Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy March Decisions
Docket No. 72-26 (March 2, 2026). While at wrestling practice, an unknown perpetrator accessed A.A.’s locker and damaged a sweatshirt that referenced the recent passing of her father. Although the anti-bullying specialist determined that the conduct met the definition of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB), with “loss of her father” noted as the distinguishing characteristic, the superintendent disagreed. The superintendent also found that the incident was not HIB because there was no identified offender. The board affirmed the superintendent’s determination.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) granted the board’s motion for summary decision, and concluded that the board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The Commissioner of Education (COE) reversed, and found that A.A. was a victim of HIB because: nothing in the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act requires that an offender be identified; the loss of a parent can constitute a distinguishing characteristic; and the “substantial disruption” element can apply to “school activities,” and not just being unavailable for learning during the school day. In this case, and although the district was closed for winter break, the incident affected A.A. at wrestling practice.
Docket No. 90-26 (March 16, 2026). The New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of Student Protection (OSP) determined that petitioner was disqualified from employment in New Jersey public schools based upon a 2010 murder charge, for which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Petitioner appealed, and argued that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 requires a conviction, and he was not convicted of a disqualifying offense.
An ALJ granted OSP’s motion to dismiss, “conclud[ing] that a plain reading of the term ‘conviction’ that excluded an NGRI verdict would lead to an absurd result that was inconsistent with the legislative history of the disqualification statute.”
The COE concurred, confirming that petitioner was permanently disqualified from public school employment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
Docket No. 93-26 (March 16, 2026). Appellant appealed the School Ethics Commission’s (SEC) determination that he violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the School Ethics Act (Act) based upon, among other things, his company’s transaction of business in the district, and his request that the administration send communications to district families about that business.
The COE determined that the SEC’s decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence and affirmed the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and (c), as well as the SEC’s recommended penalty of reprimand.
Docket No. 104-26 (March 25, 2026). Appellant appealed the SEC’s November 26, 2024, determination that he violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when he replied to a text thread, which included a former teacher and a district parent, with the following message: “Did you ever receive a Rice notice … I could accuse the board president or secretary or CSA of malfeasance if you did not receive the notice and they want to discuss you in Exec[utive] Session. ….”
The COE found that the SEC’s determination that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) was supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and that respondent failed to establish that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. With regard to the SEC’s recommended penalty of reprimand, the COE found that the “recommended penalty of reprimand will not be disturbed.”
Docket No. 105-26L (March 25, 2026). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the COE’s January 29, 2026, decision, in which it was determined that he relinquished his tenure rights in the Assistant School Business Administrator position when he voluntarily accepted the position of Board Secretary and, therefore, could not claim – following the elimination of the Board Secretary position – “bumping rights” to the Assistant School Business Administrator position.
Following review and consideration of the submissions, the COE determined that petitioner failed to satisfy the factors set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.15(b)(2) and, consequently, failed to provide a sufficient basis upon which to grant his motion for reconsideration.
Docket No. 106-26R (March 25, 2026). Petitioner challenged the board’s determination that she and her children do not reside in the district. The ALJ dismissed the petition, concluding that the petition was untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after the date of the board’s notice of ineligibility.
The COE concluded that the petition of appeal was not untimely. Although N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2) provides that a parent may contest a board of education’s ineligibility decision within 21 days of the date of the decision, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-8.1(f) provides that a petition can be filed after the 21-day period, but must also be accompanied by a motion for emergent relief pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6. Here, the petition of appeal was filed more than 21 days after the ineligibility notice, but petitioner complied with the regulatory requirement by filing both a petition and a motion for emergent relief. As a result, the petition was not time-barred.
Docket No. 113-26 (March 30, 2026). The State Board of Examiners issued an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) to suspend petitioner’s teaching certificates following his involvement in an altercation at a restaurant during non-work hours. Subsequent to his request, the board denied petitioner’s request for indemnification in connection with the OTSC.
Petitioner appealed the board’s decision, and the ALJ dismissed the claims as untimely and as lacking merit because petitioner’s actions at the restaurant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as is required by N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that the petition was time-barred and also failed to meet the statutory requirements for the indemnification of board employees as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6.
