Tris S. Groome v. New Jersey State Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 12/05/2023, (#361-23)

361-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Tris S. Groome,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBE)
denying her application for a Teacher of Spanish certificate after it was determined that petitioner had
been investigated in Arkansas on child abuse charges which were subsequently dropped under an
exception in Arkansas law that allows a parent to use physical discipline on their child. 	Further, on her
application for New Jersey certification, petitioner stated – under penalty – that she had never had an
educator certification revoked, suspended, or denied in any state, yet the SBE determined that in 2022, the
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction had denied petitioner’s application for a teaching license based
on her conduct in Arkansas. 	Petitioner contended that she did not intend to perjure herself on her
New Jersey licensure application, but simply misread the question and accidentally checked the wrong
response. The SBE filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the issue in this case is whether petitioner satisfied her burden of
demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law when it determined not to grant her application for a New Jersey teaching
license; 	petitioner was found to have engaged in conduct that fit the definition of abuse in Arkansas;
although the parental exemption under Arkansas law ultimately prevented petitioner’s name from entering
the child abuse registry, that holding cannot alter the nature of the underlying conduct; and the SBE and
the Commissioner have consistently held that teachers are entrusted with the care and custody of children
and it is their duty to exercise self-restraint and controlled behavior. The ALJ concluded that there was
sufficient credible evidence to support the SBE’s decision denying petitioner’s application for a New Jersey
teaching license. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the SBE’s motion to dismiss the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that: the petition of appeal in this matter was filed in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3, not N.J.A.C. 6A:4; the ALJ mistakenly applied the wrong standard of review
in the Initial Decision, stating that the SBE’s decision will not be overturned unless the petitioner proves
that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law; the appropriate standard
of review here is whether the SBE’s decision was consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:3; 	nonetheless, the record demonstrates that the petitioner is not suitable for
employment as a teaching staff member in a public school under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.1. 	Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL was modified with respect to the appropriate standard of review 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.

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Tris S. Groome,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this case, petitioner Tris Groome filed a petition of appeal under N.J.A.C. 6A:3.1 et seq.
challenging the State Board of Examiners’ (Board) decision denying her application for a Teacher of
Spanish certificate. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Board’s motion to dismiss,
determining that the Board’s decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence.
As a threshold matter, a discussion of the applicable standard of review for petitions of
appeal that are filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3 is necessary. When there is a challenge to a determination
made by an office within the Department of Education, the Commissioner is not mandated to give
deference to her staff, but instead determines whether the finding was legally appropriate. In
certain instances, the Department of Education has limited the scope of review of a subordinate
office or division by regulation. However, a decision by the Board denying an application for a
certificate is not entitled to the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard of review that is
afforded to appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4, challenging a decision of the Board revoking or
361-23
OAL Dkt. No. 03943-23
Agency Dkt. No. 75-3/23

2
suspending a certificate. These are two distinct types of decisions and two distinct types of
proceedings, and the regulatory provisions pertaining to each should not be conflated. See Jessica
Walder v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, Commissioner Decision
No. 503-14, decided December 29, 2014; Jaroslaw Nimczyk v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners,
Commissioner Decision No. 98-22, decided May 16, 2022; Melody Travisano v. New Jersey State
Board of Examiners, Commissioner Decision No. 190-22, decided August 8, 2022; Wayne Ernst v.
New Jersey State Board of Examiners, Commissioner Decision No. 311-22, decided November 16,
2022; Stephanie Florio v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners, Commissioner Decision No. 336-22,
decided December 14, 2022; and Jamie Sebastian v. New Jersey Department of Education, State
Board of Examiners, Commissioner Decision No. 94-23, decided March 30, 2023 (all finding that the
Commissioner does not give deference to a decision of the State Board of Examiners denying a
request for issuance of a certificate).
