Kevin Harriman v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 3/8/2024, (#129-24)

129-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Kevin Harriman,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this matter, pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State Board of
Examiners (SBE) that respondent improperly denied his application for certification after revocation
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9. 	Petitioner previously held a Teacher of Health and Physical Education
Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, Teacher of Health and Physical Education Certificate, and a
Teacher of Driver Education Certificate. In December 2015, the SBE voted to revoke Harriman’s teaching
certificates as a result of his dismissal from his tenured position with the Elmwood Park School District
(Elmwood Park) due to unbecoming conduct. A hearing regarding petitioner’s appeal was held on
August 16, 2023.
On appeal, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the legal issue here is whether petitioner has demonstrated
rehabilitation from unbecoming conduct, incompetence, or other cause for the revocation of his teaching
certificates since 2015, as required pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9(b)(3); 	petitioner bears the burden to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the SBE improperly denied his application for
certification after revocation; petitioner has not satisfied this requirement as he has failed to show that he
has been rehabilitated for the unbecoming conduct that led to the revocation of his teaching certificates,
and in fact continues to deny the conduct and shift blame to former coworkers; 	further, petitioner’s
submissions in these proceedings prove that he has intentionally withheld information from current and
prospective employers regarding the revocation of his teaching certificates; petitioner 	has continuously
failed to acknowledge that his actions led to the revocation of his teaching certificates, a key component of
rehabilitation; and petitioner’s failure to demonstrate rehabilitation for the unbecoming conduct is
underscored by the fact that he still believes that his certificates were wrongfully revoked, and does not
believe that he engaged in conduct unbecoming at all. 	For these reasons, the ALJ concluded that the
Board’s decision denying petitioner’s application for certification after revocation must be affirmed.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter,
for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the petition of appeal 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.

129-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02542-21
Agency Dkt. No. 7-1/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Kevin Harriman,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey 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 and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter for the reasons stated therein. The Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law
Judge that petitioner failed to demonstrate that respondent improperly denied his application
for certification after revocation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9. Specifically, petitioner has not
satisfied the regulatory requirements as he failed to provide evidence demonstrating
rehabilitation for the unbecoming conduct which resulted in the revocation of his certificates
and, in fact, continues to deny that he committed unbecoming conduct or needs rehabilitation.

2
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 8, 2024
Date of Mailing: March 11, 2024
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.

NEW JERSEY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISON
OAL DKT. NO. EDU-02542-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 7-1/21
KEVIN HARRIMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Kevin Harriman, pro se
Amna Toor, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: January 19, 2024 	Decided: January 29, 2024
BEFORE JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Kevin Harriman, appeals the decision by respondent, New Jersey
Department 	of 	Education, 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners 	denying 	his 	application 	for
certification after revocation under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner Kevin Harriman (Harriman) previously held a Teacher of Health and
Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, Teacher of Health and
Physical Education Certificate, and a Teacher of Driver Education Certificate.
On December 10, 2015, the New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of
Examiners (the Board) voted to revoke Harriman’s teaching certificates as a result of his
dismissal from his tenured position with the Elmwood Park School District (Elmwood Park)
due to unbecoming conduct, which included conduct that was deceptive and untruthful;
inappropriate, 	defiant 	and 	insubordinate 	conduct; 	failure 	to 	follow 	administrative
directives; failure to enroll in anger management classes; and disregard of corrective
action plans. 1
On April 23, 2020, Harriman applied for certification after revocation under N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.9. ( R-1). 	On June 26, 2020, t he Board denied Harriman’s application because
it determined that Harriman had failed to satisfy the regulatory criteria set forth in N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.9 to receive new certificates. (R-2).
