Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5323-13T3
02-05-2016
IN THE MATTER OF THE TENURE HEARING OF SABINO VALDES, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY, HUDSON COUNTY.
Sabino Valdes, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Susanne Lavelle argued the cause for respondent Union City Board of Education. Kyle E. Gruber, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Commissioner of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Gruber, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Yannotti and Guadagno. On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Docket No. EDU 3620-01. Sabino Valdes, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Susanne Lavelle argued the cause for respondent Union City Board of Education. Kyle E. Gruber, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Commissioner of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Gruber, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Sabino Valdes appeals from a final decision of the Commissioner of Education, dated June 11, 2014, denying his motion to reopen proceedings which resulted in his removal as a tenured employee of the Union City Board of Education (Board). We affirm.
We briefly summarize the procedural history and pertinent facts. Valdes had been employed by the Board as a plumber since 1994. On April 27, 2000, the Board informed Valdes that it had filed tenure charges against him alleging, among other things, neglect of duties, conduct unbecoming of a public employee, and insubordination. Valdes was informed that he could respond in writing to the charges within fifteen days.
On May 12, 2000, Valdes's attorney submitted a written statement to the Board denying the charges. Counsel was informed that the Board would consider the charges at a meeting to be held on June 13, 2000. The Board met on June 13, 2000, but did not certify the charges to the Commissioner of Education at that time.
On August 2, 2000, the Board again informed Valdes that tenure charges had been filed against him. The charges were the same as the charges filed on April 27, 2000. The Board considered the charges at a meeting held on September 13, 2000, and by a majority vote, certified the charges to the Commissioner.
Efforts to resolve the matter followed and the parties reached a proposed settlement. On September 21, 2000, the Board submitted the certified charges and proposed settlement to the Commissioner. The Commissioner rejected the settlement. Further efforts to resolve the charges failed, and on March 29, 2001, the Board withdrew the proposed settlement.
In April 2001, Valdes answered the charges and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that dismissal of the charges was required because the Board failed to certify the charges filed on April 27, 2000, within forty five days after they were received, as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-13. Valdes maintained the Board could not act upon the charges issued on August 2, 2000, because they were the same as the charges issued on April 27, 2000.
In May 2001, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. On August 9, 2001, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) entered an order denying Valdes's motion to dismiss. In an accompanying letter opinion, the ALJ found that the Board had not acted upon the charges filed on April 27, 2000, and consequently those charges had been dismissed.
The ALJ concluded, however, that the dismissal of the April 27, 2000 charges was without prejudice and the Board was not precluded from filing the charges again in August 2, 2001, which were then properly certified to the Commissioner within the time required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-13. The ALJ found that Valdes has not been prejudiced as a result of the re-filing of the charges.
Thereafter, the ALJ conducted a hearing on the charges and on May 15, 2003, filed an initial decision. The ALJ found that the charges, as amended, had been proven and ordered Valdes's removal. In his decision, the ALJ stated that the incidents that formed the basis for the charges standing alone, or even some incidents in combination with others, might not justify Valdes's removal. The ALJ stated, however, that
when all of [Valdes's] acts are put together, the abuse of sick leave, his insubordinate behavior, his scurrilous written diatribes and his confrontational attitude and demeanor, he so compromised his position as . . . to compel his removal. School employees like Valdes first and foremost are public servants whose performance must be devoted to the efficient carrying out of their assigned duties[.] Self-aggrandizement, belligerence, disdain of authority, and constant verbal and written false charges [constitute] conduct which patently is inimical to the interests of the public school district and its employees, be they administrators, supervisors, teaching staff members or plumbers. They are not permitted to conduct themselves at work in such manner as constantly to interfere with the operations of the district.
Valdes filed exceptions to the ALJ's initial decision, to which the Board filed a response. On June 24, 2003, the Commissioner adopted the ALJ's initial decision and dismissed Valdes from his position as of the date of his decision. Valdes sought review of the Commissioner's decision by the State Board of Education. On August 4, 2004, the State Board affirmed the Commissioner's decision. Valdes filed a motion for reconsideration, which the State Board denied on October 6, 2004.
Valdes then appealed to this court. In his appeal, Valdes argued, among other contentions, that the ALJ erroneously allowed the Board to litigate expired tenure charges. We affirmed the State Board's decision, and rejected Valdes's contention that the charges should have been dismissed because the Board had not acted on the charges filed on April 27, 2000, within the time required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-13. In re Tenure Hearing of Sabino Valdes, No. A-1337-04 (App. Div. Jan. 22, 2007) (slip op. at 5).
