In the Matter of the Teaching Certificates of Randi Drogin, State Board of Examiners, 4/29/2024, (#172-24) (State Board of Examiners Appeal)

172-24
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 1920-117
OAL Dkt. No. EDE 00599-20
Agency Dkt. No. 12-11/23A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of
Randi Drogin, State Board of Examiners,
New Jersey Department of Education.
Order of Suspension by the State Board of Examiners, dated September 21, 2023
For the Respondent-Appellant, Sanford Oxfeld, Esq. and Samuel Wenocur, Esq.
(Oxfeld Cohen)
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Sydney Finkelstein and
Sadia Ahsanuddin, Deputy Attorneys General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record, hearing transcripts, and papers filed in
connection with Randi Drogin’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board),
dated September 21, 2023, suspending her Teacher of Art Certificate of Eligibility, Teacher of Art
Standard Certificate, and Supervisor Certificate for a period of six months.
On December 13, 2019, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause regarding the
suspension of appellant’s certificates, which she opposed. Following a contested hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that while employed at Bayonne during the 2018-2019
school year, appellant involved herself in the personal lives of her students and gave them advice
on personal matters; expressed suicidal thoughts to students, faculty, and staff; and had

2
conversations with students about her own mental health issues. Additionally, the ALJ found
that appellant pried into the subjects of one student’s mental health and sexuality, which
ultimately resulted in a no-contact agreement implemented by school officials between
appellant and that student. The ALJ also found that after one of appellant’s students broke up
with his girlfriend, who then threatened suicide, appellant offered personal advice to the student
instead of reporting the incident to the district to ensure that the student received help.
When analyzing whether appellant’s conduct warranted a suspension of her certificates,
the ALJ considered that appellant suffered from mental and emotional stressors during the 2018-
2019 school year that likely contributed to her conduct, and further found that her mental health
issues were being improperly treated during that time. The ALJ reasoned that appellant did not
intend to harm or negatively affect her students, but rather involved herself too deeply into their
personal lives. In the end, the ALJ concluded that the Board failed to show, by a preponderance
of credible evidence, that appellant’s certificates should be suspended.
Upon considering appellant’s exceptions and the Board’s reply thereto, the Board
adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, determined that those facts constituted unbecoming conduct,
and imposed a six-month suspension of appellant’s certificates. The Board considered, as did the
ALJ, that appellant was suffering from mental health issues when the unbecoming conduct in
Bayonne occurred. However, the Board disagreed with the ALJ that this negated or excused her
unbecoming conduct. Instead, the Board considered appellant’s mental health issues as a
mitigating factor when determining that a six-month suspension was an appropriate penalty.
On appeal, appellant maintains that no action should be taken against her certificates.
Initially, she asserts that the Board should have dismissed the exceptions filed by the Deputy

3
Attorney General (DAG) on procedural grounds under N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4(b)(1). In addition,
appellant contends that the Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because:
(1) the Board did not afford proper deference to the ALJ’s Initial Decision, as required under
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10; (2) the ALJ’s factual findings do not support the Board’s determination of
unbecoming conduct; and (3) mitigating factors, including appellant’s lack of intent to cause harm
and misdiagnosis of her mental health condition during the 2018-19 school year, support
dismissal of the Order to Show Cause rather than a suspension of appellant’s certificates.
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.”
Initially, the record reflects that appellant received due process throughout the
proceedings, and she does not contend otherwise. Next, the Commissioner finds that the
sufficient credible evidence in the record supports the Board’s determination that a six-month
suspension of appellant’s certificates is warranted given the nature and extent of her proven
unbecoming conduct. Notably, appellant does not dispute the ALJ’s factual findings regarding
the inappropriate interactions that occurred between her, her students, and staff members

