The Commissioner need not reach the issue of
whether petitioner assumed the duties and
responsibilities of the principal and served
as acting principal in an un-appointed
capacity because – even if petitioner could
tack on the time served as acting principal
in an un-appointed capacity toward the time
required to earn tenure – he is ineligible for
tenure due to his evaluations falling below
the required ratings.
Our review of the Commissioner's decision is limited. We will
not disturb an agency's final decision so long as it is supported
by substantial credible evidence and is consistent with applicable
law. See In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair
Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013). We review an agency's
legal interpretations de novo. DiNapoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp.
of Verona, 434 N.J. Super. 233, 236 (App. Div. 2014). However,
5 A-0844-16T4
we give "considerable weight" to an agency's reasonable
interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing. Kletzkin
v. Spotswood Bd. of Educ., 136 N.J. 275, 278 (1994) (citation
omitted); see DiNapoli, 434 N.J. Super. at 237.
In light of those standards, we find nothing unreasonable in
the Commissioner's interpretation of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6(b). In
enacting TEACHNJ, the Legislature intended to benefit children,
by improving the quality of education. See Pugliese v. State-
Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 440 N.J. Super. 501, 508
(App. Div. 2015). To that end, TEACHNJ bases a principal's tenure
rights on demonstrated effectiveness in the position, as well as
service credit. The Commissioner's interpretation of TEACHNJ
serves that purpose and is consistent with the statutory language.
See Kletzkin, 136 N.J. 278.
Affirmed.
6 A-0844-16T4