Vicki Plowden v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 1/23/26 (#24-26)

24-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 15686-25
Agency Dkt. No. 228-7/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Vicki Plowden,
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 concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner failed
to file the petition of appeal within the time period required by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). Additionally, the
Commissioner finds that petitioner has not presented any exceptional circumstances that would justify a
waiver of the 90-day filing limitation. Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 590-91 (1993).
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 23, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 27, 2026
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
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 228-7/25
VICKI PLOWDEN,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF
EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
Vicki Plowden, petitioner, pro se
David Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: November 11, 2025 	Decided: December 4, 2025
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Vicki Plowden was issued a Substance Abuse Awareness Coordinator Certificate
of Eligibility with Advanced Standing (CEAS) from the New Jersey Department of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
2
Education, State Board of Examiners (respondent). 	Subsequently, the respondent filed
an order to show cause (OTSC) seeking to revoke this CEAS because she failed to
disclose unbecoming conduct from 2020. While the OTSC was pending, Plowden applied
for a Student Assistance Coordinator Certificate and was blocked for unbecoming
conduct. Must the board issue her certificate? No. A board acting within the scope of its
authority is “entitled to a presumption of correctness unless it’s arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.” Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2020, Plowden filed applications for School Psychologist and School
Social Worker Certificates. On February 28, 2020, respondent blocked her applications
for providing false information on the application. 	On October 4, 2020, Plowden was
charged with simple assault and possession of a weapon.
On February 25, 2021, Plowden applied for a Substance Abuse Awareness
Coordinator Certificate. 	Plowden did not disclose the 2020 blocked application or the
criminal charges. Respondent issued the CEAS. On May 19, 2022, respondent filed an
OTSC to revoke the CEAS because Plowden failed to disclose the 2020 blocked
application and the criminal charges.
On July 26, 2023, while the OTSC was pending, Plowden applied for a Student
Assistance Coordinator Certificate. 	On December 8, 2023, respondent vacated the
OTSC, and Plowden’s 2021 CEAS remained valid.
On January 19, 2024, respondent blocked Plowden’s July 26, 2023, application for
a Student Assistance Coordinate Certificate for unbecoming conduct. Specifically, on the
2023 application, Plowden stated that she had never had an education or professional
certificate revoked, suspended, invalidated or denied for cause in New Jersey.
On January 26, 2024, Plowden sent a letter to Governor Murphy seeking his
assistance in her blocked application. On May 23, 2025, Plowden requested instructions

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
3
on how to appeal the blocked application. 	On June 6, 2025, respondent provided
Plowden with the process for an appeal.
On July 29, 2025, Plowden filed her appeal. On September 9, 2025, the case was
transmitted from the Department of Education to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
for a hearing as a contested case under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1
to -13. On September 2, 2025, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer
because her appeal was untimely and must be dismissed as a matter of law. On October
1, 2025, I held a status conference, and Plowden advised that she had retained an
attorney, Kenneth Brown. I requested that Brown file a notice of appearance and respond
to respondent’s motion by November 14, 2025. 	On October 9, 2025, Plowden advised
that Brown will not be representing her in this case, she will be representing herself, and
she will provide her response to the motion by November 14, 2025. 	On November 11,
2025, Plowden filed her response, and on that date, I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
In 2020, Plowden filed an application with the respondent for School Psychologist
and School Social Worker Certificates. Her application included a Verification of Program
Completion (VOPC) form. On that form, Plowden stated that she completed her Master
of Social Work program at Kean University and that the university recommended her for
the 	certificates. 	Respondent contacted Kean 	University 	and determined that 	the
information 	on 	the 	VOPC 	was 	untrue. 	(R-A.) 	Respondent 	blocked 	Plowden’s
applications. Plowden did not file an appeal.
