C.S., on behalf of minor child, I.S. v. Rikki Frischman, 2/2/2023, (#32-23)

32-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
C.S., on behalf of minor child, I.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Rikki Frischman,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner sought to hold respondent, Rikki Frischman, accountable for allegedly failing to report
an incident of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) and filed a petition requesting that the
respondent “be removed from working with students.” Respondent worked in North Brunswick Township
schools as a teaching staff member during the 2021-2022 school year; petitioner’s child, I.S. was a student
in Ms. Frischman’s second grade class.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the issue in this case is whether petitioner may seek to revoke respondent’s
teaching certificate; respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioner has no standing to seek
revocation of respondent's teaching certificate; petitioner’s response to the motion to dismiss did not
address respondent’s legal arguments as to lack of standing or failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted but opposed the motion, arguing that respondent failed to report an alleged incident of
abuse and failed to be honest; 	accordingly, petitioner sought to “terminate” respondent’s teaching
certificate; N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 provides that prior to transmittal of a case to the OAL, the Commissioner
may dismiss the petition on grounds that the petitioner has advanced no cause of action or for lack of
jurisdiction, failure to prosecute or other good reason; the New Jersey Administrative Code governs the
revocation and suspension of teaching certificates; N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5 sets forth circumstances by which
revocation or suspension of teaching certificates may be triggered, all of which are initiated by action of
the Board of Examiners; there is no provision in regulation for an individual to compel revocation of a
teacher’s certificates. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that an individual may not compel the revocation
of a teacher’s certificate, as the authority to revoke or suspend teaching certificates lies solely with the
State Board of Examiners, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was
adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition was dismissed.
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. No. 05483-22
Agency Dkt. No. 44-3/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.S., on behalf of minor child, I.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Rikki Frischman,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that an
individual may not compel the revocation of a teacher’s certificate, as the authority to revoke or
suspend teaching certificates lies solely with the State Board of Examiners, pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
32-23
February 2, 2023
February 6, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
AGY. REF. NO. 44-3/22
C.S. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD I.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
RIKKI FRISCHMAN,
Respondent.
C.S., petitioner, pro se
Michael T. Barrett, Esq., for respondent (Bergman & Barrett, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 1, 2022 	Decided: December 12, 2022
BEFORE SUSAN L. OLGIATI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, C.S. seeks to hold respondent, Rikki Frischman accountable for
allegedly failing to report an incident of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). On
March 14, 2022, petitioner filed a Pro Se Petition of Appeal with the Commissioner of
Education, requesting that the respondent “be removed from working with students.”
On or about June 10, 2022, the Regulatory Officer of the Department of Education,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
2
Office of Controversies and Disputes emailed C.S. seeking clarification of her Petition of
Appeal. 	More specifically, petitioner was asked, “Are you asking the Commissioner to
revoke Ms. Frischman’s teaching certificates, appealing an HIB decision, both, or
something else?” 	(See, Transmittal packet.) 	On the morning of June 10, 2022, C.S.
responded, 	“Good 	morning, 	I 	am 	requesting 	that 	Mrs. 	Frischman 	[sic] 	teaching
privileges be revoked as she failed to report (violating N.J. Admin. Code 6A:16-5.3) the
incident that was reported to her . . . ” 	Id. 	Later that evening, C.S. further responded,
“Good evening, Ms. Simon, I see there is a little misunderstanding of my response and
the language used “revoke Mrs. Frischman certification I was referring to termination
from duty as a teacher at John Adams not revoke as in reverse her teaching degree.”
Id.
On or about June 23, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss with the
Commissioner. 	Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) as a contested case, where it was filed on July 5, 2022. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1
to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23. The transmittal notice noted that petitioner named only
Frischman as respondent and that jurisdiction with regard to Frischman is a threshold
issue. 	The transmittal notice further noted that the issue of whether the Board’s HIB
decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, was not transmitted to the OAL
and would follow in a separate transmittal if a petition is filed.
On or about September 20, 2022, respondent refiled the motion to dismiss in the
OAL. 	On October 20, 2022, respondent filed a supplemental letter brief in support of
the motion. Petitioner filed her response to the motion on or about October 28, 2022. A
telephone 	case 	conference 	was 	held 	on 	November 	1, 	2022, 	where 	the 	parties
confirmed that all responsive papers had been filed and the record closed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Frischman was employed by the North Brunswick Township Board of Education
(hereinafter referred to as the Board) as a teaching staff member for the 2021–2022
school year. During that time, I.S.1 was a student in Frischman’s second grade class.