Valdes sought review of our judgment by filing a petition for certification in the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Supreme Court denied the petition. In re Tenure Hearing of Valdes, 191 N.J. 317 (2007). Valdes filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition. On July 12, 2007, the Court denied Valdes's motion.
In June 2009, Valdes filed a motion in this court for relief from our judgment affirming the State Board's decision. Among other relief, Valdes sought reinstatement to his tenured position, with back pay and other emoluments, and sanctions for perpetration of an alleged fraud on the court. Valdes argued that the Board had improperly altered the date on the charges to relieve itself of the bar of the statute of limitations; the judgment was void and procured by fraud; and the court had the inherent power to sanction the individuals who committed a fraud on the court. We entered an order dated September 22, 2009, denying the motion.
In April 2014, Valdes filed a motion with the Commissioner seeking to reopen the proceedings. On June 11, 2014, the Commissioner issued his decision denying the motion. The Commissioner determined that Valdes did not seek to reopen the proceedings with "reasonable diligence." The Commissioner also stated that "[t]here has been absolutely no good cause shown necessitating the reopening of this case, which has been thoroughly and exhaustively litigated." This appeal followed.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, effective July 7, 2008, the Commissioner's decisions are considered final agency actions and cannot be appealed to the State Board. --------
On appeal, Valdes argues: (1) the Commissioner is "harboring" evidence that proves his removal was achieved by fraud and illegality; and (2) the Commissioner has inherent power to reopen an adjudication to correct an injustice, prevent fraud, or for some other cause.
We are convinced from our review of the record that Valdes's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following brief comments.
The scope of our review of final decisions of administrative agencies is limited. Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). When reviewing an agency decision, we consider whether: (1) the decision violates express or implied legislative policies; (2) is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (3) in applying the law to the facts, the agency made a determination "that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013) (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).
It is well established that an administrative agency has the inherent power to reconsider or modify its prior decisions. Ruvoldt v. Nolan, 63 N.J. 171, 183 (1973). However, that power "should be invoked only for good cause shown." Duvin v. State of New Jersey, Dep't of Treasury, 76 N.J. 203, 207 (1978). The power "must be exercised reasonably, and [an] application seeking its exercise must be made with reasonable diligence." Ibid. (citation omitted).
Here, the record supports the Commissioner's determination that Valdes failed to seek to reopen the proceedings with reasonable diligence. Valdes did not seek to reopen the matter until April 2014, which was fourteen years after the charges were initially filed, and almost ten years after the State Board rendered the final administrative decision in the case.
Furthermore, the record supports the Commissioner's determination that there was no reason to reopen the matter. As the Commissioner noted, the issue of whether the Board failed to certify the charges filed on April 27, 2000, within the time required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-13, and was therefore precluded from re-filing the charges on August 2, 2000, has been exhaustively litigated.
Valdes argues that his removal was achieved by fraud or illegality. He contends the Board met on June 13, 2000, to discuss the tenure charges that were filed in April 2000, but allowed the statutory period to certify the charges to lapse. According to Valdes, the Board then "rigged" the process to cover up this "illegality" and proceeded with the charges as if the June 13, 2000 meeting had never occurred.
Valdes further asserts that the Department of Education conspired with other agencies and individuals to impede his ability to re-open the case. He contends he made repeated efforts to obtain evidence needed to reveal the "illegality" of the Board's original action in certifying the charges. He claims that in March 2014, he finally obtained the evidence "needed to prove the illegality [of] the original action."
Notwithstanding Valdes's arguments to the contrary, there is nothing in the record to support the contention that the Department conspired with other agencies and individuals to impede Valdes's efforts to reopen the matter. The record also does not support the claim that the Board acted to conceal the June 13, 2000 meeting at which the charges filed in April 2000 were considered. As the Board points out, Valdes's attorney was informed that the meeting would take place on June 13, 2000, and the charges were considered at that time. It is undisputed, however, that the charges were not certified to the Commissioner at that time.
We held that, as a result, the charges were deemed to have been dismissed without prejudice, and the Board was not precluded from filing new charges on August 2, 2000, which were certified to the Commissioner in a timely manner. In re Tenure Hearing of Sabino Valdes, supra, (slip op at 5). Valdes has produced no evidence to alter that conclusion, or support his claim that the decisions on his removal were obtained fraudulently.
In addition, Valdes asserts that the Board acted to conceal the fact that the August 2000 charges were not substantially different from those filed in April 2000. There is, however, no evidence to support that assertion. Indeed, the ALJ's decision of August 9, 2001, which denied Valdes's motion to dismiss, states that the charges filed on August 2, 2000, "exactly tracked the previous charges." Furthermore, our opinion states that the new charges were "identical to the original charges." In re Tenure Hearing of Sabino Valdes, supra, (slip op. at 3).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION