In the Matter of the Teaching Certificates of Nicole Maffucci, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education, 5/6/2024, (#179-24)

179-24
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No.
2021-163 OAL Dkt. No. EDE 06423-2021
Agency Dkt. No. 13-11/23A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of
Nicole M. Maffucci, State Board of
Examiners, New Jersey Department
of Education.
Order of Suspension by the State Board of Examiners, dated October 27, 2023
For the Respondent-Appellant, Justin M. Schwam, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Sadia Ahsanuddin,
Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record, hearing transcripts, and papers filed in
connection with Nicole M. Maffucci’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners
(Board), dated October 27, 2023, suspending her Teacher of Elementary K-6 Certificate of
Eligibility with Advanced Standing, Teacher of Elementary K-6 Standard Certificate, Teacher of
Students with Disabilities Certificate of Eligibility, Teacher of Students with Disabilities Standard
Certificate, and Supervisor Certificate for a period of one year.
On or about May 13, 2021, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding the
suspension of appellant’s certificates. 	The OSC alleged that appellant applied for a Principal
Certificate in October 2020. After being advised by an examiner at the New Jersey Department
of Education (Department) that her Record of Professional Experience (ROPE) form was deficient,

2
appellant allegedly submitted a revised ROPE form to her employer for signature which contained
inaccurate information. 	The OSC further alleged that appellant failed to notify her employer
about the alterations she made to the ROPE form and indicated only that it required a signature
and submission to the Department.
Although the ROPE form instructions state that the employer must complete Parts B, C,
and D, it is uncontested that appellant filled out the ROPE forms herself (except for the
employer’s signature line). The record reflects that the ROPE form rejected as deficient by the
Department’s examiner, 	which was submitted 	in 	February 	2021, listed her 	“Successful
Professional Experience” in Part B as follows:
Position
Held
Name of
certificate
required
for this
position
If Teacher,
indicate
subject
taught
Grade
Level
Start Date 	End Date 	Check One:
Full-Time | Part-Time
(50% or more) (less than 50%)
Special
Education
Teacher
Teacher 	of
Students
with
Disabilities
Social
Studies
9-12 	12/1/14 	Current 	X
Part C of the February 2021 ROPE form, “Teacher Evaluation,” stated that appellant’s
district evaluated her as a Special Education Teacher in 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and
2019-2020, rating her as “4 – highly effective” in each school year.
Because appellant did not receive her Teacher of Students with Disabilities Standard
Certificate until 2018, the Department’s examiner advised appellant that Part B experience prior
to 2018 needed to be under her Teacher of Elementary K-6 Standard Certificate and asked
whether she had any additional experience under that certificate. 	This inquiry prompted
appellant to prepare a revised ROPE form.

3
In March 2021, appellant prepared a revised ROPE form listing her “Successful
Professional Experience” in Part B as follows:
Position
Held
Name of
certificate
required
for this
position
If Teacher,
indicate
subject
taught
Grade
Level
Start Date 	End Date 	Check One:
Full-Time | Part-Time
(50% or more) (less than 50%)
Teacher 	Elementary
School
Teacher K-6
Social
Studies
6 	12/1/14 	6/8/18 	X
Teacher 	Teacher 	of
Students
with
Disabilities
Social
Studies
9-12 	6/8/18 	Current 	X
Part C of the March 2021 ROPE form, “Teacher Evaluation,” stated that appellant’s
employer evaluated her as a 6 th grade Social Studies teacher in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, rating
her as “4 – highly effective.” It further stated that appellant’s employer evaluated her as a Special
Education teacher in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, rating her as “4 – highly effective.”
During the contested hearing at the OAL, appellant admitted, contrary to what the
March 2021 ROPE form indicated, that she never taught 6 th grade on a full-time basis and was
not evaluated by her employer specifically as a 6 th grade Social Studies teacher. However, she
credibly testified that she taught a group of 6 th through 8 th grade students during the 2016-2017
and 2017-2018 school years in U.S. Government and World Geography classes while also
teaching high school Social Studies to grades 9 through 12. She produced copies of schedules
from 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 which stated that she taught U.S. Government, among other
courses, in 2016-2017 and World Geography, among other courses, in 2017-2018, several days
per week. Two district administrators who supervised appellant between 2016 and 2020, whom
the ALJ also found to be credible, testified that appellant never taught 6 th grade.

