In the Matter of the Revocation of the Certificates of Robert Klein, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education, 3/2/2020, (#79-20A)

1
79-20A
SBE Decision: https://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/examiners/2019/sept/1617-214.pdf
State Board of Examiners Dkt No. 1617-214
OAL Dkt. No. EDE 09566-17
Agency Dkt. No. 7-10/19A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Revocation of the
Certificates of Robert Klein, State Board of
Examiners, New Jersey Department of
Education.
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, September 19, 2019
For the Respondent-Appellant, James J. Uliano, Esq..
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Jennifer Hoff, Deputy
Attorney General (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and the papers filed in connection
with appellant Robert Klein’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners, dated
September 19, 2019, revoking his Teacher of Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility with
Advanced Standing, Teacher of Physical Education Certificate, and Teacher of Health and
Physical Education Certificates. 	Following the issuance of an Order to Show Cause by the
Board and a hearing at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) found that appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and recommended that
appellant’s certificates be revoked. The ALJ found that appellant unknowingly participated in a
videotaped interview in his hotel room while attending the 2015 New Jersey Teachers’
Convention in Atlantic City, during which he made comments portraying himself as a participant
in drug culture and offering cocaine to the interviewers. 	The ALJ further found that his
comments displayed a disregard of his professional obligations as a health teacher by appearing

2
to promote the use of controlled dangerous substances, were inconsistent with the conduct of any
educational professional, and constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher. 	Thereafter, the Board
adopted the Initial Decision of the ALJ and revoked appellant’s teaching certificates.
On appeal, appellant maintains that he was not criminally charged for any of his
actions, there were no drugs present in the video, and his conduct did not involve students or
other members of the school community. 	He argues that he was duped by Project Veritas and
that the “shock video” they created to embarrass him would not exist if the school district had
not allowed a Project Veritas member into the school. 	He contends that his comments were
made in private and were hyperbole for dramatic and/or comedic effect. 	For these reasons, he
argues this his conduct was not unbecoming and, if it was, suspension would be the appropriate
penalty.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the
Commissioner may not substitute his judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant
received due process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record. Further, the Board’s decision should not be disturbed unless the appellant demonstrates
that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
After a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the
record adequately supports the Board’s determination that appellant engaged in unbecoming
conduct and that the revocation of appellant’s certificates was the appropriate penalty. Appellant
does not dispute that he made comments that appear to promote drug use and evasion of drug
detection. 	While appellant characterizes his comments as exaggerations made to impress his
companions, as the ALJ found and the Board affirmed, these arguments are attempts to
rationalize his actions after the fact, and they do not negate the extremely poor judgment he
demonstrated in making the comments. 	Moreover, the actions of Project Veritas in making the

3
comments public are irrelevant, as a private exchange that included the same comments would
be no less unbecoming conduct.
There is also nothing in the record to suggest that the Board’s decision to revoke
appellant’s certificates – based on the nature of the unbecoming conduct proven during the
hearing at the OAL – was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the decision of the
State Board of Examiners is affirmed for the reasons expressed therein.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 2, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	March 3, 2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).