Robert Rodriquez v. New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal History Review Unit, 3/30/2023, (#93-23)

93-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Department of Children and Families,
Petitioner,
v.
R.R.,
Respondent,
and
Robert Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
Criminal History Review Unit,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this consolidated case, petitioner – a school bus driver – appealed a finding of neglect by the
Department of Children and Families (DCF), and a determination by the NJ Department of Education,
Criminal History Review Unit (now known as the Office of Student Protection or OSP), imposing a six-
month suspension of petitioner’s school bus license stemming from a 2017 incident wherein the
petitioner parked and locked the school bus without checking to see if any children remained onboard
at the end of his shift. Petitioner’s negligence resulted in an 8-year-old child being left unsupervised on
the bus for nearly two hours.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there was no dispute, under the totality of the circumstances, that the
student never reached his destination on the day of the incident and was found by a third party locked
on the bus after 5:00 pm, well after his normal drop off time; accordingly, DCF’s determination of
established neglect was upheld. Regarding the suspension of petitioner’s school bus license, a 6-month
suspension was not warranted given that petitioner has not had a valid bus driver “S” endorsement
since this matter was initiated more than 4 years ago, and – while technically a 6-month suspension
should have been imposed – petitioner has already endured a “de facto” suspension of his bus license
for more than 4 years and any further suspension would be fundamentally unfair and penalize him twice
for the same violation.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this
matter, as petitioner has already served the mandatory suspension of his school bus “S” endorsement.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. Nos. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18 (consolidated)
DCF Dkt. No. AHU 17-0799
Agency Dkt. No. 73-3/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Department of Children and Families,
Petitioner,
v.
R.R.,
Respondent,
and
Robert Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal
History Review Unit, 1
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by respondent New Jersey Department
of Education, Office of Student Protection (OSP) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the
petitioner’s reply thereto.
1 The Criminal History Review Unit is now known as the Office of Student Protection. This decision will use Office
of Student Protection for consistency.
93-23

2
This consolidated action stems from an incident in which petitioner, a bus driver for the
Hoboken School District, left a student on the bus on May 31, 2017. Petitioner parked and
locked the school bus at the end of his shift and, approximately two hours later, another district
employee found an eight-year-old child on the school bus. The Department of Children and
Families (DCF), Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit investigated and established that
petitioner’s conduct constituted “Neglect/Inadequate Supervision.” Additionally, OSP sent a
letter dated March 9, 2018, indicating that petitioner’s “S” endorsement to operate a school
bus would be suspended for 6 months because petitioner had failed to conduct a visual
inspection at the end of his transportation route as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 et seq.
Petitioner challenged the DCF finding of child neglect and filed a petition of appeal with the
Department challenging the suspension of his “S” endorsement to operate a school bus. The
matters were consolidated at the OAL as they both stemmed from the same incident. DCF was
determined to have the predominant interest as to the finding of neglect, and the
Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide the remaining education issue involving the suspension
of the “S” endorsement.2
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld DCF’s determination of established neglect.
With respect to the bus driver “S” endorsement, the ALJ found that a 6-month suspension was
not warranted given that petitioner has not had a valid bus driver “S” endorsement since the
education matter was initiated more than 4 years ago. The ALJ explained that the pandemic
caused extensive, unprecedented delays in this case, and petitioner has certified and testified
that he could not utilize his “S” certification throughout the pendency of this matter because he
2 The education matter was placed on the inactive list while the DCF matter proceeded with testimony. After the
completion of the DCF matter, the education matter proceeded by way of summary decision.

3
was prevented from having his fingerprints taken, which is required to operate a school bus. As
such, the ALJ found that while technically a 6-month suspension should be imposed, petitioner
has already endured a “de facto” suspension of his “S” endorsement for more than 4 years and
any further suspension would be fundamentally unfair and penalize him twice for the same
violation.
In its exceptions, OSP argues that the School Bus Safety Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:39-26 to -
33, requires bus drivers to visually inspect the school bus to ensure that no child has been left
on the bus. The Act leaves no discretion and imposes a mandatory 6-month suspension for the
first offense of leaving a child on the bus. N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29. OSP contends that the statute
does not permit further inquiry into a petitioner’s personal circumstances. As such, OSP
requests that the Initial Decision be rejected.3
In reply, petitioner argues that he has already served well more than a 6-month
suspension of his “S” endorsement as he has been subject to a “de facto” suspension of not less
than 5 years. As such, he urges the Commissioner to adopt the Initial Decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner finds that petitioner failed to inspect the bus at the end
of his route as required, which resulted in a student being left on the bus for approximately two
hours. The Commissioner further concludes that N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 mandates a six-month
suspension of petitioner’s school bus endorsement as this was his first offense. However, the
Commissioner finds that given the specific circumstances in this matter, in which petitioner has
been unable to obtain a valid “S” endorsement for at least the past 4 years while this matter
was pending, the petitioner has effectively already served his 6-month suspension. The
3 OSP also argues that the Department did not violate petitioner’s due process rights by blocking him from getting
fingerprinted; if petitioner was prevented from having his fingerprints taken, it was not due to any action of the
Department. The Commissioner agrees that petitioner’s due process rights were not violated.