4
Ultimately, the ALJ found that appellant had taught Social Studies classes (U.S.
Government and World Geography) to 6 th through 8 th graders in addition to having taught Social
Studies to high school students. 	The ALJ further found that the “errors” on appellant’s
March 2021 ROPE form “do not constitute a knowing and willful effort to misrepresent her
credentials, but an inadvertent error in compilation of the information in the documentation.”
Initial Decision, at 16. The ALJ also noted the “lack of oversight by administration and abrogation
of administration’s responsibility in preparing the forms.” Ibid.
Additionally, without expressly stating that appellant had committed unbecoming
conduct, the ALJ concluded that a three-month suspension of appellant’s certificates was
warranted because she “unintentionally submitted inaccurate information in her certificate
application.” Id. at 19. The ALJ cited appellant’s confusion over how to fill out the ROPE form
and the fact that she “stated on a form that she teaches sixth grade social studies, and she does
in fact teach history courses to sixth graders.” Ibid. In the end, the ALJ characterized appellant’s
actions as “an honest and minor mistake.” Ibid.
Upon considering appellant’s exceptions and the Board’s reply thereto, the Board voted
to adopt the ALJ’s findings of fact and to find unbecoming conduct based upon those facts.
Additionally, the Board voted to modify the Initial Decision to impose a one-year suspension of
appellant’s certificates effective October 27, 2023. In determining the appropriate sanction, the
Board found In the Matter of the Certificates of Calvin J. Williams, Jr., OAL Dkt. No. EDE 3889-94,
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 241 (May 18, 1995), to be instructive. It rejected the ALJ’s
reasoning that: (1) appellant was a much less “seasoned” teacher than Williams, who had nearly
25 years of teaching experience; and that (2) her misrepresentation was more ambiguous than

5
that in Williams, as Williams submitted documents implying he held a certificate he did not have.
The Board concluded that appellant, who began teaching in 2014, was no less of a “seasoned”
teacher than Williams. 	Order of Suspension, at 5. 	Moreover, the Board emphasized that
appellant “misrepresented her experience with regard to the capacity her certifications
authorized her to teach.” Ibid.
On appeal, appellant maintains that no action should be taken against her certificates.
She asserts that the facts as found by the ALJ do not support a finding of unbecoming conduct as
she made an honest mistake on a draft ROPE form that was never submitted to the Department
in support of her Principal Certificate application. Moreover, even if the facts supported a finding
of unbecoming conduct, appellant argues that the Board unreasonably quadrupled the sanction
from a three-month suspension to a one-year suspension of her certificates based upon the
Williams case, which is distinguishable from the present matter.
In response, the Board argues that its decision was reasonable and supported by
sufficient, credible evidence in the record. 	It emphasizes that appellant misrepresented her
teaching experience on the March 8, 2021, ROPE form as she never taught 6 th grade on a full-
time basis between 2014 and 2018 and admitted same during the contested hearing. In reply,
appellant requests that the Board’s letter brief be stricken as it was overlength by four pages in
violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.9(b); the Board ignored rule N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.8(d)(4); the Board failed
to include an appendix in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.10(a); and the Board improperly attached
exhibits.1
1 The Commissioner denies appellant’s request to strike the Board’s letter brief. See N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.4(a).

6
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. The
Commissioner’s role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies
that “the Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated
that the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.” The Commissioner finds that sufficient, credible evidence in the record supports the
Board’s determination that appellant committed unbecoming conduct.
“Conduct unbecoming” is an “elastic” concept that includes “conduct which adversely
affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public
respect for [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services.” 	In re
Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Accord Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa,
228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017). To maintain public confidence in the integrity of the Department’s issuance
of certificates to school employees, applicants must adhere to the Department’s procedures and
follow instructions. Here, although the ROPE form instructions state that Parts B, C, and D must
be completed by the employer, appellant drafted both the February and March 2021 ROPE forms
herself. 	She should not have done so. 	Moreover, appellant admitted during the contested
hearing that she never taught 6 th grade on a full-time basis. And yet, the March 2021 ROPE form
she drafted indicates that she taught 6 th grade on a full-time basis between December 2014 and
June 2018. That is inaccurate. Furthermore, appellant indicated on the March 2021 ROPE form

