Terrell Gilkey v. Board of Trustees of the Queen City Academy Charter School, Union County, 10/10/2024, (#384-24)

384-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Terrell Gilkey,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the Queen City Academy
Charter School, Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the decision of respondent, Board of Trustees of the Queen City Academy Charter
School (Board), denying him streamline tenure under N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2. The Board informed petitioner by
letter dated March 26, 2024 that he would not be recommended for streamline tenure and that his
employment would be terminated on May 30, 2024—about a month before the end of the 2023-2024
academic year. 	Petitioner asserted, inter alia, that he was employed by the Board for more than the
required five consecutive full academic years and therefore had already obtained streamline tenure when
the Board terminated him. 	The Board filed a motion to dismiss which was converted to a motion for
summary decision. Petitioner opposed the motion.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue, and the matter is ripe for summary
decision; the acquisition of streamline tenure for charter school employees is governed by N.J.A.C. 6A:11-
6.2, which provides “[a]ll teaching staff members, … shall acquire streamline tenure in a charter school after
five consecutive full academic years of effective employment…”; petitioner began his employment with the
Board in January 2019, in the middle of the 2018-2019 academic year, and thereafter only worked for the
Board for four consecutive full academic years, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. The
ALJ concluded that petitioner was not employed for five consecutive academic years with respondent from
school year 2018-2019 through 2022-2023, as required under N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, and therefore did not
acquire streamline tenure. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and
dismissed petitioner’s appeal.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that petitioner did not acquire streamline tenure
because he was only employed for part of the 2018-2019 academic year, and for part of 2023-2024
academic year; as such, he could not have acquired streamline tenure prior to his termination on May 30,
2024. 	In so deciding, the Commissioner found petitioner’s novel “semester theory” of acquisition of
streamline tenure to be without merit. Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision was granted,
and 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.

384-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06842-24
Agency Dkt. No. 112-4/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Terrell Gilkey,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the Queen City Academy
Charter School, Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by petitioner and by respondent Board of Trustees (Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.4, and the Board’s reply to petitioner’s exceptions, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner challenges the Board’s decision to deny him streamline tenure pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:11-6.2 on grounds that he was not employed by the Board for five consecutive full academic years.
That regulation states, in relevant part:
All teaching staff members . . . shall acquire streamline tenure in a
charter school after five consecutive full academic years of effective
employment as determined by the Department-approved educator
evaluation system established by each charter school and in
accordance 	with 	the 	charter 	school’s 	uniform 	policies 	and
procedures.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a).]
The relevant facts are uncontested. 	Petitioner began his employment with the Board in
January 2019, in the middle of the 2018-2019 academic year. Thereafter, he worked for the Board

2
for four consecutive full academic years: 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. Via
letter dated March 26, 2024, the Board informed petitioner that he would not be recommended for
tenure and that his employment would be terminated on May 30, 2024—about a month before the
end of the 2023-2024 academic year.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
appropriately treated as a motion for summary decision. K.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Kinnelon,
Commissioner Decision No. 315-08 at 4 (July 23, 2008). Petitioner cross-moved for summary decision.
The ALJ granted the Board’s motion and dismissed the petition upon concluding that petitioner was
not employed for five consecutive full academic years, as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, and
therefore did not acquire streamline tenure.
In his exceptions, petitioner disputes the ALJ’s legal conclusion that he did not acquire
streamline tenure. He argues, as he did below, that because employment for 10 semesters is the
functional equivalent of employment for five full consecutive academic years, and he was employed
by the Board for more than 10 semesters, he achieved streamline tenure status. In response, the
Board argues that petitioner’s semester theory is unsupported by the regulation’s plain language and
regulatory history. The Board contends that had the Commissioner wanted eligibility for streamline
tenure to be measured in semesters, the Commissioner would have stated so in the regulation.1
1 Additionally, the Board takes exception to the ALJ’s factual finding that petitioner’s employment was
“effective” as the record lacks evidence to support such a finding. 	The Board also maintains that
petitioner’s effectiveness is immaterial as he did not qualify for streamline tenure in the first instance
because he was not employed by the Board for five consecutive full academic years. Because the parties
did not present evidence to the ALJ regarding petitioner’s “effective employment,” the Commissioner
agrees with the Board that the ALJ’s finding is unsupported by the record and rejects it. Accordingly, the
Commissioner makes no finding herein as to whether petitioner’s employment was effective or not
effective.