School Ethics Commission
Decisions Adopted On March 24, 2026
Docket No. C56-25. In a “political opinion article” that respondent authored and published in an online newspaper, respondent “criticized” two candidates running for Township Committee, including complainant. Per complainant, respondent’s “political opinion article” “asked the residents to support two [other] candidates” for Township Committee, and he “appeared to leverage his board title and official standing to influence the voters.” According to complainant, respondent also posted the article on his Facebook page entitled, “[Respondent] … Township Board of Education Member.” Based on the substance of his op-ed and social media post, complainant argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (h), and (i).
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act, and also found that there was no factual evidence that respondent’s op-ed and/or posts on his private Facebook account were made in his capacity as a member of the board, or had the appearance of being representative of, or attributable to the board.
Docket No. C70-25. Even though the terms of a shared services agreement (SSA) executed in 2019 indicated that the district would receive $20,000.00 for respondent’s part-time service as a business administrator in another district, the monies to be paid to the district were applied directly to respondent’s salary. Moreover, in several subsequent school years, the SSA was increased from $20,000 to $40,000, and the total increase was consistently applied to respondent’s salary. Because there was no financial benefit to the district from the SSA, complainant argues that respondent breached her “fiduciary duty” to the district because “she knowingly allowed her contract to be set without a cost savings to the [district].” In addition, respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because she used her position to secure financial advantages for herself.
The SEC found that the only timely allegations were those pertaining to the contracts signed for the 2025-2026 school year; complainant failed to demonstrate that respondent used her official position to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment for herself when her salary increased due to the SSA; and the complaint was not frivolous.
Docket No. C71-25. Complainant, the administrative assistant to the Business Administrator (BA), claims that respondent “confronted” her at the board office during business hours, and questioned whether she (complainant) “greeted her.” Per complainant, respondent continued “to berate” her in front of her colleagues and supervisor. In addition, complainant contends that respondent separately “confronted a tenured staff member and directed [her] on how to perform [her] duties.” Complainant argues that respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), (g), (i), and (j).
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act.
Docket No. C75-25. Complainant, the district’s Transportation Coordinator, reported that a bus driver told her (complainant/the district’s Transportation Coordinator) that respondent – a board member – approached him at a sporting event, made a comment about complainant’s “lack [of] communication when it comes to bus delays,” expressed her thoughts on what she believed complainant’s/the transportation department’s work hours should be, and asked the bus driver what complainant does during the day. Complainant met with respondent and board counsel a few months later, and “said she was sorry and by no means was [complainant’s] job in jeopardy,” and that “she signed [complainant’s] new contract,” but “could have voted not to renew” it. During this meeting, respondent reported that “parents talked to her about transportation” issues in the district, and board counsel informed respondent that she (respondent) should refer the parent(s) to complainant. As part of her filing, complainant submitted several exhibits, including e-mails from respondent and/or her spouse sent to complainant expressing concern when the bus did not pick up their child for school on multiple occasions.
The SEC did not find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act, and noted that respondent’s conduct was undertaken in her capacity as a parent who was frustrated with the unreliability of her child’s bus transportation, and not in her capacity as a board member.
Docket No. C79-25. Immediately following the resignation of a board member, respondent/the Board President directed the superintendent to post the vacancy. According to complainants, respondent recruited R.G., “promised” him the seat, and instructed him to “get his fingerprints processed so that he can be sworn in” at the board’s July meeting. Complainants additionally contend that, after a meeting with the superintendent, respondent instructed the superintendent’s assistant to provide him (respondent) with the “fingerprinting instructions,” so he could give them to R.G.
When the board received the applications of interested candidates, R.G.’s was not initially provided; however, after respondent contacted the superintendent, it was located in a spam folder and provided to the board. At the board’s July 28 meeting, two candidates were interviewed, but neither appointed. Respondent then contacted “several [board] members … seeking their availability to hold a special meeting to get” the vacancy filled. When two individuals indicated that they were unavailable, and two others suggested reposting the vacancy, respondent stated: “In the spirit of cooperation and the fact that we are still within the 65 day window of appointing a 9th board member, let’s bring back both candidates for a second interview on August 25th. …. .” According to complainants, respondent never provided the other candidate “with the instructions and details of how to get fingerprinted and cleared for the [b]oard.”