Here, the ALJ mistakenly referenced N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) in the Initial Decision and stated
that the Board’s decision will not be overturned unless the petitioner proves that the Board acted in
a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.1 The petition of appeal in this matter
relates to the Board’s denial of an application for a certificate, not the Board’s suspension or
revocation of a certificate. Therefore, the standard of review that governs appeals filed under
N.J.A.C. 6A:4 does not apply to this case, and the appropriate standard of review of the Board’s
decision is whether the decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record and applying the appropriate standard of
review, the Commissioner is in accord with the Board’s determination that petitioner is not suitable
1 The Motion to Dismiss filed by the Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the Board of Examiners also referenced
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) and the incorrect standard of review that applies in this matter.

3
for employment as a teaching staff member in a public school under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.1. Although
the ALJ applied an inaccurate standard of review, the record of the matter demonstrates that the
Arkansas Department of Human Services found that petitioner hit her child on the shoulder, causing
bruising and welts; this conduct would constitute abuse under Arkansas law, but fell under an
exception allowing a parent to use physical discipline on their child.2 Petitioner later applied to the
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction for a teaching license, and her application was denied
based on the conduct that occurred in Arkansas. When the petitioner applied to the Board for a
teaching certificate, she falsely stated that she had never had an educator certification revoked,
suspended, or denied in any state. Based on these facts, the Commissioner concludes that the
Board’s decision to deny petitioner’s application was consistent with the applicable regulatory
provisions.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is modified with respect to the appropriate standard of
review and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 Petitioner indicated that her Arkansas teaching license remains in effect.
3 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.
December 5, 2023
December 6, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 75-3/23
IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF
RECIPROCAL LICENSURE OF TEACHING
CERTIFICATE FOR TRIS S. GROOME,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
BOARD OF EXAMINERS.
______
Tris S. Groome, petitioner, pro se
David L. Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent, New Jersey
Department of Education, Board of Examiners (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
General, attorney)
Record Closed: July 19, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Tris Groome, challenged the denial of her application for a Teacher of
Spanish Certificate by the New Jersey Department of Education, Board of Examiners (the
Board). The Board denied the application because the Arkansas Department of Human

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
2
Services determination that Groome’s action in striking a twelve-year-old child constituted
abuse and her failure to disclose the denial of her Wisconsin’s educator application when
specifically asked during the New Jersey certification application process. Petitioner
argues that she mis-read question #2 on the application and checked “no” mistakenly.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 3, 2023, the Board rendered its written decision denying petitioner’s
request for a Teacher of Spanish Certificate. On March 21, 2023, petitioner filed an
appeal of the Board’s decision with the State of New Jersey Department of Education.
On May 3, 2023, the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer, and the
contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was
filed on May 4, 2023. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-13.
During a telephone conference convened on July 19, 2023, I was informed by the
parties, that they were requesting the matter be heard on the papers that were already
submitted. I scheduled another status conference which was held on August 24, 2023,
which allowed the parties the opportunity to submit additional documentation.
Respondent resubmitted the motion papers which were previously submitted and
received on August 8, 2023; nothing further was received from the petitioner. The record
closed on August 24, 2023. The Acting Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge
granted an extension of time for the Initial Decision on September 19, 2023.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties do not dispute many of the background facts in this case. I therefore
FIND the following FACTS:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
3
Arkansas Factual History
On September 5, 2020, a report was made to the Child Abuse Hotline that Groome
abused G.G. (Resp. Ex. A), Tris Groome v. Ark. Dep’t. Hum. Servs, No. 21002054 at 2-
3 (Ark. Dep’t. Hum. Servs. Office of Appeals and Hearings, Mar. 29, 2022) (final order).
Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) substantiated the
allegations, “making true findings” that Groome “abused the juvenile, causing
nonaccidental injury.” (Resp. Ex. A), Id. at 1-2. Criminal charges were also brought
against Groome for the same conduct, but the prosecutor dismissed the charges after
ordering Groome to pay several fines.1 (Resp. Brief at 2), (Resp. Ex. B). Groome
appealed the DCFS decision. (Resp. Ex. A), Tris Groome v. Ark. Dep’t. Hum. Servs, No.
21002054 at 2-3 (Ark. Dep’t. Hum. Servs. Office of Appeals and Hearings, Mar. 29, 2022)
(final order).
