Marie Bilik Named Executive Director of NJSBA

Arts Education Improves, Study Finds

Governor Signs Autism Bills

Ethics Commission Decides Cases About Threats, Privileges

Important Workshop Housing Deadline Approaching

Slow Census Response Delays Membership Cards

Meeting Notice: NJSBA Resolutions Subcommittee

Job Opening: Legislative Coordinator/Advocacy Programs

Calendar

Click here for a pdf version of this issue of School Board Notes

The state School Ethics Commission (SEC) issued two rulings over the summer where it found that board members had violated the school ethics laws regarding threats and privileges.

In The Matter of Joseph Atallo, the SEC ruled that a board member violated the Code of Ethics when he made threats against a member of the public during a heated exchange at a board meeting.  The commission determined that threats were private action that could have compromised the Board in violation of the ethics code. 

The SEC recommended a one-year suspension, ruling that threatening a member of the public is “one of the most egregious violations of the public trust that a board member can commit.” Penalties recommended by the ethics commission are not final; they can be rejected, modified or approved by the Commissioner of Education, who makes the actual determination of the case on the administrative level. The commissioner has not yet issued a ruling on this matter.  

In the Matter of David Kanaby, the commission ruled that a board member violated various provisions of the ethics act when an e-mail that he sent berated the superintendent for a personal-leave matter involving the board member’s wife, a teacher in the district. The e-mail, which was also sent to the rest of the board, criticized the superintendent’s handling of the issue.  Further, according to the SEC, the e-mail attempted to influence the superintendent’s decision-making. 

The SEC found the board member used his position to secure unwarranted benefits for his wife; that he acted in an official capacity where he had a personal involvement that created a benefit to a member of his immediate family; that he failed to confine his board action to policy, planning and appraisal; and that he failed to support the superintendent in the proper performance of her duties. 

The SEC noted that, while natural for a husband to want to support his wife, such support cannot involve his official capacity as board member. The commission recommended a three-month suspension. However, the Commissioner of Education—who decides whether to accept or modify the SEC’s recommended penalty—reduced the suspension to one month because the e-mail had been sent after the leave-time issues were resolved, and the board member would not receive any personal gain.