On August 18, 2020, Harriman filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education
(Commissioner), appealing the June 2020 Board’s denial of his application (R-3). Because
the petition included information that was not presented to the Board at the time of its
decision, the Board requested, with Harriman’s consent, that the matter be remanded to
the Board to consider the new information along with the information presented at the
time of the Board’s June 26, 2020 decision. 	Ibid. 	In light of that request, the August
1 See, In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Kevin Harriman, Docket No. 50-3/12 (Comm’r decision, Oct.
12, 2012), affirmed, In re Harriman, No. A-1386-12T3 (App. Div. March 12, 2014).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
3
2020 petition was marked “withdrawn”, and the matter was closed by the Office of
Controversies and Disputes. 	Ibid.
On October 29, 2020, the Board again considered Harriman’s April 23, 2020,
application for certification with all the information he submitted with his petition of appeal
to the Commissioner, which included two letters from mental health professionals, as well
as various letters of recommendation and references. 	Id.
On December 10, 2020, after reviewing the additional information provided by
Harriman, the Board found no basis to overturn its initial determination of June 2020, and
issued a decision which again denied Harriman’s application for certification after
revocation. 	Ibid. at pp. 5-6.
On January 15, 2021, Harriman filed a notice of appeal of the Board’s December 10,
2020, decision with the Office of Controversies and Disputes . 	On February 4, 2021, the
Board filed its answer. After submission of the Board’s answer, Harriman filed a brief in
support of his notice of appeal, and the matter was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case, where it was filed on February 23, 2021.
An initial telephone status conference was held on April 7, 2021, and several status
conference calls were held thereafter through July 13, 2023. 	Pre Hearing Orders were
then issued on June 28, 2021, March 31, 2022, June 27, 2022, December 20, 2022, and
April 18, 2023.
An in person hearing was held on August 16, 2023. Request was made to obtain
a hearing transcript and submit post-hearing submissions. On or about October 19, 2023,
the post-hearing summations were submitted. The record closed on January 19, 2024.
ISSUE

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
4
The 	legal 	issue 	is 	whether 	Harriman 	has 	demonstrated 	rehabilitation 	from
unbecoming conduct, incompetence, or other cause for the revocation of his teaching
certificates since October 2015, as required pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Except for the ultimate finding of whether or not Harriman has established sufficient
rehabilitation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9, the facts are largely undisputed. 	The
hearing in this matter was held on August 16, 2023. 	At the hearing, Harriman testified,
and Rani Singh (Singh), Secretary of the Board, testified on behalf of the Board. 	The
following is a summary of their respective testimony, which I FIND as FACT herein:
Testimony of Rani Singh
Singh is the Director of the Office of Certification within the New Jersey Department
of Education, and the Secretary of the Board of Examiners. 	As director of the Office of
Certification, Singh is responsible for all certifications issued to public school educators
in the State. In her role as secretary for the Board, Singh is tasked with ensuring that all
rules, regulations, and policies are met when the Board reviews matters, and must ensure
that there is a quorum at every meeting.
Singh testified that on April 23, 2020, Harriman filed an application for certification
after revocation. She explained that under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9, an individual who has had
any certificate revoked may apply for certification again. 	But in order to be eligible for
new certificates the applicants must meet the requirements set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.9, including making a demonstration that they satisfy the criteria for issuance of the
certificate that are in effect at the time of the application; that at least four years have
passed since the date of the revocation of the certificate(s); and showing evidence
demonstrating 	rehabilitation 	for 	the 	unbecoming 	conduct 	or 	other 	cause 	for 	the
revocation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
5
Singh testified as to the content of Harriman’s application for certification after
revocation. (R-1). Singh testified that Harriman claimed in his application that he meets
all the criteria for issuance of the new certificates and he stated that he does not have a
criminal background; that he continued teaching over the last seven years in two schools;
that he has lost six consecutive coaching positions due to people Googling his name; that
he was harassed, intimidated, and bullied; that no crime was committed; and that there
was no rehabilitation needed because he did not engage in conduct unbecoming of a
teacher. Id.
Singh testified that after reviewing Harriman’s submission, the Board denied
Harriman’s application for certification after revocation on June 26, 2020. 	(R-2). 	Singh
explained that in reaching its decision, the Board found that Harriman failed to provide or
show evidence of rehabilitation for his unbecoming conduct because he continues to deny
the behavior that was found to have occurred and stated in his application that he does
not need rehabilitation.