On appeal, the Arkansas administrative law judge found the following facts:
1. Tris Groome is the biological mother of G.G.
2. G.G. was twelve years old at the time of the alleged maltreatment.
3. “G.G. has numerous mental health diagnoses, including ADHD, adjustment
disorder with mixed disturbances and conduct, disruptive dysregulation
disorder, and oppositional defiance disorder.”
4. “On the day of the report, G.G. had become violent and destructive. He
pulled his bedroom door from its frame, used a knife to cut up items in his
room, and punched holes in walls.”
5. Tris Groome attempted to calm G.G. but was unsuccessful. When he was
behaving violently, Tris Groome attempted to spank him with a belt, hitting
1 Groome states in an email that she did not pay any fines or fees. (Tris Groome, Email to N.J. Dep’t. of
Edu. and David Kalinsky (May 4, 2023 at 10:59AM)). Respondent, however, provides documentation of
Groome being ordered to pay fines in Exhibit B.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
4
him on the shoulder and back leaving “significant marks.” This hit did not
break skin but did cause bruising and welts.
6. Tris Groome caused nonaccidental physical injury to G.G.
The ALJ determined that Groome’s conduct toward G.G. constituted abuse as that
term is defined by Arkansas law. (Resp. Ex. A). However, the ALJ also determined that
an exception applied, which “excludes from the definition of abuse a parent’s use of
physical discipline if it is reasonable and moderate and inflicted for the purpose of
correcting their child.” (Resp. Ex. A), Arkansas Code Annotated § 12-18-101(3)(c)(i).
Thus, “the nonaccidental physical injury [caused by Tris Groome was] not abuse,” and
Groome’s name was not added to the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry.
(Resp. Ex. A_(Resp. Ex. A ). Groome states that her teaching license remains intact in
Arkansas. (Resp. Ex. D), (Tris Groome, Email to Wisc. Dep’t. of Pub. Instruction (Apr.
14, 2022 at 11:04:20 AM CDT)).
I. Wisconsin Factual History
On September 28, 2021, Groome applied for a teaching license in the State of
Wisconsin. (Resp. Ex. C). The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (“DPI”) denied
her licensure on April 14, 2022, because “[Groome] engaged in immoral conduct,” as
defined in Wis. State, § 115.31(1)(c)1. (Resp. Ex. C). DPI made this conclusion based
on the Arkansas ALJ’s decision that defined her striking her son with a belt on September
5, 2020, as “abuse,” and as this conduct was “contrary to commonly accepted moral or
ethical standards and endangered the health, welfare, or safety of one or more pupils.”
(Resp. Ex. C).
On April 14, 2022, Groome emailed DPI to request a hearing “to prove why this
denial is improper, inaccurate, and wrong.” (Resp. Ex. D). She stated that the denial was
wrong as she had no intent to hit her son on the back, only to “spank his bottom,” and as
the criminal charges against her were dropped. (Resp. Ex. D).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
5
On April 22, 2022, Groome’s request for a hearing was denied as there was no
dispute as to any material fact. (Resp. Ex. E). DPI explained via letter that Groome’s
argument, that she only intended to hit G.G.’s bottom as opposed to his back, was
immaterial to its conclusion that Groome’s conduct was “contrary to commonly accepted
moral or ethical standards and endangered the health, welfare, or safety of one or more
pupils.” (Resp. Ex. E). Further “whether [Groome was] ultimately convicted of criminal
charges in this incident is immaterial to DPI’s finding that striking [her] son with a belt is
immoral conduct in and of itself.” (Resp. Ex. E). DPI also states that the Arkansas ALJ
did not conclude that Groome did not abuse her son, rather that “[she] ultimately
benefitted from an exception under Arkansas law which carves out discipline of your child
from the definition of abuse.” (Resp. Ex. E).
Groome appealed this denial sometime thereafter, however, Groome’s appeal was
denied with prejudice on August 25, 2022, after she failed to properly serve an
authenticated copy of her summons and complaint upon the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction within the required statutory time period. (Resp. Brief at 6), (Resp. Ex.