3
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner is ineligible for
streamline tenure because he was not employed by the Board for five consecutive full academic years
as is required by N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2. Regulations are interpreted in the same manner as statutes,
meaning that the paramount goal of determining the drafter’s intent is achieved by studying the
regulation’s plain language. L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist., 238 N.J. 547, 558 (2019). One must
not “presume that the drafter intended a meaning other than” that expressed by the regulation’s
plain language. U.S. Bank v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187, 199 (2012). Moreover, when interpreting statutes
or regulations governing the same subject matter, they should be interpreted harmoniously. L.R.,
238 N.J. at 558.
By way of background, Title 18A instructs that charter school employees acquire streamline
tenure “pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the commissioner . . . .” N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e). In
re Susp. of Teaching Cert. of Van Pelt, 414 N.J. Super. 440, 449 (App. Div. 2010). Those guidelines
appear in Title 6A, Chapter 11, Subchapter 6 of the Administrative Code. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a)
requires teaching staff members to be employed for “five consecutive full academic years” to acquire
streamline tenure. 	Notably, the phrase “academic year” has a specific meaning in the public
education context. Although not defined in Title 6A, Chapter 11, N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 defines “academic
year” as “the period between the time school opens in any school district or under any board of
education after the general summer vacation until the next succeeding summer vacation.”
The Commissioner finds that the plain language of N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a) is clear and
unambiguous and should be interpreted as written. Applying the definition of “academic year” found
at N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 to the facts at issue, it is undisputed that petitioner worked for the Board for four
consecutive full academic years: 	2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. 	Because
petitioner was only employed for part of academic year 2018-2019, and for part of academic year

4
2023-2024, he could not have acquired streamline tenure prior to his termination on May 30, 2024.
Petitioner’s novel semester theory of acquisition of streamline tenure is neither supported by the
regulation’s plain language, the regulatory history, or case law. The Commissioner is not permitted
to disregard the current regulation’s plain meaning to align it with petitioner’s unique circumstances.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition
of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 10, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 11, 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.