Singh testified that Harriman then filed a petition with the Commissioner, appealing
the Board’s June 26, 2020 decision. 	(R-3). 	Singh explained that since 	Harriman’s
petition included additional information and new evidence that was not submitted with his
April 23, 2020 application, the Board requested that the matter be remanded back to the
Board to consider the new information. Id. Singh stated that the Commissioner returned
the matter to the Board. 	Singh testified that the additional information Harriman had
provided included an undated letter from Dr. Igor Gefter, a psychiatrist, and a letter from
Dr. A. Nanjiani, dated July 23, 2020, and various letters of recommendation dated from
2013, 2016, and 2018.
Singh testified that after the Board considered these additional documents, on
December 10, 2020, the Board again issued a decision denying Harriman’s application
for certification after revocation. 	In reaching its decision, Singh explained that that the
Board did not give much weight to the letter submitted by Dr. Gefter because it was
undated, and it just referenced a conversation with Harriman and an evaluation that was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
6
done but provided no information or evidence about the nature or results of the evaluation.
With respect to the letter by Dr. Nanjiani, Singh testified that the letter was drafted three
months after Harriman’s initial application and the contents of the letter focused more on
what would be beneficial for Harriman as opposed to addressing the underlying conduct
that led to his certificates being revoked and how he has rehabilitated from that conduct.
Singh further testified that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate evidence
of rehabilitation for the conduct that resulted in the revocation of the applicant’s
certificates. Singh testified that every case is different, and the Board does not specify to
an applicant they “type” of rehabilitation required to demonstrate compliance with the
regulation. T160:25 – T161:1-19.
Testimony of Kevin Harriman
Harriman did not present direct testimony. All of his testimony was in response to
cross-examination questions by the Board. 	Harriman testified that he submitted an
application for certification after revocation (application) dated April 23, 2020 (R-1).
Harriman testified regarding the contents of his application.
Regarding the answer contained in paragraph 2 of the application (R-1), Harriman
read the same into the record:
Yes. Four miserable years have passed since the illegal revocation
took place December 15 th to December 19 th. Luckily none of my two
current principals knew I was revoked during that time or you would
have cost me another two teaching positions. 	They had no reason
to research me, but I did lose six consecutive coaching positions to
date by the school districts who did have to Google my name to
background check a new coach.
[T172:1-172:17]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
7
When asked on cross-examination why he stated in his application that “it was an
illegal revocation?”, Harriman responds:
A. Because it was done by arbitrarily and capricious by Mr. Higgins.
Because if it was don with bias as you treated nobody else the
way you treated me.
Q. Sorry, sir. Just to clarify who is you?
A. You and the Board.
Q. You as in the Board?
A. The board has never treated anybody in past precedent cases
which are listed on line, thousands of decision that I’ve read,
you’ve never treated anybody like that. Okay. So that’s with bias,
that you’re deliberately trying to hurt me.
[171:19-173:6]
Harriman further stated that the Board’s decision is “way out of [its] statute of
limitations;” that they “voted without a quorum;” and that the revocation of his teaching
certificates was a “wrongful revocation without a doubt.” (T173:2-15).
Harriman testified that as part of his application there was no requirement for his
rehabilitation as he has “never done anything unbecoming of a teacher ever,” and that
“[a]ll charges and storylines are fictitious and compulsive lying [sic].” 	(T173:22-25 –
T174:1-9). Regarding this point, Harriman testified:
This is the God’s honest truth. Mr. Sabor [sic] was simply jealous of
the elementary gym teacher. You can’t make this stuff up. He was
the evil one . . . He was removed from his principal position in the
spring of 2018 due to sexual harassment of his female teachers.
Someone called me from Elmwood Park and told me about this, a
teacher. When he went back to Tomko to see how he could get rid
of me back then, Tomko pre-mediated and orchestrated a plan for
he and Mrs. Alison Jackter to harass, intimidate and bully me by
writing me up over frivolous things any time I went to their school.