4
Commissioner finds that, given the unique circumstances in this case, the suspension petitioner
has already served is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter.
The petitioner has already served the mandatory suspension of his school bus “S”
endorsement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
4 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
March 30, 2023
March 31, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18
AND FAMILIES, AGENCY DKT. NO. AHU#19
Petitioner,
v.
R.R.,
Respondent.
________________________________
ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, OAL DKT. No. EDU 06479-18
AGENCY DKT. No. 73-3/18
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, CRIMINAL HISTORY
REVIEW UNIT,
Respondent.
________________________________
Joann M. Corsetto, Deputy Attorney General, for Petitioner (Michael J. Platkin,
Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Paul Tyschchenko, Esq., for Respondent (Caruso Smith Picini, attorneys)

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
2
Record Closed: February 22, 2020 Decided: April 5, 2022
BEFORE ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Department of Children and Families (DCF), seeks an Initial Decision
affirming its finding that established neglect against R.R., a school bus driver who, after
completing his daily route, returned the bus and locked it with a minor still on board,
leaving the child with no means of getting off the bus.
DCF transmitted the contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15 and
N.J.S.A. 52:14f-1 TO 13, to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on
September 27, 2019. EDU 06479-18 was also transmitted and subsequently
consolidated by the Office of Administrative Law since both matters arose from the
same incident.
A hearing was held on May 10, 2019. Post hearing submissions were filed, and
oral argument was held on February 22, 2020.
ISSUE
Whether there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain a finding of Established
for child neglect by Respondent upon J.S., pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6 et seq., as
determined the Department of Children and Families (DCF). The specific allegations
against R.R. is that while transporting J.S. to an after school activity, he parked and
locked the bus to its designated area after completing his duties for the day, without
checking to see that J.S. was still on the bus, which had been locked.
Also to be determined is whether petitioner’s school bus driving privileges under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Education should be suspended for a period of one
hundred eighty, (180) days, as a result of the related finding of Established neglect.

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
3
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY
Petitioner’s Case
Irek Taflinski testified as follows:
Mr. Taflinski works as a Senior Investigator in the Institutional Abuse
Investigation Unit (IAIU) with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and has
been in this position for fourteen years. Prior to that he was a supervisor with the DCF
Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit. He was assigned to investigate the incident
involving R.R., a school bus driver with the Hoboken School District which occurred on
May 31, 2017. In addition to speaking with the Hoboken Police Department, and school
officials, Mr. Taflinski spoke with J.S.’s mother and several students who ride the bus
with J.S.
Mr. Taflinski prepared an Investigative Summary (P-3) regarding his
investigation. Hoboken Public Schools also did a Report of Incident. (P-9). Other
evidence considered was the Weather History for 5/31/17, (P-4), Certification of
Documents, (P-6), the Hoboken Transportation Employee Manual, (P-7), and the
Hoboken Police Investigation Report, (P-10). Also considered was the DCF IAIU
Findings Report dated 9/22/17.
According to his testimony, after meeting with the Hoboken Police Department,
Mr. Taflinski went to the area where the bus was usually parked at the end of each day
and met with the coach and a group of students who play softball on a field adjacent to
where the bus is parked.
The coach, whose name was Vincent Johnson, told Mr. Taflinski that there was a
foul ball that rolled over near where the bus was parked, and that he and some of the
players noticed that there was actually someone still inside the bus. After seeing the
individual, Mr. Johnson and his assistant coach immediately opened the door and got
the child off the bus. The time was around 5:15 PM. It is unknown how long the bus

