In the Matter of the Certificates of Brett Holeman, State Board of Examiners, 6/23/2022, (#130-22) State Board of Examiners Appeal

1
State Board of Examiners Dkt No. 1920-165
Agency Dkt. No. 8-11/21A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of
Brett Holeman, State Board of Examiners,
New Jersey Department of Education.
Order of Suspension by the State Board of Examiners, September 17, 2021
Respondent-Appellant, pro se
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Sadia Ahsanuddin,
Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General of New
Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and the papers filed in connection with
appellant Brett Holeman’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board), dated
September 17, 2021, suspending his School Psychologist certificate for six months. Appellant
was a tenured school psychologist in the Freehold Regional High School District (Freehold).
Freehold certified tenure changes against appellant and, following an arbitration, the Arbitrator
determined that appellant had made disparaging comments about his superiors and colleagues,
accepted counseling fees from parents of a student, and sent emails containing profanity and
advising his supervisor not to refer cases to him. The Arbitrator also found that colleagues
criticized appellant in writing and via testimony, including testimony indicating that colleagues
were afraid of appellant. The Arbitrator further found that irreconcilable differences between
130-22

2
appellant and Freehold made it inadvisable to reinstate appellant to his position. The tenure
charges were sustained, and appellant was dismissed from his position in Freehold.
The matter was then referred to the Board to determine whether appellant’s conduct
warranted action against his certificates. The Board concluded that the doctrine of collateral
estoppel required the Board to accept the facts found in the tenure hearing and that those
facts demonstrated that appellant’s conduct provided just cause to suspend his certificate. The
Board noted that appellant had no record of previous discipline or other inappropriate conduct
during his employment in Freehold, and that the Arbitrator’s penalty was based more on the
breakdown of the relationship between appellant and Freehold than on the nature of
appellant’s conduct. Accordingly, the Board found that revocation was not appropriate and
instead ordered appellant’s certificate to be suspended for six months.
On appeal, appellant argues that the arbitration hearing was unfair because of
manipulation by the district and deficiencies in the Arbitrator’s reasoning. Appellant suggests
that the Board did not want to penalize him but felt they had to because they were constrained
to accept the facts in the Arbitrator’s decision. Appellant contends that he has been sufficiently
punished by the trauma of the proceedings and because he has been unable to work in
education for the past five years while the proceedings were occurring. Finally, appellant notes
that he had positive evaluations for twelve years at Freehold.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute her 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

3
is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). With regard to reviewing a
sanction imposed by the Board, the Appellate Division has defined the standard as determining
whether the “punishment is so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances,
as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” In re Certificates of Benjamin Norton, 2016 N.J.
Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2291, *6-7 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
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 a six-month suspension of his certificate is the appropriate penalty. The majority of
appellant’s arguments on appeal take issue with the decision of the Arbitrator regarding the
tenure charges. However, as the Board correctly concluded, the doctrine of collateral estoppel
precludes appellant from relitigating the issue of unbecoming conduct, as appellant had a full
and fair opportunity to contest those charges during the tenure proceeding. Appellant was
represented by counsel during that proceeding, which included twelve days of hearings.
Moreover, appellant has already challenged the Arbitrator’s decision, and it was affirmed by
the Appellate Division, which found that there was sufficient credible evidence in the record for
the Arbitrator to find that appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct. Holeman v. Freehold
Regional High Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2617 (App. Div. Nov. 29,
2018). The Commissioner finds no basis to dispute the Arbitrator’s findings, particularly when
those findings have been affirmed by the Appellate Division.
Regarding his suspension, appellant argues that his loss of tenure – and its
accompanying consequences – and previous good record should mitigate his penalty. The
Commissioner notes that N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5(a) specifically contemplates that, following a

4
teacher’s loss of tenure or employment, the Board may initiate proceedings to suspend or
revoke the teacher’s certificates. Accordingly, the possible consequences of incompetence or
unbecoming conduct may be both loss of tenure/employment and suspension of certificates,
and the former does not mitigate the latter. Furthermore, while the Commissioner
acknowledges appellant’s prior good record, that alone does not fully mitigate the penalty. The
lack of prior discipline does, in these circumstances, serve to reduce the possible penalty from
revocation to a six-month suspension.
Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of Examiners suspending appellant’s School
Psychologist certificate for six months is affirmed.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.
June 23, 2022
June 23, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATE OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
BRETT D. HOLEMAN 	: 	ORDER OF SUSPENSION
_______________________ 	: 	DOCKET NO: 1920-165
At its meeting of February 28, 2020, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed a tenure
decision regarding Brett D. Holeman, a tenured teacher in the Freehold Regional High School District
(Freehold). Freehold certified tenure charges against Holeman for allegedly speaking inappropriately to
a student, cursing loudly during testing, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, spending time on his
private counseling practice while working for the Board, among other related allegations.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16, the Arbitrator assigned by the Department of Education to hear the
case, referred to the State Board of Examiners (Board) the tenure matter captioned In the Matter of the
Tenure Hearing Between Brett D. Holeman and the Freehold Regional School District Board of
Education, Dkt. No. 249-9/16 (Arbitrator’s Decision, May 12, 2017). 	The arbitration decision is
incorporated herein by reference.
Generally, in the Tenure Charges and Statement of Evidence, which are incorporated herein by
reference, Freehold alleged that Holeman engaged in inappropriate behavior (comments, language, and
expressions) including use of profanity and reference to sexual activity in front of students; made repeated
derogatory comments about and to colleagues and supervisors; engaged in erratic and concerning
behaviors that intruded into the workplace; jeopardized the State mandated testing environment;
demonstrated a lack of respect for authority; disregarded the District’s organizational plan; and did not
use the proper chain of command.
Freehold also alleged that Holeman spoke inappropriately to a student distraught over a breakup
with a girlfriend. Holeman allegedly told the student that the girlfriend was a “slut” and that he would