Although complainants asserted that respondent’s conduct N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), (e), and (f), the SEC did not find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act.
Docket No. C80-25. Complainant was formerly employed by the board as a paraprofessional, but “voluntarily resigned” after an “incident” in 2018 which was “classified as ‘Not Established.’” The incident was discussed by the board in executive session but, importantly, respondent D.C. was not on the board (but respondent A.S. was). When complainant applied for a vacancy on the board in 2025, a community member informed her that respondents stated she (complainant) “was not a good person and did not deserve to serve on the [b]oard” because of the incident that occurred in 2018.
Complainant asserted that respondent A.S. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because he shared confidential information with respondent D.C. and a community member, and respondent D.C. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because he disseminated confidential information to the community member that he never should have possessed.
The SEC declined to find probable cause for respondents’ alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
Docket No. C82-25. Respondent volunteers his time at MEF, a non-profit organization “that provides financial support to the school district.” Respondent is also the administrator of a Facebook group which was listed “as a monetary sponsor” to MEF. At a board meeting on August 26, 2025, and in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), respondent “failed to recuse himself when voting to recognize the [MEF].” In addition, respondent “has never abstained from voting on matters pertaining to the MEF before the [b]oard,” and his continued “participation in deliberations and decisions involving the MEF presents a clear conflict of interest . . . as his actions could compromise the independence of his judgment.”
The SEC declined to find probable cause, and declined to find the complaint frivolous.
Docket No. C86-25. On December 16, 2024, the district “entered into a binding Mediation Agreement [(Agreement)], which required the [d]istrict to re-evaluate the [c]omplainant’s child . . . to determine [the child’s] continued eligibility for special education and related services.” Despite this agreement, respondents “failed to ensure compliance with the [A]greement, the law, and the [d]istrict’s own data.” Instead, “under the ultimate authority of” respondent J.B., the superintendent, respondents “unilaterally proceeded with the declassification of [complainant’s child] and terminated [the child’s] special education services.” Complainant maintains this “action was taken despite a formal disagreement from [] [c]omplainant challenging the legal validity of the declassification determination and requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE).” Per complainant, the named respondents, all school district administrators, collectively failed “to enforce the binding legal agreement and uphold the integrity of the evaluation process forms” and, therefore, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), and (d).
The SEC dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Docket No. C90-25. According to complainant, respondent posted on social media using an “alias ‘Elisha Beesha,’” and “made a series of public social media postings in which she disparaged parents and students of [the district] who hold conservative viewpoints.” Specifically, after a parent “urged unity for the sake of students,” respondent stated, “Hard to get along with bigots and racists.” Complainant further provides respondent made the comments “in a public online forum accessible to community members,” the “comments were disparaging toward parents and students based on their political or social viewpoints” and her “actions created the appearance of bias and hostility inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a school board member.” Complainant submitted that respondent’s social media activity violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and (e).
The SEC did not find probable cause for complainant’s allegations, and specifically noted that there was an insufficient nexus between respondent’s social media post/account her board membership.
Docket No. C92-25. After respondent L.F. “moved to repeal policy 5756,” and respondent E.V. seconded the motion, the policy was referred to the board’s policy subcommittee “for detailed analysis.” On March 28, 2025, a board member (unidentified) submitted an OPRA request “seeking records related to [b]oard discussions about this policy.” According to complainant, the named respondents “refused to search their personal devices for responsive text messages and electronic communications” and, instead, resigned. Following their resignations, complainant filed an OPRA request on April 29, 2025, and sought “records related to [r]espondents’ resignations and the [b]oard’s compliance efforts regarding the [first OPRA] [r]equest.” Respondents failed to comply with this request and/or to certify that they did not have any responsive documents.
Based on these facts, complainant argued that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Counts 1-3 because they “willfully refused” to comply with valid OPRA requests, and resigned in a coordinated fashion in order to avoid their statutory duty to uphold applicable laws and regulations, and also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 4 because they “failed to support and protect the [b]oard’s Custodian of Records in the proper performance of her duties by willfully withholding responsive documents to two valid OPRA requests.”