My third principal, Dominic Silla because I worked for all three
schools at the same time, he refused to get involved in the entire
team by telling Tomko to his face, leave me out of that, I never had
a problem with Kevin. 	Mr. Silla is also my mentor for my masters
degree, so Tomko knew that it would not be able to be justified to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
8
use him, so he gave directives to two of three, Sabor [sic] and Jackter
to do this to me[.]2
[T174:9-25 - T175:1-3].
Harriman responded in the affirmative that he did not engage in “unbecoming
conduct and that there was no rehabilitation needed as a result” and that he still believed
that he did not engage in unbecoming conduct. (175:16-176:5). Finally, in defense of the
Board’s decision that he did not provide the Board with proof of rehabilitation, Harriman
stated that “..I needed to be told what type of rehabilitation needless to say. (T191:4-6).
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The New Jersey Legislature has designated the Board as the body responsible for
the issuance and revocation of appropriate certificates to teach or to administer, as well
as the direction or supervision of the teaching, instruction or educational guidance of
students in public schools. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. A certificate that has been revoked cannot
be reinstated, but an individual may file an application for a new certificate with the Board.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9 (governing applications for certification after revocation), which
provides in part:
(a) A certificate that has been revoked for any of the grounds set
forth in this chapter shall not be reinstated. An individual who
has had a certificate revoked may file an application for a new
certificate with the Board of Examiners.
The Board cannot issue a new certificate to an individual whose certificate(s) has
been revoked unless they meet the requirements set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9. 	See
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9(b) (setting forth the conditions that must be met for issuance of a new
2 In his application for certification after revocation, Harriman states that he was “harassed, intimidated
and bullied by the now Superintendent in the Belleville School District, the notorious Richard D. Tomko,
Gilbert Ave School principal, the late David A. Saper and Gantner Ave School Allison Jackter in Elmwood
Park.” See R-1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
9
certificate). 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9(c) (setting forth the circumstances when the Board
cannot issue a new certificate). 	The most relevant provision herein is N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.9(b)(3), which requires that an applicant provide “evidence demonstrating rehabilitation
for the unbecoming conduct, incompetence, or other cause for the revocation.”
When a petitioner challenges a finding by the Board denying a request for the
issuance of a certificate, the Board’s decision may be reviewed to determine “whether the
decision is consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.” 	Jessica
Walder v. St. Bd. of Exam’rs, Commissioner’s Decision No. 503-14, dated December 29,
2014 (noting that in making this determination, the Commissioner is not mandated to give
deference to her staff); see Jaroslaw Nimczyk v. St. Bd. Of Exam’rs, Comm’r Decision
No. 98-22 (May 16, 2022) (citing Br. of Trust. Of the Passaic Cty. Elks Cerebral Palsy
Cntr. V. Office of Fiscal Account. and Compliance, Comm’r Decision No. 334-14 (Aug.
14, 2014)); see N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1.3(b)(1) (providing that appeals of decisions of the Board
denying issuance of a certificate shall proceed as contested cases in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:3). 	Consequently, a determination is required to determine if the Board’s
decision was legally appropriate. Ibid.
Here, it is Harriman’s burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the Board improperly denied his application for certification after revocation. 	See
McQuilken v. St. Bd. of Exam’rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 8375-11, Initial Decision (Dec. 13,
2011), 	https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu8375-11_1.html, 	adopted
Comm’r (January 27, 2012) (citing Farrar v. St. Bd. of Exam’rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13768-
08, Initial Decision (Sept. 9, 2009), adopted, Comm’r (July 26, 2010) (finding that the
“petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that she is entitled to the endorsement she seeks”)). 	I CONCLUDE that
Harriman has not satisfied this requirement as he cannot carry this burden because he
has not met the requirements needed for the issuance of a certificate under N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.9.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
10
Specifically, the record shows that Harriman has failed to show that he has been
rehabilitated for the unbecoming conduct that led to the revocation of his teaching
certificates, as required under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9(b)(3). 	For example, in his April 23,
2020 application, (R-1) Harriman claimed that he satisfies all criteria for issuance of new
certificates; yet he also stated four years have passed since the “illegal revocation” and
that “there was no rehabilitation needed as [he] NEVER did ANYTHING unbecoming of
a teacher EVER.” See R-1 (emphasis in original); (172:9-25; T173:22-25 – T174:1-9).