F).
II. New Jersey Factual History
On November 21, 2022, Groome applied for a Teacher of Spanish Certificate in
New Jersey. (Resp. Ex. G). On her application, Groome stated, under penalty, that she
had never had an educator certification revoked, suspended, or denied in any state.
(Resp. Ex. G). The New Jersey State Board of Examiners (“the Board”) denied Groome’s
application on March 3, 2023, based on two considerations: 1) Groome’s failure to
disclose the Wisconsin denial when specifically asked during the New Jersey certification
application process and 2) the Arkansas ALJ’s “determination that [Groome’s] actions in
striking a 12-year-old-constituted abuse.” (Resp. Ex. G). Groome filed a pro se Petition
of Appeal on March 21, 2023. (Groome Pro Se Petition of Appeal, Mar. 21, 2023).
Regarding her failure to disclose Wisconsin’s denial of her application for licensure,
Groome states that “it was never [her] intent to purger [sic] [her]self,” and that she “mis-
read [sic]” the question and “checked ‘no’ mistakenly.” (Groome Pro Se Petition of Appeal,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
6
Mar. 21, 2023). Regarding the Arkansas ALJ’s determination that she abused G.G.,
Groome contends that under Arkansas law, she had “not only the right to discipline [her]
own child but the right to restrain [her son] reasonably.” (Groome Pro Se Petition of
Appeal, Mar. 21, 2023). Groome requests relief in the form of “a formal apology,
compensation for all hours canceled, and immediate issuance of reciprocal licensure in
the state of New Jersey.” (Groome Pro Se Petition of Appeal, Mar. 21, 2023).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The issue in this matter is whether the Board’s denial is supported by the evidence
and is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law. If not, the Commissioner may reject
the Board’s determination. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4. 1 N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.5(b)(6); N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.12(b).
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 states:
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.
In the instant matter, respondent filed its motion to dismiss with the Commissioner.
The matter was then transferred to the OAL, where respondent re-filed its motion.
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 is similar to New Jersey Court Rule 4:6-2(e). The inquiry in a
motion to dismiss is “limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the
face of the complaint.” Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746
(1989). Herein, the petition of appeal equates to the complaint.
A careful review of the petition of appeal does not reveal a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Nothing contained therein adds to what the Board considered. The
petitioner seems to indicate in her petition that the burden was on the Board because the
Board’s denial was unlawful.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
7
Here, petitioner “carries the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the
credible evidence that she is entitled to the endorsement she seeks.” McQuilken v. N.J.
St. Bd. of Exam’rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU8374-11, Initial Decision (Dec. 13,
2011), adopted Comm’r(January27,2012), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/search
.html. In evaluating determinations by the Board of Examiners, the Commissioner shall
not disturb the decision if the decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record, “unless the appellant has demonstrated the State Board of Examiners or the
School Ethics Commission acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1 The Department of Education intended the standard of review
for Commissioner determinations under Chapter Six to be “appellate in nature.”
40 N.J.R. 4606(a).
The arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard consists of three inquiries:
(1) whether the agency action violates the enabling act's
express or implied legislative policies;
(2) whether there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the findings upon which the agency based
application of legislative policies; and
(3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the
agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could
not reasonably have been made upon a showing of the
relevant factors. [Public Serv. Elec. and Gas Co. v. New
Jersey Dep’t. of Envtl. Protect., 101 N.J. 95, 103 (1985).]
However, “where there is room for two opinions the action is not arbitrary or
capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration even though the court
may believe that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore Sewerage Co.
v. Department of Environmental Protection, 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (App. Div. 1973)
(Internal citations omitted). Significantly, a “court should not substitute its judgment for
that of an administrative or legislative body if there is substantial evidence to support the
ruling.” Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
8
I. Conduct Unbecoming a Teacher
The Board may revoke, suspend, or deny a teaching certificate “on the basis of
demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, or other just
cause.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4, N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.1. Here, the Board has denied Groome a
Teacher of Spanish Certificate for conduct unbecoming a teacher.