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
4
was there with J.S. on it before they discovered him. In addition to the people at the
field near where the bus was parked, Mr. Taflinski interviewed J.S.
J.S. told him he remembered getting on the bus, he sat in the back and he
remembered falling asleep, he woke up and there was no one else on the bus, including
the driver. He also remembered that he wasn’t dropped off by the driver that day at his
usual after school location. This is a critical issue in the case that is undisputed, that
J.S. was never dropped off by petitioner at his usual stop that day.
The investigator Mr. Taflinski interviewed R.R. R.R. swore that he walked from
the front to the rear of the bus and then back again, checking side-to-side to make sure
everyone was off the bus. Mr. Taflinski said he went to see the bus himself, and in his
opinion, there was no way a child could hide underneath one of the bus seats, because
of the metal brackets that support the seats which are attached to the floor. He further
stated during his testimony that it would be virtually impossible to miss a young child still
sitting on the bus, particularly if they were the only one remaining.
Mr. Taflinski also interviewed several of the other students, age 8 who rode the
bus. At least three of them confirmed that J.S. frequently falls asleep and that R.R. has
to wake him up when they reach his destination.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4) defines a neglected child less than 18 years old, whose
physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of
becoming impaired as the result of the failure of his parent or guardian, as herein
defined, a school bus driver to exercise a minimum degree of care … in providing the
child with proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to
be inflicted harm, or substantial risk thereof, including the infliction of excessive corporal
punishment; or by any other acts of a similarly serious nature requiring the aid of the
court.”

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
5
In N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(a) the definition of parent or guardian includes a teacher,
employee, or volunteer, whether compensated or uncompensated, of an institution who
is responsible for the child’s welfare and any other staff person of an institution
regardless of whether or not the person is responsible for the care or supervision of the
child. So in this case, R.R., in his capacity as a school bus driver, would fall into this
category.
N.J.A.C. 10:129-1.3 similarly defines a “parent or guardian” as “any birth parent,
adoptive parent, resource parent, stepparent, paramour, or any person, who has
assumed responsibility for the care, custody or control of a child or upon whom there is
a legal duty for such care” including “a teacher, employee or volunteer, whether
compensated or uncompensated, of an institution who is responsible for the child's
welfare and any other staff person of an institution regardless of whether or not the
person is responsible for the care or supervision of the child” and “a teaching staff
member or other employee, whether compensated or uncompensated, of a day school
as defined in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21.” Clearly R.R. also falls within this definition
N.J.A.C. 10:7-3(c) the four possible findings regarding an allegation of child
abuse or neglect, as follows:
1. An allegation shall be "substantiated" if the
preponderance of the evidence indicates that a child is an
"abused or neglected child" as defined in N.J.S.A. 9:6-
8.21 and either the investigation indicates the existence of
any of the circumstances in N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.4 or
substantiation is warranted based on consideration of the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in N.J.A.C. 3A:10-
7.5.
2. An allegation shall be "established" if the preponderance
of the evidence indicates that a child is an "abused or
neglected child" as defined in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21, but the act
or acts committed or omitted do not warrant a finding of
"substantiated" as defined in (c)1 above.
3. An allegation shall be "not established" if there is not a
preponderance of the evidence that a child is an abused or
neglected child as defined in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21, but evidence
indicates that the child was harmed or was placed at risk of
harm.

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
6
4. An allegation shall be "unfounded" if there is not a
preponderance of the evidence indicating that a child is an
abused or neglected child as defined in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21,
and the evidence indicates that a child was not harmed or
placed at risk of harm.
The burden of proof in these matters lies with Respondent in this matter.
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4) states: In a fact-finding hearing (1) any determination that the
child is an abused or neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the
evidence and (2) only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted. See
also N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 32 (2011).
The standard for determining if a parent or guardian has failed to exercise a
minimum degree of care is to be evaluated against the dangers and risks associated
with the situation. See: G.S. v. Dept. of Human Services, 157 N.J. 161, (1999).
Though petitioner argues J.S. was found safe and unharmed, actual harm does
not need to occur in order establish that neglect occurred. See: N.J. Dept. of Children
and Families v. R.R.436 N.J. Super 53,59 (App. Div. 2014). The finding in R.R. affirmed
a conclusion of willful and wanton disregard by a school bus driver who failed to inspect
the bus personally at the end of the route that day because she relied on a bus aide’s
statement that no children remained on the bus.
The criteria analogous to the situation in this case was discussed at length in the
matter of N.J. Dept. of Children & Families v. E.D.-O 434 N.J. Super. 154,157, (App.
2014) wherein a parent left a child in a vehicle for five to ten minutes. The conclusion in
ED-O, found that “a parent invites substantial peril when leaving a child of such tender
years in a motor vehicle that is out of a parent’s sight, no matter how briefly.”
When witnesses present conflicting testimonies, it is the duty of the trier of fact to
weigh each witness’s credibility and make a factual finding. In other words, credibility is
the value a fact finder assigns to the testimony of a witness, and it incorporates the
overall assessment of the witness’s story in light of its rationality, consistency, and how
it comports with other evidence. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir.