On October 4, 2020, Plowden was charged with simple assault and possession of
a weapon. (R-B.) On February 25, 2021, Plowden applied for the CEAS. Plowden did
not disclose the pending criminal charges or that she had filed previous applications for
certificates in 2020 that were blocked. Respondent issued the CEAS.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
4
On May 19, 2022, respondent issued an OTSC to revoke the CEAS because
Plowden failed to disclose the pending criminal charges and the previously blocked
applications. 	(R-B.) 	Plowden did not respond to the OTSC, and a second notice was
sent. 	(P-9.) 	On September 26, 2022, Plowden responded to the second notice of the
pending OTSC. She stated that she did not provide false information on her VOPC. (P-8.)
She said that she was misled by Kean University, and ultimately, she transferred to
Montclair State University, where she completed a Student Assistance Coordinator
Certification. 	She stated that the criminal charges were dropped and expunged. 	(P-7.)
Because the charges were expunged, she was advised by her attorney that she did not
need to disclose the criminal charges.
On July 26, 2023, while the OTSC was pending, Plowden applied for a standard
Student Assistance Coordinator 	Certificate 	from 	respondent. 	On 	this 	application,
Plowden again did not disclose that she had prior blocked applications or criminal charges
filed against her. In addition, she failed to disclose that respondent had issued an OTSC
for her CEAS. The OTSC stated that Plowden answered “no” to the question: “Have you
ever had an education or other professional certificate, license, or credential revoked,
suspended, invalidated or denied for cause in New Jersey or any other state or
jurisdiction?” Respondent determined that her response to the question was unbecoming
conduct sufficient to block her application. (R-C.)
On August 20, 2023, Plowden sent a letter to Governor Murphy. (P-3.) A copy of
the letter was not sent to the respondent. In her letter to the Governor, Plowden admitted
that she was charged criminally and that the charges were eventually dropped and
expunged. She stated that she responded to the questions as advised by her attorney.
She stated that any wrong answers to the questions were honest mistakes. 	She
requested the Governor’s assistance in her OTSC.
On September 21, 2023, respondent blocked her application. (R-C.) However, on
December 8, 2023, respondent vacated the OTSC, and her CEAS remained valid (P-6),
and her July 26, 2023, application for a Student Assistance Coordinator Certificate
remained pending. Respondent reviewed her 2023 application. Based on the information
provided in the 2023 application, her responses to the questions on the application, the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
5
prior blocked application, the criminal charges, and the OTSC, respondent blocked
Plowden’s 2023 application for a standard Student Assistance Coordinator Certificate.
On January 26, 2024, Plowden sent a letter to the Governor requesting an appeal.
(P-4.) 	In this letter, Plowden stated that she read the questions wrong, that she did not
understand the question, and that it was all a mistake. 	She stated that she would not
have denied something that she knew to be true. She stated that she knew the state had
access to her file, and she would therefore not lie. Plowden did not send this letter to the
respondent.
On 	May 	23, 	2025, 	Plowden 	sent 	a 	letter 	to 	the 	respondent 	asking 	for
reconsideration of her blocked application, stating that her lack of candor was a mistake.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The central issue is whether the respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted
or whether Plowden is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to show that the respondent acted
arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably.
Summary decision “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). This rule is substantially like the summary judgment rule embodied
in the N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield,
17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). All inferences of doubt are drawn against the party filing the motion
and in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. 	Id. at 75. 	The judge’s
function is to determine whether there are genuine issues of fact to be adjudicated. Brill
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Having read the briefs and certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, I
CONCLUDE that no issues of material fact exist and that the case is ripe for summary
decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
6
Timeliness of Appeal
All petitions for appeal of a board of education decision must be filed no later than
the ninetieth day from receipt of the notice of a final action from a district board of
education that is the subject of a contested case. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). This limitation for
the resolution of disputes serves both the litigants and the district by affording petitioners
the fair opportunity to present their case and the board to defend it. 	Kaprow v. Bd. of
Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 587 (1993).
On January 19, 2024, Plowden was notified that her 2023 application was blocked.
On January 26, 2024, Plowden sent a letter to the Governor to appeal this denial.