On February 2, 2022, respondent excused I.S. from class to use the restroom.
C.S. contends that while I.S. was in the restroom, another student bit him on his
buttock. 	(Petr.’s response to motion to dismiss.) 	C.S. claims that after leaving the
restroom, I.S. met Frischman in the hallway and reported the incident to her. 	In
response, respondent allegedly answered something to the effect of, “Don’t worry, I will
handle it. 	If you don’t feel comfortable using this bathroom, you can use the 3 rd and 4 th
grade bathroom.” Id.
I.S. told C.S. about the incident later that evening. 	Thereafter, C.S. emailed his
teachers and added the principal to the email. 	Frischman responded to the email that
evening and said she had no knowledge of the incident. 	Frischman arranged to speak
with 	C.S. 	via 	telephone 	the 	next 	morning. 	Petitioner 	contends 	that 	during 	their
conversation, Frischman continued to deny knowledge of the incident but advised that
she reported the matter to the instructional dean. Id.
Petitioner asserts that she met with the principal on February 4, 2022, who
informed her there was video footage of Frischman having a brief conversation with I.S.
in the hallway on the date of the incident and that the other student involved had yet to
be interviewed. Id.
Petitioner 	indicates 	that 	an 	intake 	report 	(#21381646) 	was 	made 	to 	the
Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) hotline regarding the incident, but contends
that the report was not intended to address the negligence of respondent and that the
matter was not escalated into a formal investigation or referred to the Board of
Examiners.
1 I.S. is also referred to the responsive papers/supporting documentation as “Ibn.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
4
Thereafter, on March 14, 2022, petitioner filed her Petition of Appeal seeking
termination of Frischman’s teaching certificate. Id.2
Finally, petitioner states, that by letter dated June 9, 2022, she was advised by
Frischman’s attorney, that Frischman had since resigned and was no longer employed
by the Board.
Respondent denies that I.S. told her about an HIB incident and claims that I.S.
only reported that students were playing in the bathroom. 	(Frischman Cert.) 	Upon
receiving the email from petitioner on the evening of February 2, 2022, Frischman
emailed her instructional dean and principal to inform them of C.S.’s claims. Id.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The issue is whether petitioner may seek to revoke respondent’s teaching
certificate.
Respondent filed the motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioner has no standing to
seek 	revocation 	of 	respondent's 	teaching 	certificate. 	Respondent 	argues 	that
revocation proceedings are generated by the findings of a state body or agency such as
the Division of Criminal Justice, the employing Board of Education, or the IAIU.
Respondent further argues that while an individual may bring a claim or concern to the
attention of a Board of Education, it is up to the Board to determine what, if any, action
to be taken. 	Respondent contends that none of the basis for bringing a revocation
action have been triggered. 	Thus, respondent argues there is no legal authority for
petitioner’s action and the matter should be dismissed.
Petitioner does not address respondent’s legal arguments as to lack of standing
or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted but opposes the motion
2 Petitioner incorrectly states in her opposition papers that on this date she filed a motion with the OAL.
The Petition of Appeal filed by petitioner on that date was filed with the Commissioner of Education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
5
arguing that respondent failed to report an alleged incident of abuse, and failed to be
honest, and therefore seeks to “terminate” her teaching certificate.
I. 	Standard for Motion to Dismiss
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 provides:
At any time prior to transmittal of the pleadings to the OAL,
in the Commissioner's discretion or upon motion to dismiss
filed in lieu of answer, the Commissioner may dismiss the
petition on the grounds that the petitioner has advanced no
cause of action even if the petitioner's factual allegations are
accepted 	as 	true 	or 	for 	lack 	of 	jurisdiction, 	failure 	to
prosecute or other good reason.
The Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules (UAPR), N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.3,
provide that they “shall be construed to achieve just results, simplicity in procedure,
fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3(a). 	They further provide that, “[i]n the absence of a rule, a judge may
proceed in accordance with the New Jersey Court Rules, provided the rules are
compatible with these purposes.”
R.4:6-2, allows for motions for judgment on the pleadings. Under R. 4:6-2, if the
basis for a motion to dismiss is that the petition has advanced no cause of action, or
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, “the test for determining the
adequacy of [the] pleading [is] whether a cause of action is ‘suggested’ by the facts,”
such that the “inquiry is limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on
the face of the complaint.” 	Printing-Mart Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J.
739, 746 (1989) (citing R. 4:6-2(e); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189,
192 (1988); Rieder v. Dep’t of Transp., 221 N.J. Super. 547, 552 (App.Div.1987)).