“Conduct unbecoming a teacher” is a phrase that is not defined in statutes or
regulations but is interpreted in case law. Its definition includes a broad range of behavior
that impacts on a teacher’s ability to perform his duties or otherwise renders him unfit to
have the responsibility for the care of children. See State Bd. of Exam’s v. Charlton, 96
N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 18; In re the Certificate of Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDE) 1. Although
“conduct unbecoming” a teacher or other public employee is not defined in the statutes
or regulations, it has been described as an “elastic” phrase that includes “any conduct
which adversely affects the morale or efficiency of a department; conduct which has a
tendency to destroy respect for public employees and their departments; or conduct which
destroys confidence in public service.” Stratton v. Burlington County Dep’t. of Buildings
and Grounds, 95 N.J.A.R. 2d. 555, 556 (citations omitted), In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super.
136, 140 (App. Div. 1960) (citation omitted). There are no statutory or regulatory
guidelines addressing when revocation or suspension is the appropriate remedy; “[t]hat
decision is discretionary, on a case-by-case basis, after considering the individual facts
and circumstances.” In re Certificate of Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 1, 3.
Teachers are held to a higher standard of conduct because of the influence they
have over students. See, Bradley, 92 N.J.A.R. 2d. (EDE) 13 (“A teacher should possess
personal qualities valued by our society because a teacher helps to shape the attitudes
of young minds toward that society.”) (citing, Adler v. Board of Education of the City of
New York, 342 U.S. 485, 493 (1952)); Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R. 2d. (EDE) 1 (citing Adler for the
same proposition.); Adler, 342 U.S. 485, 493 (“A teacher works in a sensitive area in a
schoolroom. There he shapes the attitude of young minds towards the society in which
they live. In this, the state has a vital concern. It must preserve the integrity of the
schools. That the school authorities have the right and duty to screen the officials,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
9
teachers, and employees as to their fitness to maintain the integrity of the schools as a
part of ordered society, cannot be doubted.”)
When considering granting Groome a teaching certificate, Groome must be held
to the same high standard to which all teachers in New Jersey are held. She has been a
teacher for nearly twenty years, and her actions, both in and out of the classroom, reflect
on her as a teacher and the licensing board in charge of certifying her. Groome was
found to have engaged in conduct that fit the definition of abuse in Arkansas. While the
Arkansas ALJ ultimately held that Groome benefited from an exception to that definition,
preventing her from being on the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry, that
holding cannot alter the nature of the underlying conduct. The Board and Commissioner
have consistently held that teachers have been entrusted with the care and custody of
children and it is their duty to exercise self-restraint and controlled behavior. In re
Lucarelli, 97 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 537; In re Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302. “While teachers
are sensitive to the same emotional stresses as all other persons, their particular
relationship to children imposes upon them a special responsibility for exemplary restraint
and mature self-control.” See In re Tenure Hearing of Appleby, 1969 S.L.D. 159, 173
(quoting In re Tenure Hearing of Fulcomer, 1962 S.L.D. 160, 162). It could well be
reasoned that Groome has not met this level of self-restraint required of New Jersey
teachers, as hitting her son with a belt likely does not indicate that she is executing
exemplary restraint and mature self-control.
Further, the overriding framework to determine whether conduct reaches the level
of conduct unbecoming was discussed by the Commissioner of Education in Tenure
Hearing of Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302. Sammons noted that teachers are holders of the
public trust and are held to the highest standards of conduct. Id. at 321. The
Commissioner stressed that “teachers . . . are professional employees to whom the
people have entrusted the care and custody of . . . school children . . . this heavy duty
requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types
of employment.” Ibid. In In Re Certificate of Mary Ann Bauer, ALJ Samuels stated that
although an application by the Board for revocation concerns a different claim or cause
of action than those proceedings initiated by a school district or by the Commissioner of
Education to remove tenure, the statutes and regulations used by both agencies contain

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
10
similar standards. In Re Certificate of Mary Ann Bauer, EDE 7696-92, Initial Decision,
(August 8, 1996), modified, State Board of Examiners (September 26, 1996)
<http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html>. Therefore, conduct found to be
unbecoming in a tenure case can be considered unbecoming conduct in a denial or
revocation case.