Plowden did not send this letter to the respondent. 	Plowden did not initiate any other
contact with respondent. Plowden’s only action from January 19, 2024, to May 23, 2025,
was to send a letter to the Governor. 	More than a year had passed since she received
the respondent’s January 19, 2024, letter, and therefore, her May 23, 2025, appeal is
untimely. 	Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the petition was not timely filed and must be
DISMISSED.
Dismissal as a Matter of Law
The Commissioner must ascertain whether the decision made by the State Board
of Examiners is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. 	N.J.A.C.
6A:4-4.1. The Board of Examiners can block a certificate to a candidate who meets the
requirements if it determines, based on the record before it, that the candidate is not
suitable for employment as a teaching staff member in public schools. 	N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.4.
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision
is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless there is an
affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or
induced by improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288,
294 (App. Div. 1960). Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action is not
arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration,” and the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
7
commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage
Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973).
Here, even if the petition was deemed timely, Plowden’s failure to be candid with
the respondent cannot be ignored. 	Her 2020 application was blocked by the board
because her VOPC contained false statements. 	Immediately following her blocked
application, she was charged with criminal conduct. 	She did not file an appeal for her
2020 blocked application. Instead, months later she applied for and was granted a CEAS.
Respondent issued an OTSC seeking to revoke the CEAS. 	In the OTSC, respondent
stated with specificity that they wanted to revoke her CEAS because she failed to disclose
her 2020 blocked application and criminal charges. 	Ultimately, the respondent vacated
the OTSC, and her CEAS remained in good standing. 	While the OTSC was pending,
Plowden applied for another certificate. 	At the time of her 2023 application, she knew
that her applications were being scrutinized for lack of candor. She also knew that there
was an OTSC and the specific reasons for the OTSC. 	Further, she wrote to the
respondent explaining the reasons for her answers on the VOPC, the criminal charges,
the expungement and the reason she denied having criminal charges. 	She was very
cognizant that her applications were being scrutinized for a lack of candor. Knowing this,
she applied for a certificate and still failed to disclose her prior blocked application, the
criminal charges and the OTSC. She again stated that it was a mistake and that she did
not understand the questions on the application. 	Perhaps the first time it could be a
mistake or a lack of understanding. 	However, once it was fully clarified for her in the
OTSC, it can no longer be a mistake or a lack of understanding. Plowden blatantly failed
to be completely candid with the respondent.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the respondent’s decision
to block Plowden’s 2023 application was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and
the appeal must be DISMISSED.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer is GRANTED,
and the petition is DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
8
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. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
December 4, 2025
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	December 4, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	December 4, 2025

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15686-25
9
APPENDIX
Moving papers for petitioner:
The State response, dated November 11, 2025
Moving papers for respondent:
Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer, dated September 2, 2025
Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-1 	Letter from the respondent to petitioner, dated July 15, 2025
P-2 	Letter from the respondent to petitioner, dated June 6, 2025
P-3 	Letter from petitioner to Gov. Murphy, dated August 20, 2023
P-4 	Letter from petitioner to Gov. Murphy, dated January 26, 2024
P-5 	Letter from petitioner to respondent, dated June 24, 2025
P-6 	Letter from respondent to Attorney Brown, dated December 13, 2023
P-7 	Expungement History for petitioner
P-8 	Letter from petitioner to respondent, dated September 26, 2022
P-9 	Second Notice of OTSC to petitioner, dated September 22, 2022
For respondent:
R-A 	Board Decision IMO Vicki Plowden Docket 1920-157, dated March 3, 2020
R-B 	Order to Show Cause IMO Vicki Plowden Docket No. 1920-157, dated May
19, 2022
R-C 	Board Decision IMO Vicki Plowden Docket No. 1920-157, dated January
19, 2024
R-D 	Letter from Plowden to respondent, dated May 23, 2025
R-E 	Letter from respondent to Plowden, dated June 6, 2025
R-F 	Letter from Plowden to respondent, dated June 24, 2025
R-G 	Letter from respondent to Plowden, dated July 15, 2025