Furthermore, Harriman stated that he was harassed, intimidated and bullied by
various personnel from Elmwood Park. Ibid. As a result of Harriman’s responses in his
application, that he did not need to provide evidence of rehabilitation because he did not
feel that he engaged in unbecoming conduct, the Board denied his application for
certification after revocation on June 26, 2020 (R-2). In reaching its decision, the Board
found that Harriman had not provided any proof of rehabilitation and instead continues to
deny the conduct and shift the blame to other coworkers. Ibid. I agree.
There is also the concerning proof provided herein and to the Board that Harriman
has intentionally withheld information from his current and prospective employment of the
revocation of his certificates. 	This conduct is completely opposed to the concept that
Harriman has been rehabilitated, when he admits that he fails to disclose factual
information that his certificates are revoked.
The record shows that after Harriman submitted new information that was not
provided to the Board at the time of its first decision, the Board once again reviewed his
application for certification in light of the additional material (R-3 and R-4), but the Board
ultimately found the additional documentation, including letters from mental health
professionals and other various reference letters, to be inconsistent with the statements
made by Harriman in his April 23, 2020 application (R-4, at p. 5). 	Even if Harriman
believes his certificates were wrongfully revoked, does not demonstrate behavior of
someone that has been rehabilitated.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
11
Harriman’s testimony in this matter further illustrates that he has not accepted
responsibility for his actions, and that he instead continues to place blame on others. For
example, Harriman testified that various personnel from the Elmwood Park district lied
and/or created fictitious storylines. In particular, he testified they were “simply jealous of
the elementary gym teacher,” and that they had “pre-meditated and orchestrated a plan”
to “harass, intimidate, and bully” him by writing him up for “frivolous things.” (T174:9-25
- T175:1-3). Harriman further testified that he believes that his certificates were “illegally
revoked”, without providing proof. ( T172:9-25). 	Harriman still continues to believe that
he has not engaged in conduct unbecoming of a teacher. Simply put, these are not the
statements of someone who has even accepted responsibility for their own actions, let
alone ones consistent with having been rehabilitated.
I CONCLUDE that Harriman has not met the requirements needed for issuance of
a new certificate under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9, as he has continuously failed to acknowledge
that his actions led to the revocation of his teaching certificates, a key component of
rehabilitation. 	In 	addition, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	Harriman’s 	failure 	in 	demonstrating
rehabilitation for the unbecoming conduct is underscored by the fact that he still believes
that his certificates were wrongfully revoked, and he does not believe that he engaged in
conduct unbecoming at all.
Consequently, I CONCLUDE that Harriman has failed to meet his burden to show
by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board improperly denied his application for
certification after revocation under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.9. 	For the forging reasons, I
CONCLUDE that the Board’s decision denying Harriman’s application is AFFIRMED.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the decision by the New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners of December 10, 2020, denying Kevin Harriman’s application
for certification after revocation is AFFIRMED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
12
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.
January 29, 2024
DATE 	JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 29, 2024
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	January 29, 2024
JCM/lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02542-21
13
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner
Rani Singh, Secretary of the Board
For respondent
Kevin Harriman
EXHIBITS
Petitioner
P-4 	Dr. Nanjlani letter
P-5 	Dr. Gefter letter
P-6A 	Kevin Harriman letter
P-6B 	Letter of 5-14-2015
P-7 	Letter to NJDOE
P-8 	Letter to NJDOE
P-10 	Attorney’s answer
P-12 	Letter
Respondent
R-1 	Application 4-23-2020
R-2 	Decision of the Board
R-3 	Application
R-4 	Second Decision of the Board