4
during the 2018-2019 school year. Rather, she disputes the legal characterization of said conduct
as unbecoming conduct sufficient to warrant suspension of her certificates.
“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). A finding of unbecoming conduct “may be based merely upon the violation
of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye
as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct.” Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J.
at 14 (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)).
It is well-established that “[t]eachers . . . 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.” In re
Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. Teachers “hold positions demanding public trust, and in such
positions they teach, inform, and mold habits and attitudes, and influence the opinion of their
pupils.” In re Tordo, 1974 S.L.D. 97, 98-99. They are held to an especially “high standard of
conduct because of the influence they exercise over the students.” State Bd. of Exam’rs v.
Charlton, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDE) 18, 21.
Appellant repeatedly failed to exercise the self-restraint required of a teacher when she
made inappropriate disclosures to students regarding her own personal life, and inappropriately
pried into her students’ personal lives. “The line between teacher and friend should be rigorously
enforced.” In re Certificates of Zantow, OAL Dkt. No. EDE 459-07, Agency Dkt. No. 0607-126,

5
Initial Decision at 22 (Feb. 29, 2008), State Bd. of Exam’rs Order of Suspension at 5 (July 28, 2008).
Appellant crossed that line. Her sincere desire to help her students with personal issues does not
excuse her conduct. By failing to exercise the self-restraint required of an educator on several
occasions during the 2018-2019 school year and exercising poor judgment in her interaction with
students, appellant committed unbecoming conduct.
Turning to appellant’s contentions on appeal, her argument regarding the exceptions filed
by the DAG lacks merit. The DAG’s exceptions comported with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4(b)(1), as they
sufficiently specified in the first paragraph that exception was taken to the ALJ’s legal conclusion
that appellant’s proven conduct neither constituted unbecoming conduct nor warranted any
penalty against her certificates.
Furthermore, contrary to appellant’s contention, the Board did not violate
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10 when it adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and credibility determinations but
disagreed with the ALJ’s legal conclusions. Per N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c), the ALJ’s decision is “[a]
recommended report and decision which contains recommended findings of fact and conclusions
of law,” and the ALJ’s legal conclusions may be rejected by the agency so long as the agency
“state[s] clearly the reasons for doing so.” Here, the Board’s decision adequately explained why
it disagreed with the ALJ’s legal conclusions and instead decided that the facts as found by the
ALJ supported a finding of unbecoming conduct and suspension of appellant’s certificates. The
Legislature granted the Board, not the ALJ, with the authority to revoke or suspend an educator’s
certificates. Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., ____ N.J. Super. ____ (App. Div. Mar. 28, 2024)
(slip op. at 5-7) (citing N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 and N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4(a)).

6
Moreover, appellant’s claim that her lack of intent to harm her students should eliminate
the need for the suspension of her certificates is unsupported by law. Nothing in the controlling
statutes, regulations, or relevant case law supports the conclusion that an intent to harm
students must be proven before the Board may suspend or revoke certificates. See Morison, slip
op. at 6 (“[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, or
other just cause.’” (quoting N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4(a))).
In addition, the Board appropriately considered the fact that appellant’s mental health
issues contributed to her unbecoming conduct when imposing a six-month suspension of her
certificates instead of a more severe sanction. In other cases involving teachers who made
inappropriate comments to students, the Board has imposed a one-year suspension. See, e.g.,
In re Certificates of Zantow, Agency Dkt. No. 0607-126, State Bd. of Exam’rs Order of Suspension
at 5 (July 28, 2008) (imposing one-year suspension of certificates when teacher made
inappropriate comments to students); In re Certificates of Skerbetz, Agency Dkt. No. 0405-315,
State Bd. of Exam’rs Order of Suspension at 5-6 (Mar. 2, 2007) (imposing one-year suspension of
certificates when teacher engaged in inappropriate conversations with students).
As for the cases cited by appellant in her briefs, they are readily distinguishable from the
present matter. None of them support the conclusion that any aspect of the Board’s decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The fact that other individuals achieved dismissal
of the Board’s Order to Show Cause under entirely different circumstances is neither persuasive
nor dispositive. For instance, In the Matter of the Certificates of Ralph Schiavo, Agency Dkt. No.
0304-289, State Board of Examiners Order of Dismissal (May 10, 2006), involved an isolated

7
incident wherein a teacher accidentally bumped heads with a student and made a single
inappropriate comment for which he promptly apologized. In the Matter of the Certificate of
Sandra Kearney, Agency Dkt. No. 0304-106, State Board of Examiners Order of Dismissal
(Sept. 25, 2003), involved an isolated incident wherein a teacher accidentally hit a student in the
face after she experienced an injury and reacted to the pain by swinging her arm. In the Matter
of the Certificates of V.R., Agency Dkt. No. 0304-193, State Board of Examiners Order of Dismissal
(Dec. 2, 2009), involved an isolated incident wherein a teacher, who was taking pain medication
for an acute injury, accidentally injured a student’s hand in the classroom door.
The facts in Schiavo, Kearney, and V.R. bear no resemblance to what occurred here.
Appellant’s proven conduct in this case was not accidental. Because the Board’s decision is
supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and appellant has failed to establish that it was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, the Commissioner has no grounds to disturb the decision.
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of Examiners suspending appellant’s
certificates for six months is affirmed.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 1, 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 DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
AGENCY REF. NO. 1920-117
IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATE(S)
OF RANDI DROGIN.
______________________________________
Sydney Finkelstein and Sadia Ahsanuddin, Deputy Attorneys General, for
petitioner State Board of Examiners (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General
of New Jersey, attorney)
Samuel Wenocur, Esq., for respondent Randi Drogin (Oxfeld Cohen, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 26, 2023 Decided: May 31, 2023
BEFORE JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, New Jersey State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of
Education, Office of Licensure and Credentials, (Board) seeks Revocation or Suspension
of the professional certificates of respondent Randi Drogin (Drogin) due to her alleged
conduct while employed by the Bayonne Public School District (District). Drogin holds a
Teacher of Art certificate of eligibility, a Teacher of Art certificate, and a Supervisor
certificate.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed an Order to Show Cause seeking a suspension of respondent Randi
Drogin’s credentials based on alleged unbecoming conduct occurring when Drogin was
employed by the District. Respondent provided an answer to the Order to Show Cause
on December 27, 2019. The matter was transmitted to the OAL on January 13, 2020,
and heard by the undersigned on May 19, 20, and 26, 2022, and December 16, 2022.
Courtesy copies of the closing briefs were received by the undersigned via e-mail on
March 24, 2023. On April 5, 2023, the undersigned received notice from the Attorney
General’s office that the matter had been transferred to a new deputy attorney general.
Physical copies of the closing briefs along with all attachments were received by the
undersigned on April 26, 2023, at which point the record was closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Testimony
Kenneth Kopacz
Kenneth Kopacz (Kopacz) has been employed by the Bayonne Board of Education
as the assistant superintendent of personnel for over seven years. Kopacz was aware of
respondent, as he handled an investigation she filed against her direct supervisor,
Timothy Craig. Kopacz completed a memo to the superintendent of schools documenting
his investigation, all concerns, his findings, and the responsive actions taken. See P-1;
P-2. Kopacz determined that “Ms. Drogin did complain about her old assignment and the
work load, so there was no issue there, there was no issue that Ms. Drogin was being
mistreated by anyone at Bayonne Board of Education. And, there was no finding of any
violation of the Healthy Workplace Environment which was Policy 3351.”
Kopacz also determined through his investigation that respondent’s allegations of
retaliation by sending her for a psychiatric evaluation were unfounded, and that the chief
medical inspector determined that the psychiatric evaluation was required. Kopacz
testified that respondent’s relationship with her direct supervisor was “strained after her