The Board argues that if Groome’s actions had occurred in the classroom (i.e., if
Groome had struck a student on the back with a belt), Groome’s actions would clearly
constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher. (Resp. Brief at 13-15). The Board cites several
cases in which it was decided whether teachers engaged in unbecoming conduct of a
teacher, including cases where a teacher slapped a student; a teacher pushed, punched,
and kicked a student; and a teacher continuously choked a student until the student lost
consciousness. (Resp. Brief at 14-16). See Cf. IMO the Certificates of Alex Ramadanis,
State Bd. Of Exam’rs, Agency Dkt. No. 1617-205 (April 13, 2018), IMO the Certificates of
Vincent Ajayi, State Bd. Of Exam’rs, Agency Dkt. No. 1617-121 (January 19, 2018), IMO
the Certificates of R.A., State Bd. Of Exam’rs, Agency Dkt. No. 0910-228 (June 16, 2011).
To conflate Groome’s discipline of her child in her home to the actions of a teacher
slapping, pushing, punching, kicking, or choking a student, would be incorrect and
improper. Groome states that she has never used corporal punishment on a student.
(Tris Groome, Email to Kari Race and Wisc. Dep’t. of Pub. Instruction (Apr. 14, 2022 at
11:04:20 AM CDT)). However, her use of corporal punishment on her son is relevant, as
case law has allowed for the possibility that conduct unbecoming a teacher may relate to
a teacher’s conduct inside or outside the classroom.2 See N.J. Board of Examiners v.
Krupp, 3 N.J.A.R. 285 (1981) (Conviction of first degree murder was sufficient
unbecoming conduct to revoke certification.); Woodbridge Township School District v.
Rumage, 1 N.J.A.R. 381 (1980) (Tenured teacher who pled guilty to conspiracy and
bookmaking engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher, although the crimes themselves
did not involve moral turpitude.)
2 These cases consistently find that conduct that occurs outside the classroom may still very well be conduct
unbecoming a teacher.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
11
Misrepresentation on Teaching Certification Application
Groome states that she did not intend to falsely answer the application question
as to whether she had been denied certification in another state. (Groome Pro Se Petition
of Appeal, Mar. 21, 2023). This would mean that her answer was an unintentional
misrepresentation. However, it has been consistently held that regardless of intent,
entering a false answer in an application for certification constitutes conduct unbecoming
a teacher.
In IMO the Certificates of Danielle Picklo, a teacher’s certificate was suspended
for three years after she certified under oath on her New Jersey certification application
that she had never had a certificate revoked or suspended in any state, even though she
voluntarily relinquished her certificate in a settlement. State Bd. Of Exam’rs, Agency Dkt.
No. 1213-129 (December 6, 2013). In IMO the Certificates of Elliot Ramo, a teacher’s
license was suspended for three months for unbecoming conduct after he failed to
disclose his criminal convictions in his certification application. State Bd. Of Exam’rs,
Agency Dkt. No. 1213-172 (January 17, 2014). In IMO the Certificates of Jilla Maria
(Mason), a teacher’s certificate was revoked after she failed to disclose her arrest for drug
use in Pennsylvania and provided false answers to direct inquiries by one or more district
administrators regarding her recent drug use. State Bd. Of Exam’rs, Agency Dkt. No.
2021-167 (May 19. 2022). In In re Certificate of Calvin J. Williams, Jr., EDE 3889-94,
final decision, (Oct. 5, 1995), the State Board of Examiners imposed a two-year
suspension of the respondent’s teaching certificates after finding the respondent was
negligent in submitting accurate information in an application for a school administrator
certificate. In Williams, a teacher with nearly twenty-five years of experience certified that
he met the requirements for the school administrator certificate and submitted a job
description that created the inference that he held a principal’s certificate, when, at the
time, he did not. Initially, the ALJ found that Williams had not engaged in any intentional
wrongdoing and did not suspend his certificates. After reviewing the initial decision,
however, the Board reasoned that “[t]he professional conduct of a ‘seasoned educator’
mandates the highest degree of responsibility” and suspended Williams’ certificates for
two years despite agreeing that there was no willful wrongdoing. It is further important to
note that, regarding licensure through the Division of Consumer Affairs, it has been held

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
12
that a licensing board may deny an applicant who misinforms the board on her sworn
application, even if there is no finding of intent to deceive. In re Y.L, 437 N.J. Super. 409.
