[brief] But more importantly: [...]’s contention that the State Board was estopped from suspending his certificate after the arbitrator imposed a three-month suspension in the tenure case fails to appreciate the statutory division of authority governing an individual’s tenured employment and their teaching certificate.  Under the Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey Act (TEACHNJ), N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117, et seq., final decisions in tenure matters are made by an arbitrator, not the Commissioner.  *Sanjuan v. Sch. Dist. of W.N.Y.*, ___ N.J. ___, 2024 WL 537907, at *6 (Feb. 12, 2024).  The Commissioner’s role is limited to determining whether the tenure charges filed by the local school district are “‘sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person charged[.]’”  *Id.* at *5 (citing N.J.S.A. § 18A:6-16).  If the Commissioner believes the charges are sufficient, then he transfers the matter to arbitration.  *Id.* (citing N.J.S.A. § 18A:6-16).  The arbitrator then has the authority to make factual determinations and impose a penalty, if warranted, including but not limited to a demotion, suspension, termination or something else.  *Sanjuan*, 2024 WL 537907, at *9.  Significantly, the arbitrator’s decision “shall be final and binding and may not be appealable to the commissioner or the State Board of Education. ”  N.J.S.A. § 18A:6-17.1(e).  Instead, the arbitrator’s decision is only subject to judicial review and enforcement.  *Id.*  Nothing in TEACHNJ, or its predecessor, the Tenure Employees Hearing Act.  *L. 1967, c. 271,* permits an arbitrator to impose a penalty impacting a teaching certificate.  Instead, and as explained above, the Legislature firmly committed the function of regulating teaching certificates to the State Board.  *See*  N.J.S.A. § 18A:6-38.  Under that statute, the State Board may issue or revoke certifications pursuant to “rules and regulations” it prescribes.  *Id.*  Consistent with this enabling language, the State Board adopted N.J.A.C. § 6A:9B-3.2, which permits it to issue, revoke or suspend teaching certificates.  Unlike an arbitrator’s decision, the State Board’s decision is appealable to the Commissioner.  N.J.A.C. § 6A:9B-4.18.  Thus, the statutory division of responsibility is clear: under TEACHNJ, the arbitrator can impose discipline—be it termination, suspension, a reduction in salary, or some other penalty—upon a teacher related to his position of *employment* with the local school district.  In contrast, the State Board can determine whether suspending or revoking a staff member’s teaching certificate is appropriate—this could have an impact on the individual’s *employability* with any school district, or it may have no impact at all if the individual is employed in a position that does not require a teaching certificate.  The Legislature’s drawing of these lines ensures that each decisionmaker—*i.e.*, the arbitrator and the State Board—discharge their duties so as to ensure “a thorough and efficient system of public education,” N.J. CONST., art. VIII, § IV, ¶ 1.  To be sure, subjecting license holders to different penalties by separate entities with different spheres of authority is not uncommon.  For example, a prosecutor may be suspended or terminated by the county prosecutor’s office for concealing evidence.  Based on that same conduct, the New Jersey Supreme Court may opt to impose a penalty aimed at the attorney’s license.  Nobody would blink an eye under those circumstances.  And the same should be true here.  The discipline imposed by the arbitrator does not preempt the State Board’s authority to suspend [...]’s teaching certificate.