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
3
change of assignment, which, to be clear, was not a change out of the Art Department, it
was just a change of classes.”
Kopacz was also made aware of Drogin after a harassment, intimidation, and
bullying (HIB) complaint was filed against her. Though he was not involved in the
investigation, he reported all information to the Board following receipt of the HIB report.
It was determined that “Ms. Drogin was going to be moved out of the homeroom . . . so
she would have no contact with those children in that homeroom.”
When asked about the tenure charges against respondent, Kopacz recalled that
he was involved in the charges’ preparation and provided testimony for those charges.
When asked about Drogin indicating that she did not want a specific student in her
classroom, Kopacz testified that it was inappropriate for respondent to request that a
certain student be removed just because she allegedly had issues with the student’s
sibling in a prior class.
Concerns regarding respondent’s behavior resulted in Kopacz having a meeting
with respondent to discuss issues such as Drogin’s classroom-management skills, her
handling of behavior issues, her having conversations with students related to her
personal matters, inappropriate use of social media, and discussing other staff members
with students.
Kopacz further testified that based on Drogin’s inappropriate behavior, tenure
charges were contemplated, but they were never formally filed due to Drogin’s
resignation. Kopacz further noted that, in the past, there have been instances where
teaching staff have had tenure charges filed against them even if there had not been any
previous discipline in their employment histories. I find the witness to have testified
credibly.
Timothy Craig
Timothy Craig (Craig) is employed by the District as the curriculum director of fine
and performing arts and business education, a position he has held for twelve years.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
4
Craig testified to his responsibilities and his professional relationship with respondent, as
her supervisor. He said that during his time as Drogin’s supervisor, he changed her
teaching schedule and assignments, noting that respondent expressed that she was
overwhelmed and stressed. Craig changed her schedule to Art 1, testifying that he
“recognized the toll it might have been taking physically, she seemed tired, she seemed
stressed out at the time.” His observations led him to modify Drogin’s schedule. He noted
that Drogin seemed to be in favor of the schedule change at the time, though he
subsequently received an objection from respondent regarding the change. Craig also
stated that a teacher’s thoughts and suggestions are taken into consideration when
changing their schedule.
Craig further testified that after speaking with Kenneth Kopacz, he was instructed
to have a meeting with Drogin and the principal of Bayonne High School, Richard
Baccarella, regarding respondent’s alleged inappropriate behavior. Craig stated that the
meeting was set up because both students and colleagues of Drogin had complained that
there were occasions where Drogin discussed topics of a personal nature in the
classroom, along with instances of interactions between Drogin and students that might
be considered argumentative or hostile.
Craig also asserted that the decision to send respondent for a psychiatric
evaluation was not his decision and had nothing to do with him, despite respondent’s
allegations otherwise.
Christina Casais
Christina Casais (Casais) has been a special education teacher for the Bayonne
Board of Education for over twenty-seven years. She was a colleague of Drogin at the
Bayonne Board of Education. Casais filed a HIB complaint against Drogin on behalf of
her daughter, who was a student at Bayonne High School. The complaint was related to
an email Casais received from one of her daughter’s classmates, informing her that
Drogin had held Casais’ daughter after homeroom and asked her explicit questions about
her sexuality. Casais further testified that the classmate’s email indicated that Drogin
asked Casais’ daughter about her mental health and general welfare.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
5
After receiving the email from the student, Casais forwarded all information to the
principal and assistant superintendent, who was the head of human resources, in order
to begin a HIB complaint. An investigation ensued, but the complaint was ultimately
dismissed.
On March 27, 2019, Casais received a letter indicating that the District was unable
to substantiate, upon further investigation, that her child was the target of HIB. See P-6.
Casais appealed this finding, and included in the appeal evidence in the form of letters
from three of her daughter’s friends, who wrote about other similar incidents. An
additional HIB investigation was initiated based on the newly submitted information.
Casais concluded her testimony by noting her personal concerns regarding
Drogin’s behavior. She stated that, “to this day [her child] does not know that this [the
HIB investigation] was started because of her sexuality and her mental health being
questioned by a colleague [Drogin].”
Kathy Bingham
Kathy Bingham (Bingham) was employed by the Bayonne Board of Education as
the assistant principal for fifteen years, ending in July 2022. She is currently retired.
Bingham testified regarding her responsibilities as assistant principal. She also noted
that she was aware of Drogin during her tenure there, and that Drogin’s classroom was
around the corner from her office at Bayonne High School. Bingham testified that Drogin
would frequently come into her office to discuss various issues that would come up.
Bingham further testified that students had, at times, come to her with concerns regarding
Drogin, and had, at times, complained about her.
Specifically, Bingham recalled an incident that Drogin relayed to her wherein a
male student informed Drogin that he had broken up with his girlfriend and that she had
threatened to kill herself. Drogin essentially told the boy that if something happened to
the girl, it would be his fault. Upon hearing this, Bingham reiterated to Drogin that she
must refrain from giving such personal advice and should not so involve herself in the

