Last week’s article reviewed the “Final Decision” and the three probable cause or “PC Review” decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on November 25, 2025. This week’s article examines half of the 20 advisory opinions that the SEC voted to make public, and next week’s article will consider the remaining 10 advisory opinions.

A.        Public Advisory Opinions

Advisory Opinion A01-25. A board member owns a private business/“franchise” outside of the school district and inquired whether an administrator could be paid by the board member/their franchise to perform data entry work for the “franchise.”

The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the board member could hire the administrator, or whether the administrator could accept the position. Nonetheless, such a relationship “is riddled with potential ethical violations”; has the potential to prejudice the administrator’s independence of judgment; and could present a substantial conflict with the board member’s discharge of their duties.

Advisory Opinion A02-25. In 2023, the superintendent reported their “concerns” about the processing and awarding of a request for proposal which occurred during the subject board member’s previous term of service (2021) to the board and to the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability. The superintendent inquired whether the subject board member’s “status as the subject of [the superintendent’s] whistleblower disclosure” precluded them from participating in matters related to their employment (including issuing Rice notices).

The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the board member can issue a Rice notice to the superintendent as it is a board governance issue. Notwithstanding the board member’s demand for an apology, the board member did not have a per se conflict with matters related to the superintendent’s employment (see also A08-25).

Advisory Opinion A08-25. After the superintendent began their employment in 2023, they identified “concerns” with the way a request for proposals was processed and awarded in 2021. The superintendent reported their concerns to the board, and to the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) in 2023. A board member, who served on the board when the “concerning” contract was awarded, inquired whether, with a new term beginning in 2025, they could participate in matters related to the superintendent.

The SEC advised that there was no evidence that the board member could not exercise independence of judgment or otherwise be objective in matters related to the superintendent’s employment. However, if OPIA initiated an investigation and the board member was a “person of interest related to the investigation,” the board member should then recuse (see also A02-25).

Advisory Opinion A04-25. A board member is employed by the community college as the business coordinator, and is part of the college’s professional staff collective bargaining unit which is represented by the “New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) – National Education Association (NEA).” Board counsel inquired whether the board member can participate in negotiations with the local education association.

Because the community college’s professional staff is represented by the NJEA-NEA, the SEC advised that the board member cannot participate in any aspect of negotiations with the local union until after the memorandum of agreement, including the salary guides and the total compensation package have been attained.

Advisory Opinion A05-25. Seven of the board’s nine members have either an immediate family member or a relative employed in the district. In light of A05-23, the seven conflicted board members are not members of the “Finance, Governance, Negotiations, and/or Instruction & Programming Committees.” Board counsel asked whether the board (1) was limited to having only two non-conflicted members continue to serve on the majority of the board’s committees; (2) can restructure the committee’s roles and responsibilities; and can (3) invoke the doctrine of necessity “to balance the membership of the committees.”

The SEC advised that because there are two non-conflicted board members who can serve on the board’s committees, invocation of the doctrine of necessity was not warranted; the Vice President may choose the members of those committees for which the Board President has a conflict; and the mere presence of the superintendent on a committee is not what presents the conflict. The SEC additionally advised that, because it is a board governance issue beyond its jurisdiction, it cannot opine on whether the board can restructure its committees.

Advisory Opinion A06-25. Board members of a non-operating school district inquired whether they must recuse themselves from the discussions and/or votes to sell or lease district property to an Academy because members of their immediate family and/or relatives previously attended the Academy or worked at the Academy.

The SEC advised that the board members did not have a conflict related to the sale or transfer of the board’s property to the Academy.

Advisory Opinion A07-25. The President and Vice President of the local education association filed an ethics complaint against a board member and two administrators. The board member inquired whether they are conflicted from matters involving the superintendent.

The SEC advised that the board member did not have an automatic conflict related to matters involving the superintendent because the superintendent did not file the ethics complaint. Instead, and because it was the President and Vice President of the local education association who filed the complaint, the board member was prohibited from being involved in all matters related to the local education association (including negotiations) until the ethics complaint was fully adjudicated.

Advisory Opinion A10-25. A board member is employed at an elementary school that is one of four schools that sends its students to the “local regional high school.” The board on which they serve is also a sending district. The board member inquired whether they could apply for a regional curriculum coordinator position that would be utilized by and paid for, pro-rata, by all four sending districts; however, their “employer” would remain as their current elementary school. The board member inquired: (1) whether they are eligible to accept the position and still serve on the board; (2) whether they are ineligible for appointment for a period of six months (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-1.1); and (3) whether they can resign, be unpaid for six months, and then begin to receive compensation for the position (see also A20-25).

The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to address the second or third inquiry. As for the first, because the district for which they serve as a board member would be required to pay a “share of the [regional] position’s compensation,” the board member would violate the Act if they continued to serve on the board after accepting the position.

Advisory Opinion A20-25. A board member serves on a sending-board that is a part of a regional school district (Regional) and applied for a curriculum coordinator position that would be shared by the sending districts in the Regional. The superintendents in the Regional determined that the board member was conflicted from holding the position. The superintendent of the board member’s district relayed this decision to the board member. The superintendent inquired whether the board member could participate in the superintendent’s evaluation process.

The SEC advised that the board member does not have a per se conflict related to the superintendent’s evaluation process just because the superintendent contacted the board member “to explain that [the Regional] could not move forward with [their] application” (see also A10-25).

Advisory Opinion A11-25. Following a failed campaign in 2023, and after being “strongly endorsed” by the local education association following their support of the union’s negotiations position and efforts, the subject board member was elected. Following their election, the subject board member wore a union-created t-shirt (“LOVE [Union]”) to reorganization; attended a union rally; and made a statement at a public meeting criticizing the board’s response time to the union in connection with negotiations. The requestor inquired whether the subject board member may (1) participate in negotiations; (2) wear union clothing or paraphernalia at future board meetings; (3) attend future local education association negotiations rallies; or (4) speak privately about negotiations with union members or advisors.

The SEC advised it had no jurisdiction to address the second or third inquiry. For the remainder of the request, the SEC advised that “supporting the teachers and/or the [union] does not, in and of itself, create a per se conflict of interest” for negotiations; if the subject board member does not agree with the board’s negotiations posture or approach, they are free to vote “no” or to “abstain” from ratifying the contract; and the subject board member can speak with their children’s teachers and/or union members “in general,” but cannot share or disclose any confidential information related to negotiations or otherwise.

B.        Next Week’s Article

In next week’s article, we will examine the remaining advisory opinions that the SEC voted to make public at its meeting on November 25, 2025.

As a reminder, school officials who would like to request an advisory opinion regarding their own or another school official’s prospective conduct may do so through the SEC.

For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for specific legal advice.