Thus, R. 4:6-2 is compatible with the purposes of the UAPR, and it is appropriate to
assess respondent’s motion to dismiss under this standard.
For purposes of the motion, it does not matter whether a petitioner can ultimately
“prove the allegation contained in the complaint” because “all facts alleged in the
complaint and the legitimate inferences drawn therefrom are deemed admitted.” 	Id.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
6
(citing Somers Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Educ., 198 F.Supp. 732, 734 (D.N.J.1961)); Smith
v. City of Newark, 136 N.J. Super. 107, 112 (App.Div.1975) (citing Heavner v. Uniroyal,
Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 133 (1973); J.H. Becker, Inc. v. Marlboro Twp., 82 N.J. Super. 519,
524 (App. Div. 1964)). While “[a] complaint should not be dismissed . . . where a cause
of action is suggested by the facts,” “a dismissal is mandated where the factual
allegations are palpably insufficient to support a claim 	upon which relief can be
granted.” Rieder, 221 N.J. Super. at 552.
II. 	Revocation
The New Jersey Administrative Code governs the revocation and suspension of
teaching certificates. N.J.A.C 6A:9B-4.5 provides in relevant part that:
(a) The Board of Examiners may issue an order to show
cause to a certificate holder if the Board of Examiners
determines the conduct of the holder may warrant the
revocation 	or 	suspension 	of 	the 	certificate(s) 	held
where:
1. 	The Commissioner transmits a contested case to
the Board of Examiners that resulted in a teaching
staff 	member’s 	loss 	of 	tenure, 	dismissal,
resignation, or retirement;
2. 	Pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-4.3, 	the 	Board 	of
Examiners 	receives 	information 	from 	a 	school
district that a teaching staff member no longer is
employed in the school district;
3. 	The 	Board 	of 	Examiners 	receives 	information
regarding a certificate holder’s criminal conviction
or pending criminal charges;
4. 	The Board of Examiners receives notices that a
teaching staff member who is certified in New
Jersey and who also holds a teaching certificate in
another state has had action taken against his or
her certificate by the other state;
5. 	Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 the Department of
Children and Families forwards to the Board of
Examiners 	a 	copy 	of 	a 	report 	in 	which 	the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
7
Department 	of 	Children 	and 	Families 	has
substantiated that a certificate holder has abused
or neglected a student or has identified concerns
with the conduct of a teaching staff member;
6. 	Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.3, the Commissioner
notifies the Board of Examiners that an individual
who holds New Jersey certification is disqualified
from employment in public schools or has pending
charges for an offense that is disqualifying;
7. 	A certificate holder fails to maintain any license,
certificate, 	or 	authorization 	that 	is 	mandated,
pursuant to this chapter, for the holder to serve in
a position . . .
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude the Board of
Examiners from issuing an order to show cause on its
own 	initiative 	when 	the 	Board 	of 	Examiners
determines grounds for revocation or suspension of a
certificate may exist.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5.
The regulation sets forth multiple methods/circumstances by which revocation or
suspension of teaching certificates may be triggered. All of which are initiated by action
of the Board of Examiners based on findings or information including, but not limited to,
a certificate holder’s criminal conviction or pending criminal charges, action taken
against 	a 	teaching 	staff 	member’s 	certificate 	in 	another 	state, 	or 	report 	by 	the
Department of Children and Families substantiating abuse or neglect or identifying
conduct concerns. 	The regulation does not presently provide any avenue for an
individual to compel revocation of an individual’s teaching certificate.
Here, none of the methods by which the Board of Examiners may revoke or
suspend a teaching certificate have been triggered. 	The Board of Examiners has not
issued an Order to Show Cause or taken any action concerning respondent’s teaching
certificate. Accordingly, for purposes of this motion, accepting all of the facts alleged by
petitioner as true, they remain “palpably insufficient to support a claim upon which relief
can be granted.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
8
To the extent that petitioner believes that respondent engaged in improper
conduct or disagrees with the way in which the school’s administrators, or the Board of
Education handled the HIB, she should consider other avenues which she may have to
pursue, if any.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, I CONCLUDE that respondent’s
motion to dismiss should be GRANTED.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
and petitioner’s Petition of Appeal is DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
9
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
December 12, 2022
DATE 	SUSAN L. OLGIATI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
SLO/as

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05483-22
10
APPENDIX
PAPERS RELIED ON
For petitioner
• 	Letter in response to the motion
For respondent
• 	Letter brief in support of motion to dismiss and supporting certification of
Frischman
• 	Supplemental letter brief in support of the motion