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
6
personal lives of students. Bingham noted that, while it is acceptable to discuss certain
issues with a student seeking advice, Drogin must “draw a line” somewhere, and that
when a conversation escalates to a certain point such as this, Drogin must send the
student to professionals who are trained to handle such situations. Following this
incident, Bingham typed up an incident report and sent it to Principal Baccarella. See P-
7.
In regard to the HIB investigations against respondent, Bingham did not head up
the investigations, but did sit in and take notes during different interviews. Bingham was
involved in creating and executing a no-contact agreement between Casais’ daughter
and Drogin. See P-8. Bingham testified that this type of agreement is created “if the
student has expressed any kind of discomfort or intimidation or harassment.” She further
noted that this agreement was the first one she ever executed between a student and a
staff member.
Bingham continued to testify that there had been previous incidents where she had
advised Drogin to not get too involved in the personal lives of the students. While
Bingham felt that Drogin’s heart was in the right place when interacting with students in
such a manner, Bingham affirmed, nonetheless, that Drogin’s conduct in the cited
instances was inappropriate. I find the witness to have testified credibly.
Renae Bush
Renae Bush (Bush) has worked for the Bayonne Board of Education as the director
of student personnel services for the past eight years. She is also trained as the HIB
coordinator. Bush testified regarding her responsibilities in both of her roles with the
Board. As the HIB coordinator, Bush is responsible for overseeing all cases that are
conducted by the anti-bullying specialists, and she is also responsible for training new
staff regarding HIB. At times she is asked to conduct HIB investigations against teachers,
and she testified regarding how HIB investigations are conducted at the District.
Bush is additionally responsible for issuing letters to alleged HIB offenders, like the
letter issued to Drogin on March 12, 2019. P-9. She testified that once the alleged

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
7
offender is notified, an investigation begins. Then, the union representative becomes
involved and represents the alleged offender during the investigation. Interviews are then
conducted. In this investigation, Mr. Kopacz requested that Bush interview all of the
students in respondent’s homeroom, twenty-eight in all. Bush interviewed the four
students who were the alleged targets, Ms. Drogin, and the remaining students in the
homeroom. I find the witness to have testified credibly.
Richard Baccarella
Richard Baccarella (Baccarella) has been the principal of Bayonne High School
for the past twenty years. Baccarella testified regarding his duties and responsibilities in
that role. He also testified regarding his interactions with Drogin. Baccarella stated that
respondent had sought him out on multiple occasions to discuss various concerns that
she had, and he noted that he was also her mentor. Baccarella indicated that the year
respondent got tenured there were certain incidences involving her performance that
caught his attention. On one occasion, the vice principal and some concerned students
came into Baccarella’s office to complain about inappropriate comments that were made
by Drogin during homeroom. Baccarella met with Drogin about these ongoing issues.
He invited her to his office, where Vice Principal Bingham and the director of music and
art were present. He spoke to her about the issues raised, and Drogin denied all alleged
inappropriate behavior. Following the meeting, Baccarella recommended that
respondent go home for the day.
Baccarella was not directly involved in the HIB investigations against respondent,
but he does sign off on all HIB investigations, including the ones conducted against
respondent. The findings of the HIB investigation included unprofessional behavior.
Baccarella recalled that corrective action included removal from her homeroom, as well
as the no-contact agreement. Baccarella further testified that in his twenty years with the
school, he never before saw a no-contact agreement executed against a teacher.
Baccarella also testified to his reasoning for recommending that Drogin undergo a
psychiatric examination, noting that he made the recommendation for Drogin’s own
mental health and stability, as well as for the stress that some students were experiencing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
8
He stated that after his interview with Drogin, other faculty members came forward,
complaining that Drogin was making comments such as, “When I leave here each day I
just think about wrapping my car around a pole,” and she would say inappropriate things
to faculty members. Respondent needed medical clearance to come back to work
following her psychiatric evaluation.
During the course of all of these incidents involving respondent, Baccarella
documented everything, although he was not sure what it would lead to at the time. He
stated, “if the behavior that we were trying to modify by relieving her of her homeroom, by
having her see a doctor for counseling, if the behavior would not change then it would be
my responsibility to recommend to my superior, which is the assistant superintendent in
charge of the school and in charge of personnel, that we’re not being very successful in
monitoring her and altering her behavior.” He noted that after her removal from the
homeroom, Drogin was still exhibiting signs of being overwhelmed, even with the support
the District had offered. Baccarella testified that, unlike Drogin, other teachers were able
to successfully complete their hours of administrative programing while still handling a
class load.
Baccarella testified that it did not matter whether the behavior occurred in Drogin’s
homeroom or other classes, as such inappropriate behavior is never acceptable. Any
good-faith concerns regarding students expressed by Drogin do not negate the use of
improper protocol or inappropriate behavior when handling student situations. I find the
witness to have testified credibly.
Dr. Ruby Kapadia
Dr. Ruby Kapadia (Kapadia) testified on behalf of respondent. She was admitted
both as a fact witness and as an expert in family medicine and general-practice medicine.
Kapadia works and owns her own medical practice in Saddle Brook. She is board certified
in family medicine, and has been the school physician for the Manchester Board of
Education for the past six years. She is licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey and
New York. She provides primary care for patients and prescribes medication. She is not
a psychologist or psychiatrist. When asked about her expertise in mental health, Kapadia