2
soon leave for college and could “fuck 40 girls.” Holeman also allegedly recommended a book entitled
“F*ck Feelings,” which is a profanity filled self-help book.
Holeman also acted disruptively during the administration of the PARCC testing. 	He was
allegedly cursing and talking loudly and made colleagues uncomfortable. 	Holeman failed to complete
IEPs in a timely manner and spent time on his private counseling practice during work hours. He also
accepted payment when he counseled current and former students and allegedly directly solicited students
for his private counseling services.
Holeman allegedly failed to disclose prior employment with West Morris Regional High School
District (West Morris) when he applied to Freehold. Documents from West Morris indicate that Holeman
demonstrated similar conduct at West Morris when employed there and that he was subsequently
terminated from that position.
In his Decision (which is incorporated herein by reference), the Arbitrator found that “it would be
inadvisable 	to 	reinstate 	Dr. 	Holeman. 	The 	record 	indicates 	irrevocable 	differences 	between
administration, staff members and Dr. Holeman.” Accordingly, the Tenure Charges were sustained and
Holeman was dismissed from his position with Freehold.
The Arbitrator determined that Holeman made disparaging comments about his superiors and
colleagues. 	He also determined that Holeman accepted counseling fee(s) from parents of a student in
2013. He further found that Holeman sent an email containing profanity to a supervisor stating that she
“caved.” He also told the supervisor in an email not to refer cases to him. Moreover, the Arbitrator found
that Holeman’s own educator association offered testimony that colleagues were afraid of Holeman. This
witness testified that Holeman stated to the principal that she should “sleep with one eye open.” 	The
Arbitrator noted how unusual it is that an association representative would provide negative testimony.

3
He noted further that colleagues criticized Holeman in writing and by testimony. Holeman was dismissed
from his tenured employment with Freehold as a result of the charges proven in the tenure proceeding.
Holeman 	currently holds 	a School 	Psychologist 	Certificate. 	After 	reviewing the above
information, at its May 14, 2020 meeting, the Board voted to issue an Order to Show Cause to Holeman
as to why his certificates should not be revoked. The Order was predicated on the charges of unbecoming
conduct that had been proven in the tenure hearing.
The Board sent Holeman the Order to Show Cause by regular and certified mail. 	The Order
provided that Holeman’s Answer was due within 30 days. Holeman filed his Answer on August 21, 2020.
In that Answer, Holeman admitted that he was the subject of tenure charges but denies the
allegations contained therein. See Answer at ¶ 2,3,4,5,6,7. Holeman admitted that the Arbitrator found
that “it would be inadvisable to reinstate Dr. Holeman” and that he was dismissed from his position. Id.
at ¶ 8. He states that only a small portion of the lesser of Freehold’s allegations against him were sustained.
Id. Further, Holeman admits to certain allegations, indicates that there were mitigating factors regarding
some of those allegations, and denies that he accepted a fee for private counseling or that he told a
colleague to “sleep with one eye open.” Id. at ¶ 9. 	He also asserted 10 separate defenses.
Thereafter, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(e), on March 9, 2021, the Board sent Holeman a
hearing notice by regular and certified mail. The notice explained that there appeared to be no material
facts in dispute. Thus, Holeman was offered an opportunity to submit written arguments on the issue of
whether the conduct addressed in the Order to Show Cause provided just cause to take action against his
certificates as well as arguments with regard to the appropriate sanction in the event that the Board
determined to take action against his certificates. It also explained that upon review of the charges against
him and the legal arguments tendered in his defense, the Board would determine if Holeman’s offense
warranted action against his certificates. 	Thereupon, the Board would also determine the appropriate