7
that she was evaluated as a 6 th grade Social Studies teacher in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 and
rated as highly effective in that area. That, too, is inaccurate.
Appellant’s reliance upon In the Matter of the Certificates of Sally Anne Mesh, OAL Dkt.
No. EDE 8424-04 (Initial Decision Jan. 30, 2006), State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 0304-232
(May 10, 2006), is unpersuasive as that matter did not involve an application for a certificate.
Mesh’s employer questioned her use of “PhD” and EdD” on some Individualized Education Plans
(IEPs) after her signature, as its files did not reflect that she held a doctorate degree, and it could
not verify that she had obtained same. No evidence was produced at the contested hearing to
dispute the authenticity of the doctorate degrees Mesh represented that she held. Thus, her use
of “PhD” and “EdD” on IEPs was not proven to be inaccurate, and the Board concluded that the
action to suspend or revoke her certificates should be dismissed. Here, appellant admitted that
the March 2021 ROPE form she drafted contained inaccurate information and the Board found
that her actions in this regard constituted unbecoming conduct. Even if the Commissioner would
have decided the matter differently, he is not permitted to substitute his judgment for that of
the Board so long as the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient, credible evidence. N.J.A.C.
6A:4-4.1(a).
However, the Commissioner concurs with appellant that a one-year suspension of her
certificates is unreasonable in light of the mitigating circumstances present in this case and
because Williams, upon which the Board primarily relied, is factually distinguishable. Appellant’s
supervisor directed her to complete the ROPE forms and, as found by the ALJ, abrogated the
employer’s responsibilities in that regard. Appellant revised the ROPE form following an email
exchange with a Department examiner who asked whether she had other teaching experience

8
under her Teacher of Elementary K-6 Standard Certificate. At that point, she recalled that she
taught Social Studies to 6th grade students between 2014 and 2018. As the ALJ found, appellant’s
confusion about whether to include this information on the ROPE form is understandable.
While the March 2021 ROPE form did contain inaccurate information, appellant did not
fail to notify her employer about the alterations to the form as alleged in the OSC, nor did she
tell her supervisor only that it required a signature and submission to the Department. Appellant
was transparent with her supervisor and, when questioned, explained why she added the 6 th
grade teaching experience to the March 2021 ROPE form. 	In fact, the record reflects that
appellant was clearly confused about how to complete the ROPE form and was engaged in
dialogue with both Department staff and her supervisor about how to proceed. Appellant never
submitted the March 2021 ROPE form to the Department, and she expressed to her supervisor
during their email exchange that she did not expect her to sign it if she believed it to be
inaccurate.
In addition, the Board’s reliance upon Williams in support of its one-year suspension of
appellant’s certificates is misplaced. Williams negligently submitted fraudulent information to
the Department in pursuit of a School Administrator Certificate, which he ultimately received
despite his ineligibility. The documents he submitted to the Department implied that he held a
certificate he did not have. 	Finding that his actions harmed the integrity of the teacher
certification system, the Board revoked his School Administrator Certificate and suspended his
other certificates for two years. 	In contrast, here, appellant neither submitted fraudulent
information to the Department nor received a Principal Certificate under false pretenses. She
did not submit documents to the Department implying that she held a certificate that she did not

9
have. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for the Board to conclude that appellant, who began
her teaching career in 2014, is “no less of a ‘seasoned’ teacher” than Williams, who had nearly
25 years of teaching experience. Order of Suspension, at 5. It is also noted that appellant has
never been disciplined as an educator before and was generally regarded as an excellent teacher.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that a three-month suspension of appellant’s
certificates is appropriate given the nature and extent of the unbecoming conduct at issue. The
decision of the State Board of Examiners is modified to reduce the sanction imposed for
appellant’s unbecoming conduct from a one-year suspension, effective October 27, 2023, to a
three-month suspension, effective October 27, 2023.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: May 6, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 8, 2024
2 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.