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
9
reported that she is Suboxone licensed, which requires specialized training for the
Addiction Board. Although she has completed medical research in various areas, none
of her research experience is based in psychology or mental-health research, only
toxicology.
As the Manchester school physician she is required to give physical evaluations to
all prospective employees. She evaluated Drogin after Drogin resigned from Bayonne.
Kapadia saw respondent for a pre-employment physical in June 2019. Respondent
reported heart palpitations, depression, and anxiety, for which she takes medication,
including Prozac. Drogin reported that she was not optimally performing, and was dealing
with agitation at home with her boyfriend.
Kapadia also conducted a mood screen on respondent, who tested positive for
bipolar disorder, which led Kapadia to send her to Dr. Siddiqui, a psychiatrist, for a
consultation and diagnosis. The finding was substantiated, so respondent was put on a
mood stabilizer.
Regarding Drogin’s mental-health issues, corresponding medications, and how
they may have contributed to her behavior while employed at Bayonne, Kapadia testified
as follows: “So I think this is what had happened to Randi, she had gone to her
psychiatrist, had reported that she was feeling down, was placed on Prozac . . . then there
was exacerbation, she was diagnosed with anxiety attacks and the Xanax was brought
on board, and then something happened at school and she went back to there and he
cleared her saying she had no suicidal ideation and she is good and she can go back and
return to work.” Tr. 4 at 18:2–10.
Kapadia continued her medical relationship with Drogin even after the pre-
employment physical. Kapadia has been seeing Drogin once a month since their first
meeting in 2019.
Kapadia has approved respondent to be employed in Manchester following her
resignation from Bayonne. Kapadia reported that Drogin was experiencing agitation at
home, which contributed to her overall mental-health issues and manifested in her not

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
10
optimally performing while at work in Bayonne High School. Kapadia testified that she
believes the conduct alleged in the Bayonne charges would not happen today because
Drogin is currently receiving proper medical treatment. Kapadia further testified, based
on her medical expertise, that there is currently no reason why Drogin could not
successfully continue her teaching career, and she believes Drogin should absolutely
keep her licenses and continue to teach. Kapadia added that she believes Drogin is
stable and should remain on her current treatment regimen.
On cross-examination, Kapadia admitted that she was not treating Drogin as a
patient in 2017 and 2018, and was in no way present in Drogin’s life during the time in
question while Drogin was at Bayonne. I find the witness to have testified credibly.
Randi Drogin
Respondent Randi Drogin is the holder of a Teacher of Art certificate of eligibility,
a Teacher of Art certificate, and a Supervisor certificate. Drogin began her career at
Bayonne as a permanent substitute, becoming a full-time teacher with Bayonne in the
2014–2015 school year.
Drogin testified that in September 2018 she asked Bayonne to take her out of her
homeroom assignment because she was feeling overwhelmed. At that time Drogin was
taking two graduate-school classes and working on getting principal credentials.
Bayonne, however, rejected Drogin’s request. Around this same time, Drogin also asked
Bayonne to remove a student assigned to one of her classes. Drogin was concerned
about this student because his identical twin brother had physically threatened Drogin
during the 2017–2018 school year, and she was aware that the brothers liked to “switch
classes,” meaning one would pretend to be the other and attend the other’s class. The
District denied Drogin’s request to move the student out of the class.
On cross-examination, Drogin testified that she had not seen many of the
documents presented during the Board’s case. Respondent did admit that a student had
made an allegation of HIB against her, and that she had signed a no-contact agreement