4
sanction, if any. 	Holeman was also offered the opportunity to appear before the Board to provide
testimony on the sanction issue. Holeman filed a written response on May 21, 2021. Holeman also asked
to appear before the Board.
In his Hearing Response, Holeman argued that Freehold failed to prove a vast majority of its
allegations and those allegations that were substantiated do not warrant revocation. 	See Hearing
Submission at p. 1-2. Holeman argues that the arbitration findings are not extreme or egregious so as to
warrant revocation of his teaching certificates. 	Id. at p. 11. 	Holeman then details the findings of each
charge, along with mitigating circumstances surrounding each charge. Id. at p. 12-14.
Holeman additionally argues that in the event Board finds just cause to take action against his
certificates, the sanction should align to the circumstance and the “local nature” behind the conduct, along
with consideration of the penalties Holeman has already incurred. Id. at p. 17. He states that the basis for
the Arbitrator’s Award was the “breakdown in the working relationship in the Guidance Department at
Freehold.” Id. at p. 18. Holeman states that he has nearly lost everything professionally due to this matter.
The impact of the “salacious nature of the charges” thwarted his ability to develop his private practice.
He has dealt with the repercussions of this matter for five (5) years. 	Id. at p. 18-19. 	Holeman also
submitted a written statement to the Board, which was reviewed.
In testimony before the Board, Holeman’s attorney, James Zazzali, detailed Holeman’s stellar
career. He stated that there were 67 allegations against Holeman and that after 12 days of hearing, the
arbitrator only found 4 or 5 of the incidents were substantiated. He stated that Holeman was the subject
of a relationship breakdown and that was the reason the arbitrator found it appropriate to dismiss his tenure
– because it would be “inadvisable” to bring him back in light of the breakdown. Mr. Zazzali then detailed
the findings of misconduct in the Decision. He asked that the Board consider the severity of the penalty
Holeman endured for the last 5 years.

5
Holeman made a statement to the Board. He asked for understanding and mercy. He indicated
that he is a family man; it is his life’s work to try and create a better world for his children. He stated that
in 2016 he saw an injustice with a student. His advocacy for the student conflicted with the District. He
stated that he should have been smarter and more patient; if he knew then what he knows now he would
not have risked anything. He asked the Board to look at his entire 13-year record. He wants the chance
to pursue his goals again and be an example of service and dedication. 	One Board member asked a
question of Holeman, which he responded to.
The threshold issue before the Board in this matter, therefore, is whether Holeman’s conduct
constitutes conduct unbecoming a certificate holder. At its meeting of July 30, 2021, the Board considered
the allegations in the Order to Show Cause as well as Holeman’s Answer, Hearing Response, and
testimony. The Board determined that it was constrained by collateral estoppel to accept the facts as found
in the tenure hearing and therefore no material facts related to Holeman’s offense were in dispute. See In
the Matter of the Certificates of Richard Barnes-Bey, Dkt. No. 1314-194 (Bd. Of Examiners September
17, 2015) (Collateral estoppel applies to facts established in a prior tenure hearing for Board revocation
proceedings). Thus, the Board determined that summary decision was appropriate in this matter. N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.6(h).
The Board must now determine whether Holeman’s conduct, as set forth in the Order to Show
Cause and proven in the tenure hearing, represents just cause to act against his certificates pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5. The Board finds that it does.
The Board may revoke or suspend the certification of any certificate holder on the basis of
demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher or other just cause. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.4. 	In this case the Arbitration Decision establishes that Holeman made inappropriate or disparaging
comments to colleagues and superiors; accepted counseling fees from parents of a current student in 2013;

6
spent time on his private counseling practice while employed at Freehold by using his Freehold email to
set up/manage private counseling appointments; bore some responsibility in the delay of IEP submissions;
and his conduct resulted in a damaged relationship with the guidance department, teaching staff, and
administration. Such conduct is unfitting of a role model.
Nevertheless, there is no record of previous discipline for similar conduct, or other inappropriate
conduct in his employment history with Freehold. 	Further, the Arbitrator’s Decision as to penalty was
predicated on the breakdown in relationship between Holeman and his colleagues and less so the nature
of his conduct. Accordingly, the Board does not believe that revocation is appropriate. Rather, in light
of the above, the Board finds that the appropriate penalty is a six-month suspension of his educator
certificates.
Accordingly, on July 30, 2021, the Board voted to suspend Brett D. Holeman’s School
Psychologist certificate for a period of 6 months. On this 17 th day of September 2021, the Board voted to
adopt its formal written decision and it is therefore ORDERED that Holeman’s certificates are hereby
suspended for 6 months, effective immediately. 	It is further ORDERED that Holeman return his
certificates to the Secretary of the State Board of Examiners, Office of Certification and Induction, P.O.
Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 within 30 days of the mailing date of this decision.
_______________________________
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
RS/KAG/cf
Date of Mailing:
via certified and regular mail
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38.4.