NEW JERSEY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISON
TERREL GILKEY, 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 112-4/24
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE QUEEN
CITY ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL,
UNION COUNTY
Respondent
_____________________________________
Sanford R. Oxfeld, Esq., for petitioner, (Oxfeld Cohen, P.C., attorneys)
Lawrence M. Teijido, Esq., for respondent, (Antonelli, Kantor, Rivera, attorneys)
Record Closed: August 9, 2024 	Decided: September 11, 2024
BEFORE JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Terrel Gilkey, appeals the decision of respondent, Board of Trustees of
the Queen City Academy Charter School, denying him streamline tenure under N.J.A.C.
6A:11-6.2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 24, 2024, petitioner, Terrel Gilkey, (petitioner) filed a Petition of Appeal
with the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education (Commissioner). The
Petition of Appeal challenged the decision of respondent, Board of Trustees of the Queen
City Academy Charter School, Union County (respondent), denying petitioner “streamline
tenure.”
Specifically, the Petition of Appeal states the following claim and relief sought:
1) Respondent 	did 	not 	comply 	with 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:11-6.2 	in
denying 	petitioner 	tenure 	under 	the 	streamline 	tenure
provision 	for 	Charter 	Schools, 	as 	petitioner 	has 	been
employed 	by 	respondent 	for 	over 	five 	consecutive 	full
academic years, and thus has acquired tenure.
2) Any 	attempt 	by 	respondent 	to 	terminate 	petitioner’s
employment without complying with the procedures set forth
at N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2 is null and void and ultra vires as a
matter of law.
3) Respondent’s action in terminating him is motivated solely,
not by any problem in his teaching performance or any other
legitimate reason, but due his being the duly elected President
of the Education Association at the School. 1
4) Respondent’s actions are violative of the PERC Act, and an
Unfair Practice Charge is being filed at PERC concomitant
with the filing of this Petition.
5) Petitioner requests that the Commissioner direct that he be
rehired by the respondent forthwith, with tenure, and that he
be 	awarded 	back 	pay 	and 	all 	other 	emoluments 	of
employment for any time he has been wrongfully without pay.
Petitioner also requests any other and further relief which the
Commissioner deems just and equitable.
1 The allegations contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition of Appeal will not be addressed herein,
as petitioner states that he has filed an Unfair Practice Charge with PERC.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
3
On May 9, 2024, respondent filed a Notice of Motion to Dismiss with the
Commissioner, as allowed by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5 and N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. 	Prior to ruling
on respondent’s motion for dismissal, on May 10, 2024, the Commissioner transmitted
this matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case. Respondent’s
Notice of Motion to Dismiss originally filed with the Commissioner was converted to a
motion for summary decision under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 	As a result of the same, on July
3, 2024, respondent filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
On July 11, 2024, petitioner filed his opposition to respondent's motion, and a
cross-motion for summary decision under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 	On August 8, 2024,
respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s opposition and cross-motion for summary decision.
On August 9, 2024, the record was closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following facts are derived from the motion pleadings submitted herein, which
are not in dispute and are therefore deemed FACT herein.
Petitioner began employment as a teacher with respondent on January 29, 2019,
mid-way through the academic year of 2018-2019, and for the full following academic
years: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. 	By letter dated March 26, 2024,
respondent notified petitioner that he would not be recommended for tenure and that his
last day of work would be May 30, 2024, which was petitioner’s last day of employment
with respondent. Petitioner provided effective employment during his time of employment
as teacher with respondent.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent argues that petitioner has not acquired streamline tenure because he
has 	not 	been 	employed 	by 	respondent 	for 	five 	full 	consecutive 	academic 	years.
Respondent cites to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, which states that the acquisition of streamline
tenure for charter school employees is regulated as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
4
(a) All teaching staff members, janitors, and secretaries shall
acquire 	streamline 	tenure 	in 	a 	charter 	school 	after 	five
consecutive full academic years of effective employment as
determined by the Department-approved educator evaluation
system established by each charter school and in accordance
with the charter school's uniform policies and procedures.
N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2 expressly requires "five consecutive full academic years" of
employment to acquire streamline tenure. Respondent posits that the Petition of Appeal
affirms that petitioner worked four full academic years, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and
2022-23, and one-half an academic year commencing January 29, 2019. Consequently,
respondent argues, petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2,
which 	provides 	that 	streamline 	tenure 	in 	a 	charter 	school 	is 	acquired 	“after 	five
consecutive full academic years of effective employment”. Respondent requests that the
Petition of Appeal be dismissed.
Petitioner’s principal argument is that N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2 does not specifically
dictate “how” the five consecutive full academic years are achieved. Petitioner avers that
respondent erroneously states there is “only one manner” to achieve the time requirement
under the regulations that is necessary to acquire streamline tenure in proclaiming that
petitioner failed to complete the time requirement because he began his employment half-
way through the school year in 2019. Petitioner offers an alternative example on how to
compute the streamline tenure by arguing that five academic years are the “functional
equivalent of ten semesters”. 	Therefore, petitioner states the he has satisfied the
streamline tenure requirements because he was employed for eleven consecutive
semesters (January 29, 2019 through May 30, 2023), which is more than the ten
semesters required for five consecutive academic.
In its reply respondent provides an explanation of the legislative history concerning
N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, and in so doing, argues that petitioner’s “attempt to insert imaginary
language” into N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2 by advocating for an interpretation of the regulation is
simply unsupported by the “clear and unambiguous regulatory text.” Respondent further
argues 	that 	petitioner’s 	attempt 	to 	read 	language 	referencing 	the 	completion 	of
“semesters,” instead of the “five consecutive full academic years of effective employment”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
5
contained in N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, is unsupported by the legislative history and actual
language of said regulation.
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all substantive issues in a
contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion for summary decision shall be served
with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. Ibid. "The decision sought may
be rendered if the papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits,
if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).
As set forth more fully below, respondent’s motion for summary decision and
petitioner’s cross- motion for summary decision establish no genuine issue of any material
fact exists as to respondent’s decision to deny petitioner tenure and terminate him on May
30, 2024. This matter is therefore ripe for summary decision.
The acquisition of streamline tenure for charter school employees is governed by
N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, as 	it 	provides 	“[a]ll 	teaching staff members, 	… 	shall 	acquire
streamline tenure in a charter school alter five consecutive full academic years of effective
employment…” 	Respondent presents a discussion of the legislative history of N.J.A.C.
6A:11-6.2, which will be adopted herein.
The record reveals that petitioner was hired on January 29, 2019, and was
terminated on May 30, 2023. 	Respondent argues that the 2018-2019 academic year
does not count for purposes of acquiring streamline tenure because petitioner was not
employed for a "full academic year.” 2 	Thereafter, petitioner was employed with
respondent for full academic years in 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. 	As for
petitioner 	providing 	“effective 	employment” 	during 	his 	term 	of 	employment 	with
respondent, the record reflects that there were no negative evaluations of petitioner, as
respondent did not present any evidence to the same, and respondent renewed
petitioner’s term of employment for the years at issue.
2 Petitioner presents no pleadings or argument disputing that he was not employed for a full academic year
in 2018-2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
6
For the reasons stated herein, I CONCLUDE that respondent’s motion for
summary decision and petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision present no
material issue of fact and this matter is ripe for summary decision under N.J.A.C. 1:1-
12.5(a). 	I further CONCLUDE that petitioner was not employed for five consecutive
academic years with 	respondent from school year 2018-2019 through 2022-2023, as
required under N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2, and therefore did not acquire streamline tenure under
said regulation. 	Consequently, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s Petition of Appeal is
dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED
under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a), and that petitioner’s Petition of Appeal is DISMISSED.
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.
September 11, 2024
DATE 	JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	September 11, 2024
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	September 11, 2024
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06842-24
7
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
None
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
Letter brief
For Respondent:
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision, Letter Brief, and Reply Brief