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
11
as part of that investigation. See P-8. Respondent testified that she did not believe the
HIB investigations were considered any type of disciplinary action.
When directed to the tenure charges, Drogin did admit to being asked to go with
EMTs after becoming upset about certain job duties. See P-4. Drogin also confirmed
that the student she was looking to have removed from her classroom had never made
threatening remarks towards her, nor had the student exhibited other concerning
behavior. See P-4. Drogin also confirmed that she was notified by the school that she
was being investigated as an alleged perpetrator of HIB and that she was interviewed
regarding said investigation and corresponding incidents. I find the witness to have
testified credibly.
Findings of Fact
After reviewing the testimony and evidence presented, and assessing the
credibility of each witness, I FIND the following to be the facts of the case:
Drogin was employed by the District during the 2018–2019 school year. While
employed there she engaged in certain questionable activity, such as involving herself in
and furnishing advice regarding the personal lives of students; expressing suicidal
thoughts to students, faculty, and staff; and engaging in conversations with students
regarding inappropriate subject matters, such as her own mental-health issues. These
inappropriate acts had, at times, manifested in Drogin becoming distraught and having to
abruptly go home early from her post at the school. One instance, wherein Drogin pried
into a student’s mental health and sexuality, caused a HIB investigation to be initiated by
the student’s mother, though no HIB violation was ultimately found or substantiated. The
aforementioned acts caused the District to draft tenure charges against her, though the
charges were never formally filed. The aforementioned acts also form the basis of the
Order to Show Cause.
During her first four years as a full-time teacher in Bayonne, Drogin never received
any write-ups or disciplinary letters, up until and including the 2017–2018 school year.
Bayonne had the ability to non-renew Drogin at the end of the 2017–2018 school year

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
12
(before she had tenure), but it decided to renew her for the following school year.
Accordingly, Drogin earned tenure status in Bayonne after the 2017–2018 school year.
Based on the medical testimony presented, I FIND that Drogin had been suffering
from mental and emotional stressors during the 2018–2019 school year that likely
contributed to some of the conduct for which she was admonished at the time and
ultimately led to the Order to Show Cause and appeal. I further FIND, based on the
medical testimony presented, that these issues were being improperly treated and/or
addressed during the period of time in question. I further FIND, based on the medical
testimony, that Drogin’s mental health is currently being suitably treated.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The central issue in this case is whether Drogin exhibited unbecoming conduct
while employed by the District, and, if so, whether said conduct warrants suspension or
revocation of her certificates. The burden rests on the State to prove its case. In re Polk,
90 N.J. 550, 560 (1982). The State must demonstrate its case by a “fair preponderance
of the evidence.” Id. at 569. Meeting this burden requires establishing a reasonable
probability of the fact alleged and a reliable belief in the truth of the stated hypothesis.
State Bd. of Exam’rs v. Ferreira, 2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 313 at *80–81 (July 5, 2005)
(citing Loew v. Union Beach, 56 N.J. Super. 93, 104 (App. Div. 1959)), adopted, 2005
N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1227 (Sep’t 22, 2005), aff’d, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 639 (April 5,
2006).
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-3.2(a) states in pertinent part:
(a) Upon review of certified scholastic records,
documented experience, and/or examinations, the Board of
Examiners shall:
1. Issue appropriate certificates to teach or to
administer, direct, or supervise, the teaching,
instruction, or educational guidance of students in
public schools and all other certificates as the Board of
Examiners is authorized to issue by law;

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
13
2. Revoke or suspend certificates issued, pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4; and
3. Refuse to issue a certificate under appropriate
circumstances as set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.1.
Thus, the State agency here is vested with the authority to issue, revoke, and/or suspend
certificates. The proposed suspension/revocation of respondent’s certificates is
predicated upon alleged conduct unbecoming. See N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4(a), which states
in pertinent part:
(a) The 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, or other just cause.
Unbecoming conduct must be determined on a case-by-case basis. When examining
and evaluating a teacher’s alleged conduct for disciplinary purposes, a wide range of
conduct, both in and out of the classroom, is subject to scrutiny.
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 the performance of their job duties. 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). “[C]hildren are entitled to a
supportive and nurturing classroom environment in which to develop their intellectual
capacities and bolster their self-esteem. Adolescents are especially vulnerable to the
influences of their teachers, who serve as role models and help to shape how youngsters
actually view themselves. Constant negativity and insensitivity in dealing with students is
a serious deficiency which constitutes conduct unbecoming a teacher.” In re Tenure
Hearing of Johnston, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 439, 443 (citing In re Tenure Hearing of
Gilbert, 1982 S.L.D. 274, 326).