(2014).
Here, whether Groome intended or did not intend to falsely answer a question on
the application has no bearing on whether she engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher.
Falsely answering a teaching certification application question has consistently been held
to be conduct unbecoming a teacher, regardless of intent, and this is exactly what Groome
did. Further, Groome has been a teacher for nearly twenty years, making her a “seasoned
educator,” just like in Williams, requiring the “highest degree of responsibility” from her.
Ibid. Considering the length of time she has been an educator, and that Groome has
sought teaching reciprocity in several other states, Groome understands the gravity of
falsifying information on a teaching certificate application. Groome learned of her
Wisconsin certification denial in August of 2022, yet still answered on her New Jersey
certificate application in November of 2022, that she had never been denied a certificate
in another state. If the Board was to allow teachers to lie on their certificate applications,
it would undermine the fact that the application states that answers are “under penalty,”
and further would undermine the public’s confidence in the Board’s decision-making
authority. The public must believe in the Board’s decisions and must trust and believe
that the Board is properly screening those it allows to become a teacher. See Adler, 342
U.S. 485, 493. As such, Groome’s action of incorrectly stating that she has never been
denied a teaching certificate in another state on her New Jersey teaching certificate
application constitutes conduct unbecoming.
The Board determined that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9b-4, “Notwithstanding that a
candidate may meet all requirements for certification, the Board of Examiners may refuse
to issue a certificate to that candidate if, based on the record before it, the Board of
Examiners determines that, for reasons set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4, the candidate is
not suitable for employment as a teaching staff member in the public school. (R-G.) The
Board further concludes that under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4, ”[t]he Board of Examiners may
revoke or suspend the certificate(s) of any certificate holder on the basis of demonstrated
inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, . . . The Board’s denial was in
part based on the Arkansas Department of Human Services’ determination that Groome’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
13
action in striking a twelve year-old child (albeit her son) constituted abuse in addition to
failing to disclose the denial of her Wisconsin educator’s application when asked during
her New Jersey certification application process. Wisconsin’s denial was months before
Groome’s application to New Jersey. For these combined reasons the Board posits, that
Groome’s actions constitutes “conduct unbecoming.” (R-D.) Accordingly, the Board
refused to issue a teaching certificate to Groome.
Groome bears a substantial evidentiary burden to establish a case sufficient to set
aside a decision by the Board of Examiners. A decision by the Board of Examiners will
not be disturbed unless petitioner “has demonstrated [that] the State Board of Examiners
. . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-
4.1(a). It is not within the province of this forum to substitute its judgment for that of
the Board of Examiners. Rather, the pertinent inquiry is to “ascertain whether the
decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record[.]” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-
4.1(a). Judged against this standard of review and based on a consideration of the
documentary evidence presented, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to shoulder her
burden of proof and that the Board of Examiners’ decision is supported by sufficient
credible evidence.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s decision to deny the issuance of a
Teacher of Spanish certificate, as set forth in its decision dated March 3, 2023, should be
AFFIRMED.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the Board’s denial of a reciprocal licensure with the
issuance of a Teacher of Spanish certificate, to the petitioner Tris Groome, as set forth in
its decision dated March 3, 2023, should be AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that
petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED.
It is hereby ORDERED that the Board of Examiners’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED and the petition of appeal is DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
14
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.
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.
November 2, 2023____________
DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: ________
Date Mailed to Parties: _______
JMB/jm/mph

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03943-23
15
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
Pro se Petition of Appeal
For respondent
Brief in support of Motion to Dismiss with Exhibits A-J