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
7
1963); see Polk, supra, 90 N.J. 550. Credibility findings “are often influenced by matters
such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human
experience that are not transmitted by the record.” State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463
(1999). A fact finder is expected to base decisions of credibility on his or her common
sense, intuition or experience. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S. Ct. 2357,
37 L. Ed. 2d 380 (1973).
The finder of fact is not bound to believe the testimony of any witness, and
credibility does not automatically rest astride the party with more witnesses. In re
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514 (1950). Testimony may be disbelieved but may not be disregarded
at an administrative proceeding. Middletown Twp. v. Murdoch, 73 N.J. Super. 511 (App.
Div. 1962). Credible testimony must not only proceed from the mouth of credible
witnesses but must be credible in itself. Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 (1954).
Respondent argues that most of the evidence the agency relied upon to reach its
finding that neglect was Established should be disregarded as Hearsay, and under the
residuum rule, there is insufficient evidence to sustain the agency’s finding.
Citing Weston v. State 60 N.J. 36 (1972), Respondent contends that the State’s
case is almost entirely based on hearsay testimony, and, as such, its primary witness,
Mr. Taflinski, has no first-hand knowledge of any of the facts. He argues that his
testimony consists of what other people told him, specifically, L.S., the local police, the
softball coach, the other students and the players at the scene. Thus, he argues the
State’s case is completely based on hearsay. Nonetheless, even if less weight were
given to some of the admissible statements that the investigator relied upon, IT IS
UNDISPUTED, under the totality of the circumstances, that J.S. never reached his
destination on the day of the incident, and he was found by third parties on a locked bus
sometime after 5:00 o’clock on the day of the incident, well after the normal drop off
time for a student of his age.
I next turn to to the second issue in the case which is the imposition of a one
hundred-eighty (180) day suspension of his school bus driving privileges ,Even if some

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
8
or all the hearsay is a basis to support a claim of neglect against R.R., petitioner further
argues that the incident itself does not give rise to either a finding of gross negligence or
recklessness on the part of R.R. A first time offense of this nature carries with it a
maximum penalty of six months. IT IS UNDISPUTED that Respondent was already
suspended by the Bayonne District for at least a year. THEREFORE, WHILE I
CONCLUDE a suspension is appropriate, I FURTHER CONCLUDE it would be unfair,
unjust and excessive to impose an additional six month penalty against him, having
already been unable to drive a school bus for over a year. Thus, the driving penalty
portion against petitioner should not be imposed, since for all intents and purposes, he
has already served his time for this offense.
While I agree with the second part of Respondent’s argument that he has already
been sufficiently punished by having his driving privileges suspended by Bayonne, for
the neglect itself, I CANNOT CONCLUDE that leaving J.S. on the bus at the end of the
driver’s route, parking and locking the bus, is only a simple act of negligence. Simply
put, I CONCLUDE Respondent has failed to meet his burden. Respondent cites the
unpublished opinion of Department of Children & Families v. M.A. 2011N.J. Super.
Unpub. LEXIS 2917 (App. Div. 2011). The circumstances in that case involved a
teacher who was leading a field trip and the bus stopped for lunch at a fast food.
restaurant. At the next stop, which was only two miles away from the restaurant, the
teacher realized that two students who had caused a distraction just before the bus left,
were inadvertently left in the restaurant.
Recognizing the inadvertent mistake, the teacher immediately called the
restaurant within minutes, and learned the students were being cared for by restaurant
staff until the bus returned shortly after to safely pick them up. The court in M.A.
distinguished between grossly negligent conduct and negligent conduct by stating that,
M.A.’s mistaken reliance on two teacher’s assistants under the erroneous assumption
that the child was being supervised does not equate to a highly probable danger and
the conscious disregard for the consequences necessary to prove recklessness or
gross negligence.

