Commissioner of Education

Noteworthy July Decisions

Docket No. 348-25 (July 11, 2025). P.H., a seventh-grade student, called a male student a “midget” and a “Jewish monkey.” During the investigation, P.H. admitted that she was annoyed by the student’s singing and dancing during class, was having “a bad day,” and lashed out at him. Following the conclusion of the investigation, and a subsequent hearing, the board affirmed the finding that P.H. committed an act of harassment, intimidation,  or bullying (HIB). C.H. appealed and argued, among other things, that the district “made a litany of administrative and factual errors during the investigation.”  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the conduct satisfied the definition of HIB; petitioners failed to demonstrate that the board’s investigation or conclusions was/were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; and any alleged administrative errors had no substantive impact on the case.

The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the ALJ’s legal conclusions.

Docket No. 350-25R (July 11, 2025). After the board suspended its superintendent, petitioners – residents, taxpayers, and parents – challenged the suspension and sought emergent relief to reinstate the superintendent. In their filing, petitioners argued that the superintendent did not receive notice of the board’s action, a public hearing, or other due process protections; certain members of the board violated the School Ethics Act (Act) when they voted to suspend the superintendent; and the board violated Robert’s Rules of Order and its own bylaws when it voted to suspend the superintendent.  The ALJ found that petitioners did not have standing to file an action on behalf of the superintendent, and did not  satisfy the requirements for emergent relief.

The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioners lacked standing to pursue the due process claims on behalf of the superintendent; petitioners failed to demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief; and alleged violations of the Act were outside the COE’s jurisdiction. While finding that petitioners have standing to assert that the board violated its own bylaws when it suspended the superintendent, the COE determined that additional fact finding was necessary, and remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for further proceedings.

Docket No. 364-25E (July 21, 2025). Following the high school football coach’s decision to change Z.C.’s position from first-string to second-string quarterback, petitioner approached the district’s administration about transferring Z.C. to another district high school. Pursuant to petitioner’s request, Z.C. was transferred to another high school within the district, and petitioner was advised that the New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Association  would impose a 22-day suspension. The next day, petitioner filed a HIB complaint. Following an investigation, it was determined that none of the behaviors reported satisfied the definition of HIB. Petitioner challenged the board’s HIB determination, and filed a request for emergent relief.

The ALJ determined that petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements for emergent relief because a senior transfer penalty must be imposed – per NJSIAA – unless the transfer is the result of a substantiated HIB complaint.

The COE  concurred with the ALJ’s legal conclusions, and the denial of the request for emergent relief.

School Ethics Commission

Adopted July 22, 2025

Docket No. C24-18. While his daughter-in-law was employed in the district, respondent appointed other non-conflicted members to serve on the board’s personnel committee. Nonetheless, during a personnel committee meeting, respondent raised a “carryover item” from the previous year, which was the superintendent’s contract status, and was present for the entire meeting. Following this meeting, respondent asked board counsel to issue a Rice notice to the superintendent on two occasions.

Following a motion for summary decision, the ALJ determined that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), and recommended a penalty of reprimand.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact; adopted the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a); and modified the recommended penalty of reprimand to censure.

Docket Nos. C75-21 and C37-22 (Consolidated). Respondent was the administrator of a Facebook page entitled, “Township Watchdog” and “Unity in Community,” where she and other community members would post things related to the board. Following her election to the board, complainants alleged that respondent posted comments/information on this social media account without a disclaimer, and that her comments/posts violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).

Following a hearing, the ALJ determined that respondent’s posts had a clear nexus to her position on the board and to board matters, and that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). For these violations, the ALJ recommended a penalty of reprimand.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact; adopted the legal conclusions that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f); and adopted the recommended a penalty of reprimand.

Docket Nos. C43-22, C44-22, C54-22 and C62-22 (Consolidated). In July 2021, a retired teacher and respondent, who was also the Board President, engaged in a personal email communication about the upcoming board election. In this communication, respondent expressed her personal opinion about many of the candidates, and also identified whom she supported and why. Respondent also indicated whom she believed should be the district’s next superintendent (“the email”). In December 2021, a new board member sent a text message to respondent to express her disagreement with a decision to grant tenure to a building principal. Respondent replied that she would not engage in such discussions about employees via text/writing (“the text message”). In February 2022, a small committee of board members – including respondent – began the process of finding a new superintendent. On March 22, 2022, the retired teacher read a portion of “the email” between he and respondent at a  board meeting. On April 26, 2022, respondent read “the text message” that the new board member sent to her. Although respondent did not disclose the name of the staff member that was named in the text message, she disclosed his position, his salary, and his marriage to a part-time teacher in the district. Finally, after respondent applied for a position with a company, she contacted the CEO, identified herself as a board member, and wanted to know whether her application was jeopardized by the actions or opinions of one of the named complainants (“the application”). Four complaints, later consolidated, were filed with the SEC contending respondent violated multiple provisions of the Act in connection with “the email”; “the text message”; and “the application.”