Although the SEC found that the claims were timely filed, it did not find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act, nor find that the complaint was frivolous.
New Public Advisory Opinions
A04-26. A third-term board member advised that, during their second term of office, they retired from their position as a teacher in another school district after nearly 40 years of service. While employed as a teacher, the board member was a member of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA). As a retiree, the board member receives pension benefits from TPAF and PERS. The board member is not a member of the New Jersey Retired Educators Association (NJREA) or the NEA Retired Educators Association. Because of their previous membership in the NJEA and the NEA, and their receipt of pension benefits from the TPAF and the PERS, the board member inquired whether they can be a member of the negotiations committee.
The SEC advised that because of the board member’s recent retirement, the board member “should not be a member of the negotiation[s] committee, for the duration of ‘one full term, which was [their] present term’” (their third term).
A05-26. Board counsel advised that a board member “has been dating a [] teacher in the district,” and the couple is “residing together, are in the process of purchasing a home together, and will be financially interdependent with respect to bank accounts, mortgage payments, and household expenses.” Board counsel inquired whether the relationship between the board member and a district teacher would present a conflict for the board member’s participation in any board committee(s).
Because of the financial relationship/entanglement between the board member and a district teacher, the SEC advised that the board member “should not serve on any of the [board’s] committees while [they] remain[] in a relationship with the teacher and the [b]oard member should abstain from any matters that touch upon the teacher’s employment.”
A06-26. A board member advised as follows: they serve as Board President; they are employed as a full time teacher in another school district, but will be retiring in June 2026 with no plans to join the NJREA; their spouse “has been a substitute staff member” in the district for 18 years; the district “directly engages” substitutes, and does not use an outside agency; the superintendent recommends the list of substitutes to the board; the substitutes are not affiliated with any bargaining unit; substitutes are assigned on “a first reply basis”; and substitutes report to and are managed by the [s]uperintendent, who also serves as a [p]rincipal.”
Based on the questions submitted by the board member, the SEC advised: the substitutes here are district employees; the board member has a conflict regarding any and all matters related to the employment of substitute personnel, including any committees that are linked to the employment of substitutes or their payment, and also conflicted from any matters concerning the superintendent, including the search, hire, contract and evaluation; the board member/Board President cannot choose the members of and/or serve as an ex officio member of any committee that even remotely touches upon or directly relates to their spouse’s employment; and the board member should not participate in, nor be a member of any committees, that are related to the local education association (LEA) for one full term after the date of their retirement.
A07-26. Board counsel informed the SEC that a board member is the Chief of Police for the Township, and that their spouse is a teacher in the district and a member of the LEA’s negotiations committee. Although board counsel reviewed A24-17 and A05-23, they inquired whether there were any “actual conflicts” which preclude this board member from participating in budget matters and/or serving on a Finance Committee.
The SEC advised that, in accordance with A05-23, the board member should not participate in any committees that “remotely touch upon or directly relate to” their spouse’s employment, and agreed with counsel’s legal advice that the board member “should not serve on the Personnel Committee, the Finance Committee and the Negotiations Committees.” Finally, the SEC advised that, because the board member is the Chief of Police, they should not participate in the discussions regarding and/or votes on any matters that are linked to the board member’s employment, including student matters with police involvement and any contractual matter between the board and the Township’s Police Department.
A08-26. Board counsel advised that a board member has a sister who is employed in the district, and is the president of the LEA. In addition, the board member’s “boyfriend/girlfriend” is also employed as a teacher in the district. Although board counsel reviewed A24-17 and A05-23, they inquired whether there are any “actual conflicts” which preclude this board member from participating “in budget matters and/or serving on a Finance Committee.”
The SEC advised that, consistent with A05-23, the board member should not participate in any committees that “remotely touch upon or directly relate to” their sister’s employment. As for which committees, the SEC agreed with board counsel’s legal advice that the board member “should not serve on the Personnel Committee, the Negotiations Committee and/or the Finance Committee.”
*For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for formal legal advice.