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
14
It appears that Drogin acted, at times, overly sensitive to her students’ needs, and
possibly intervened in certain students’ personal lives and expressed her thoughts,
concerns, and advice where they, arguably, did not belong. The greatest manifestation
of this was in a HIB complaint drafted against Drogin, which was ultimately dismissed, but
did result in a “no-contact” agreement drafted by the District. While such a scenario may
be cause for concern, it appears the underlying intent or purpose of Drogin’s interaction
with the student was not to cause harm or negatively affect the student; rather, it appears
that this was another example of Drogin pushing too far into a student’s personal life in
an effort to provide advice and support.
A similar situation occurred with the scenario wherein one of Drogin’s students
broke up with his girlfriend, who then threatened suicide. While proper protocols would
have required that the situation be referred to a District office that handles such issues,
Drogin chose to instead provide personal advice and counseling to the student.
While Drogin’s actions did not have the beneficial effects on the students that
Drogin may have been seeking, I CONCLUDE that there is no evidence to show that her
interactions with these students were intended to malign or in any way harm the students.
While said conduct, along with associated outbursts and erratic behavior, may tend to
show that Drogin was unable to control her emotions at times, medical testimony showed
that Drogin was experiencing an ongoing mental-health crisis during the time in question,
which likely affected her actions. Drogin has subsequently sought treatment for these
issues, and her treating physician has testified credibly, and I have FOUND, that said
issues are no longer cause for concern.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the Board has failed to show by a
preponderance of the credible evidence that respondent Randi Drogin’s certificates
should be suspended or revoked.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
15
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the District’s Order to Show Cause be DENIED; it is
further ORDERED that respondent Randi Drogin’s certificates remain intact.
I hereby FILE my initial decision with the STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS for
consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the STATE
BOARD OF EXAMINERS, which by law is authorized to make a final decision in this
matter. If the State Board of Examiners 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 SECRETARY OF THE
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, 100 Riverview Plaza, 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.
May 31, 2023
DATE JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 5/31/23
Date Mailed to Parties: 5/31/23
id

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
16
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
Kenneth Kopacz
Timothy Craig
Christina Casais
Kathy Bingham
Renae Bush
Richard Baccarella
For Respondent:
Dr. Ruby Kapadia
Randi Drogin
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE
For Petitioner:
P-1 December 5, 2018, Memo on investigation and findings of retaliation
complaint
P-2 December 10, 2018, letter to R. Drogin re: conclusion of investigation of
retaliation complaint
P-3 March 12, 2019, email re: second HIB claim
P-4 May 2019 Tenure Charges
P-5 September 20, 2018, email
P-6 March 27, 2019, letter regarding HIB finding
P-7 January 11, 2019, memo
P-8 February 14, 2019, no-contact agreement
P-9 March 12, 2019, letter to R. Drogin
P-10 HIB Written Report (September 2018–February 2019 incidents)

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 00599-20
17
P-11 March 20, 2019, email
P-12 October 19, 2018, letter
P-13 HIB Report—incident of December 15, 2018
P-14 February 11, 2019, memo/ attached notes re: 2/8/19 meeting
P-15 April 1, 2019, incident notes
P-16 May 6, 2019, letter informing Drogin of tenure charges
P-17 Board of Examiners Order to Show Cause
For Respondent:
R-1 CV of Dr. Ruby Kapadia
R-2 Medical Report of Randi Drogin, dated 6/17/21
R-10 Medical Note, dated 12/8/17
R-12 Medical Note, dated 10/19/18
R-14 Settlement Agreement and General Release
****The nonsequential numbering of exhibits reflects the fact that numerous pre-marked
exhibits were neither identified nor offered into evidence.