Timothy Vandergast v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, 2/20/2020, (#70-20)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Timothy Vandergast,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent, New Jersey Department of Education,
Office of Student Protection (OSP), that he is permanently disqualified from public school
employment. Petitioner was disqualified as the result of information revealed during a criminal history
background check pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A-6.7.1. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; 	petitioner’s criminal history background check revealed that in 1985, he was
convicted of two disqualifying offenses in the State of North Carolina; 	at the time, petitioner was 17
years old; petitioner acknowledged that the findings from 1985 are accurate, and did not attempt to
challenge the accuracy of his criminal history record; however, petitioner requested that the
Commissioner consider the facts surrounding his past crimes and his rehabilitation since that time;
further, petitioner sought to demonstrate his rehabilitation through mitigating evidence of his
subsequent educational and career achievements; 	however, the controlling statute here mandates
permanent disqualification and does not provide any leniency or discretion in regard to its application.
The ALJ concluded that petitioner has failed to advance any basis for relief and the appeal must be
dismissed. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the OSP’s motion for summary decision, and dismissed the
petition with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings of the ALJ and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. 	The petition was dismissed with
prejudice.
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.
February 20, 2020
70-20

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13245-19
Agency Dkt. No. 192-8/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Timothy Vandergast,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
Office of Student Protection
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 ALJ that petitioner is permanently
disqualified from employment in any educational institution under the supervision of the Department
of Education. Petitioner does not challenge the accuracy of his criminal history record but seeks only
to present evidence of rehabilitation, which is not permitted under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 20, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	February 20, 2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13245-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 192-8/19
TIMOTHY VANDERGAST.,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF
STUDENT PROTECTION,
Respondent.
______________________________________
Timothy Vandergast, petitioner, pro se
Michael Czarneck, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Gubir S.
Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: December 18, 2019 	Decided: January 15, 2020
BEFORE: JOANN LASALA CANDIDO, ALAJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, 	Timothy 	Vandergast, 	challenges 	the 	action 	of 	the 	New 	Jersey
Department of Education Office of Student Protection (respondent/OSP), decision that
permanently disqualified him from serving in any position, paid or unpaid, with any
educational institution under the supervision of the Department of Education, or with a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13245-19
2
contracted service provider under contract with said school or educational facility as a
result of information revealed during a criminal background check under N.J. Stat. §
18A:6-7.1.
On June 29, 2019, petitioner filed a response to respondents’ disqualification
notice of June 26, 2019. 	On September 13, 2019, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Petition of Appeal. Petitioner requested oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss (that
will be addressed as a summary decision motion) that was held on December 18, 2019,
on which date the record closed.
The Board seeks relief pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5, which provides that summary
decision should be rendered “if the papers and discovery which have been filed, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” These
provisions mirror the language of Rule 4:46-2 and the Supreme Court’s decision
in Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J 67 Agency Final
Decision (1954). 	Under 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b), 	the 	determination 	to 	grant 	summary
judgment should be based on the papers presented as well as any affidavits, which may
have been filed with the application. For the adverse, i.e., the non-moving party to prevail
in such an application, responding affidavits must be submitted showing that there is
indeed a genuine issue of fact, which can only be determined in an evidentiary
proceeding. The Court in Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of American,142 N.J 520,
523 (1995), set the standard to be applied when deciding a motion for summary judgment.
Therein the Court stated:
The determination whether there exists a genuine issue with
respect to a material fact challenged requires the Motion
Judge to consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party… are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to
resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving
party.
Petitioner sought a license to teach in the State of New Jersey. The Board sent a notice
to Petitioner dated June 26, 2019, that stated his fingerprint search returned results of a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13245-19
3
felony conviction and in turn he is permanently disqualified from serving in any position,
paid or unpaid, with any educational institution under the supervision of the Department
of Education, or with a contracted service provider under contract with said school or
educational facility. The Board attached Addendum A, which displays that Petitioner was
convicted of crimes in North Carolina in 1985.
Petitioner was convicted of larceny of a firearm, and a crime considered to be
disqualifying in nature, breaking and entering a vehicle, which is akin to burglary under
N.J. Stat. § 2C:18-2. Petitioner initiated a pro se appeal of the Board’s decision on August
1, 2019. 	Petitioner acknowledged that “the findings from 1975 are accurate” and does
not attempt to challenge the accuracy of his criminal history record. See Ex. C. 	In his
appeal, Petitioner simply requests that the Commissioner of Education consider the facts
surrounding his past crimes and his rehabilitation since then.
I CONCLUDE that this matter is ripe for summary decision. There are no material
disputed facts which require a plenary hearing, and the respondent is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
Petitioner has failed to set forth any grounds to contest the decision in this matter
since he does not challenge the accuracy of his criminal record, nor the Department of
Education’s classification of his offenses being akin to burglary under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2
and therefore disqualifying. 	This mandates permanent disqualification of any public-
school employee who has regular contact with pupils where that person has been
convicted of a third-degree crime as set forth in Chapter 20 of Title 2C of the NJ Statutes.
Burglary, a third-degree crime under the statute, is specifically listed as a disqualifying
offense under N.J.S.A. 18A:7-7.1(c)(2). 	The statute only provides for the petitioner to
appeal the accuracy of the disqualifying criminal history record. Here, petitioner does not
challenge the accuracy or OSP’s determination that he was convicted of the crime so
stated, nor does he contest that those crimes are substantially equivalent to those
enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1(c)(2). The petitioner instead requests a review of his
case and a chance to demonstrate his rehabilitation by using mitigating evidence. 	The
statute mandates permanent disqualification and does not provide any leniency or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13245-19
4
discretion in regard to its application. Therefore, because Petitioner has failed to advance
any basis for relief, the appeal must be dismissed with prejudice.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, respondent’s motion for summary decision is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the petition filed in this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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 13245-19
5
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.
January 15, 2020
DATE 	JOANN LASALA CANDIDO, ALAJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 15, 2020
Date Mailed to Parties:
ljb