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
9
The facts and ultimate finding in M.A. are distinguished from this case. While the
missing child in M.A. was located within a matter of minutes, in a public location where
restaurant staff stepped in to care for the child until the bus returned, in this case, J.S.
was left on a locked bus, in a remote area parked among other buses. The weather
was warm, and he was perspiring when he was ultimately located by third parties who
happened to be in the area of the bus playing softball.
Although R.R. says he followed District policy and checked up and down the bus
before he locked it, there simply is no way this could have happened, it is not credible,
as there is no place for a child to hide under a seat, even if he had checked. Further,
this was a route that R.R. drove each day, and he also failed to recognize that he did
not drop J.S. off at his designated after school stop. The combination of these factors is
sufficient to give rise to a finding of gross negligence.
It is fortunate that some time after 5:00 P.M. on the day of the incident, two
outsiders and their coach, who happened to be in the area of the parked bus, saw or
heard J.S., and were able to immediately open the door to allow J.S. to exit the bus.
While it is true he was unharmed, the potential for harm was great, as the bus was
locked and the windows were closed. There is no indication that J.S. had his own cell
phone which would have enabled him to contact his mother or someone else to let them
know what was going on, and where he was. As a driver for young students, R.R. had
almost the equivalent of a fiduciary obligation to make sure everyone was off the bus.
There is no way to reach any other conclusion that he failed to do so.
Turning to penalty, by way of mitigation, the maximum statutory penalty for
offenses of this nature is a one hundred eighty (180) day suspension of a commercial
driving license. R.R. has no prior record of suspensions or penalties, and he was
immediately and indefinitely suspended by the Bayonne School District from his driving
responsibilities, long ago.
I THEREFORE CONCLUDE, by way of mitigation, that the one hundred eighty
(180) day suspension period, normally associated with this type of case, has already

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
10
been served, by virtue of the suspension imposed by Bayonne, and therefore no further
suspension is warranted.
R.R. had a statutory obligation to conduct a thorough visual inspection of the bus
at the end of his route. See: N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 which compels a school bus driver to
visually inspect a bus at the end of a transportation route to determine if any students
are still on board. And see: N.J.S.A.18A:39-29 which requires a six month suspension
of a school bus driver’s endorsement if a driver has left a student on a school bus at the
end of a driver’s route.
Although R.R. says he fully inspected the bus before parking and locking it up,
there simply is no way this could have occurred without seeing J.S. was sleeping
somewhere towards the back of the bus. And, the undisputed fact that J.S. was never
dropped off at his designated after school location, further calls R.R.’s testimony and
credibility into question. I THERFORE CONCLUDE the agency’s finding that Neglect
was Established was appropriate under the circumstances.
In the instant matter, I CONCLUDE the preponderance of the competent,
material and relevant evidence sustains a finding of Established that R.R. neglected J.S
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that finding of Established for Neglect
of J.S. by Respondent, R.R.., should be AFFIRMED. However, I FURTHER
CONCUDE, that the six month suspension associated with an individual’s commercial
driving privileges under N.J.S.A. 18:29-39 should not be assessed here, as R.R. has
already served his time under this provision by virtue of the suspension imposed against
him by the Bayonne School District shortly after the incident.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the finding of Established for neglect of J.S. by
Respondent, R.R., is AFFIRMED.

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
11
However, having determined that Respondent already served a penalty in excess
of one hundred-eighty (180) days by virtue of the suspension by the Baynonne Board of
Education, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the suspension of school bus driving
privileges is hereby MODIFIED, and deemed served as Respondent already served
a period of suspension in excess of one hundred eighty (180) days, under the
provisions of the suspension imposed by the Bayonne School District.
I hereby FILE this Initial Decision with ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
LEGAL REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, who/which by law is authorized to make the final decision on all issues within
the scope of its predominant interest. If the (title of the agency head with the
predominant interest) does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days
and unless such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision on all of
the issues within the scope of predominant interest shall become a final decision in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the (ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 50 East State Street, 5th Floor, PO
Box 717, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0717, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy
of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.8, upon rendering its final decision ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS shall
forward the record, including this recommended decision and its final decision, to
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, which may subsequently
render a final decision on any remaining issues and consider any specific remedies
which may be within its statutory grant of authority.

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
12
Upon transmitting the record, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LEGAL
REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS shall, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.8(c),
request an extension to permit the rendering of a final decision by the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION within forty-five days of the predominant-agency
decision. If COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not
render a final decision within the extended time, this recommended decision on the
remaining issues and remedies shall become the final decision.
April 5, 2022
Date: ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ
April 5, 2022________________________
Date Received: at Assistant Commissioner
Of Legal Regulatory and Legislative Affairs
Date Mailed to Parties: April 5, 2022______

OAL DKT. NO. HSV 01772-18 and EDU 06479-18
13
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Irek Taflinski
For Respondent:
None
List of Exhibits
Petitioner
P-1- Initial screening summary 5-31
P-2- Screening summary 6-16
P-3- Investigation summary
P-4- Weather history
P-5- Photographs
P-6- Hoboken Board of Ed. documents
P-7- Student transportation manual
P-8- Bus check
P-9-Security incident report
P-10-Police investigation
P-11-IAIU findings
Respondent
R-1- 9/30/17 email
R-2- RR Morning and afternoon bus routes