Supreme Court Rules on Removal of Board Member

Supreme Court Rules on
Removal of Board Member—Web Extra

A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that a board member’s legal claims against the board over his son’s special education program constituted a conflict of interest that required his removal from office.

In Sea Isle City Board of Education v. Kennedy, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, writing for the court, concluded that the board member’s dispute ran afoul of the law prohibiting a board member from being interested “in any contract with or claim against the board.”

The state Supreme Court’s ruling upheld a 2005 Commissioner of Education decision to remove the board member, William J. Kennedy, which was affirmed on appeals to both the State Board of Education and the Appellate Division.

The board member’s claims for monetary relief were critically important to the court’s decision. The board member wanted the district to pay for services provided by his wife, which he said should have been provided by the district, as well as fees for attorneys and experts. The court found it was incompatible for a board member who had a substantial monetary claim against the district to continue serving on the board.

Yet the court’s ruling does not mean that board members can never advocate on behalf of their children. The court explicitly reassured board members that they should not have to fear the loss of their elected office because they have questioned the appropriateness of their child’s education or addressed disagreements at IEP meetings. Not every due process hearing request will automatically disqualify a board member, as many such requests may be quickly and easily resolved.

Rather, the Commissioner of Education should examine the facts of each case to determine when a conflict over a child’s educational program becomes so substantial that removal from office is required, such as where a board member’s claim is likely to result in “protracted” and “intractable” litigation. Justice LaVecchia also stated the court’s belief that, “where a due process claim includes a request for specific monetary relief, we believe that a line has been crossed and a substantial conflict between a board member and the board can be found to exist.”

The Supreme Court rejected the board member’s argument that that the more recent School Ethics Act, which allows school officials to represent themselves in proceedings concerning their own interests, overrode the conflict-of-interest provisions. The Supreme Court noted that the School Ethics Act and the conflict-of-interest law were not inconsistent with one another. Sometimes one law will apply and sometimes the other will, depending on the circumstances of the case. The court urged the School Ethics Commission and the Commissioner of Education to harmonize their approaches to identifying conflicts of interest.

Finally, the court suggested that the commissioner consider whether a set of guidelines might be developed so that parents of students might better understand the limits imposed on them, should they choose to serve on their local board of education.