The ALJ found that respondent’s action in reading “the text message” from a fellow board member at a board meeting violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (g), and (i). However, the ALJ did not find that respondent violated any other provision of the Act as it related to “the email” or “the application.”  The ALJ recommended a penalty of reprimand for respondent’s violations.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, legal conclusions, and recommended penalty of reprimand.

Docket No. C74-23. Respondent used his personal social media account to respond “to a social media post made by an ‘anonymous member’ of the [social media group] ‘Parents & Taxpayers of Westwood Regional School District: Putting Kids First,’ of which respondent is also a member.”  The post and the ensuing comments concerned, generally, the potential banning of books in schools. Members of the public then “reacted” to respondent’s posts, and asked “for clarification and his thoughts on banning books.” Although respondent did not directly reference the board in his comments, it was clear from the continuing string of comments that respondent’s social media posts were being interpreted as discussing his role as a board member and the impending business and planned actions of the board. At no point during the social media discussion did respondent post a disclaimer that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not as a member of the board.

Following a hearing, the ALJ determined that respondent’s posts were reasonably interpreted as being made/offered in his official capacity as a board member, but that complainant failed to present any evidence that respondent’s posts had the potential to compromise in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).

Upon review, the SEC agreed with the ALJ that there was a sufficient nexus between respondent’s social media posts and his board membership, but disagreed with the ALJ that complainant did not prove that respondent’s comments had the potential to and/or did actually compromise the board. As a direct result of respondent’s comments on social media, district staff members expressed concerns about “what was going to happen to the material they were teaching in their classrooms.” Therefore, the SEC found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Because this was respondent’s first violation of the Act, and it was a one-time occurrence, the SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand.

Docket No. C80-24. Respondent, a board member and member of the Town Land Use Board, made a statement about complainant at a public board meeting that was “neither related to the operation of the school board nor on the agenda.” More specifically, respondent stated to/about complainant, “[Town] enemy number one . . . Anyone that would oppose any kind of development in this town . . ..” According to complainant, respondent learned that complainant and her spouse opposed the building of a cannabis facility near their home because she attended a Town Land Use Board meeting to oppose the development. By “publicly deriding” a parent at a board meeting, using his official position as a board member to “silence the free speech of a citizen and prevent an opposing viewpoint of a member of the community,” and surrendering his position as a board member to “serve his political fight” as a member of the Town Land Use Board and for his own political gain,” complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and f).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act.

Docket No. C81-24. Complainant, a school counselor, was called “to assist with” an incident involving respondent’s child. Respondent is employed as an administrator in a neighboring school district. According to complainant, the student was physically aggressive toward him, but the incident concluded positively. However, 65 days after the incident, the student’s parents were notified that their child would not be “eligible to attend [the] grade-level field trip due to excessive disciplinary write ups for the year.” After being notified of this decision, respondent contacted the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) within the New Jersey Department of Children and Families (DCF) and reported complainant for “institutional abuse.” Although the investigation was unfounded, complainant’s renewal for employment was rescinded, and respondent’s child was allowed to attend the school trip. Based on these facts, complainant asserted that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because she “knowingly reported a false claim of physical abuse against” complainant so that her child could attend a field trip.

The SEC found that there was no probable cause for the claimed violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).

Docket No. C83-24. Complainant contended that respondent R violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (d) because he acted “in the capacity of a district human resources employee” by publicly soliciting recommendations and applications to fill district positions on social media (WhatsApp) and, when asked, indicated why a former employee left the district’s employment (Count 3); and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and (d) because, in his capacity as a board member and Board President, he acted as the district’s “administrator” by making “unauthorized announcements” on social media (WhatsApp), hosted discussions about the district and took surveys on social media (WhatsApp), and purposely excluded teachers from discussions about the district (Count 5).

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the allegations in Count 3 and Count 5. Complainant raised additional allegations in Count 1, Count 2, and Count 4, but the events which formed the basis for the asserted violations of the Act  occurred more than 180 days prior to the date that complainant filed her ethics complaint. The SEC found no reason to relax the 180-day limitation period and dismissed the allegations as  time-barred.

Docket No. C86-24. During the district’s back to school nights, a pastor was handing out two flyers: a copy of the 2020 New Jersey Student Learning Standards Comprehensive Health and Physical Health (Health Standards), and a copy of the “opt out” statute for the Health Standards. When complainant, a parent, accompanied the pastor to back to school night, respondent allegedly approached complainant and in “a loud voice and aggressive tone, told complainant to keep her ‘hate’ away from him and to stop spreading ‘hateful lies.’” Following the incident, “multiple social media posts decried the individuals handing out the information to parents and included hateful rhetoric.”  Complainant contended that respondent’s aggressive behavior and action violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (g), but the SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations.

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