IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATES OF JOSEPH WINKELRIED, NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, 12/16/13, (#443-13A)

1
#443-13A (SBE Decision: http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/examiners/2013/may/1112-131.pdf)
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS DKT. NO. 1112-131
AGENCY DKT NO. 6-6/13A
IN THE MATTER OF THE 	:
REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATES : 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
OF JOSEPH WINKELRIED BY THE 	: 	DECISION
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS. 	:
____________________________________
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, May 23, 2013
For the Respondent-Appellant, Aileen M. O’Driscoll, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Fredrick H. Wu, Deputy
Attorney General (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and the papers filed in connection
with 	appellant 	Joseph 	Winkelreid’s 	appeal 	of 	the 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners’ 	Order 	of
May 23, 2013, 	revoking his 	Teacher of 	Social Studies and 	Student Personnel Services
Certificates. 	On appeal, the appellant maintains that the Board’s decision to revoke his
certificates was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Specifically, the appellant argues that the
record contains no evidence that the Board conducted any analysis or considered the underlying
circumstances concerning the nature of the conduct at issue, other than the fact that the appellant
was convicted for assault by motor vehicle and wandering, and that he consented to a permanent
bar from public employment. 	The appellant further maintains that if he was afforded a hearing
before the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), he would have been given the opportunity to
present testimony and better identify the underlying mitigating circumstances related to his
convictions. 	Therefore, the appellant maintains that the Board’s decision to revoke his

2
certifications should be reversed, or in the alternative, the Commissioner should issue an order
remanding this matter for a full hearing before the OAL.
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. 	Further, the Board’s decision should not be disturbed unless the appellant
demonstrates that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
After full consideration of the record and all submissions, the Commissioner finds
that the record adequately supports the Board’s determination that the appellant engaged in
unbecoming conduct and that the revocation of the appellant’s certificates was the appropriate
penalty. 	It is undisputed that in November 2009 the appellant pled guilty to two counts of
Assault by Motor Vehicle. 	Thereafter – in January 2011 – the appellant entered into a consent
order, wherein he pled guilty to the offense of Wandering1 and agreed to resign from his
teaching position, and be permanently barred from holding public employment in the State of
New Jersey. 	The Board’s characterization of appellant’s behavior as unbecoming conduct
necessitating the removal of his certificates – based upon guilty pleas from two separate
incidents – and the fact that the appellant’s conduct resulted in a ban from all public employment
in the State, is fully consistent with applicable law.
Moreover, the appellant was afforded the necessary due process before his
certificates were revoked. 	Although the matter was not transmitted to the OAL2, the appellant
was given an opportunity to submit a written brief for the Board’s consideration and he also
1 The appellant was originally charged with Conspiracy and Possession of CDS with intent to distribute.
2 The Board exercised its discretion under N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.7 and determined that it was not necessary to transmit
the matter to the OAL because there were no material facts in dispute.

3
appeared before the Board and was able to present evidence on mitigating circumstances in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-9(c). As a result, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and as a result the Commissioner
finds no basis upon which to disturb the decision of the State Board of Examiners.
Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of Examiners is affirmed for the
reasons expressed therein.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: December 16, 2013
Date of Mailing: 	December 16, 2013
3 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36.