Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy January Decisions
Docket No. 13-26 (January 9, 2026). The State Board of Examiners (SBE) revoked appellant’s teaching certificates after determining that he engaged in conduct unbecoming when he sent inappropriate online messages to two former students. In revoking appellant’s teaching certificates, the SBE explained that when appellant “used his prior relationships with these former students to begin new adult relationships, he took advantage of his position as a teacher, failed to exhibit the mature self-control required of an educator, and violated the public trust.”
The Commissioner of Education (COE) affirmed the SBE’s decision as it was supported by sufficient credible evidence, and was consistent with precedent given the serious nature of the underlying conduct.
Docket No. 16-26R (January 16, 2026). Petitioner, a former board member, alleged that the board usurped the School Ethics Commission’s (SEC) powers by investigating, prosecuting, and censuring her for anonymous social media posts that members of the public believe she made. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted summary decision to both parties, in part. The ALJ held that the board’s resolution of censure was ultra vires because it amounted to de facto discipline for alleged violations of the School Ethics Act (Act); because the board lacked authority to censure her, the ALJ found her due process claims irrelevant; and concluded that petitioner was not entitled to indemnification pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20.
On review, the COE determined that a limited remand was necessary to allow the parties to present evidence on the indemnification issue—specifically whether the March 29, 2023, board meeting concerned acts or omissions arising out of the petitioner’s duties as a board member.
Docket No. 17-26 SEC (January 16, 2026). Respondent neither appealed the SEC’s determination that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (g), and (i) when she disclosed confidential/privileged information to a former school administrator, nor filed exceptions to the recommended penalty of censure. Upon review, the COE concurred that respondent should be censured for her violations of the Act.
Docket No. 19-26 (January 16 , 2026). Complainants appealed the SEC’s July 22, 2025, determination that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) or (f) in Counts 1, 2, and 3, and did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 6. The COE found that the SEC’s decision was supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and that complainants failed to establish that the decision was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. In so finding, the COE agreed with the ALJ that “respondent’s expression of support for a candidate as a private citizen” did not violate the Act; agreed that respondent’s statement “the red hats who are sheep that consume media bias and don’t give a crap about the kids” was merely an expression of respondent’s personal opinion; and that “the record lacked evidence to suggest” that the chief executive officer “believed that respondent was calling in her official capacity as a [b]oard member or was speaking on behalf of the [b]oard.” Although not challenged on appeal, the COE additionally found that a penalty of reprimand was appropriate for respondent’s violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (g) and (i) in connection with “the text message.”
Docket No. 21-26 (January 23, 2026). The board rescinded its offer of employment for the next school year and terminated petitioner, a non-tenured teacher, based upon a history of combative behavior and a threatening text message that he sent to a colleague. Petitioner filed an appeal to challenge the termination, which the ALJ dismissed, finding that the board had good cause to terminate petitioner prior to the expiration of his contract and petitioner was not entitled to compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1.
The COE concurred with the ALJ and adopted the initial decision as the final decision.
Docket No. 22-26 (January 23, 2026). Petitioner claimed that staff members harassed her and her family and, through her petition, sought the termination of these staff members, as well as monetary compensation for “the necessary supports required.”
The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioner’s allegations were outside the jurisdiction of the COE and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Docket No. 23-26 (January 23, 2026). Petitioner sought tuition reimbursement from the board for her unilateral placement of her child, J.L., in another school district due to her concerns about mold in the district. Because J.L. is domiciled in the district and does not qualify for any exceptions that would warrant her enrollment in another district at the board’s expense, the ALJ granted the board’s motion for summary decision.
The COE concurred with the ALJ and dismissed the petition.
Docket No. 36-26 (January 29, 2026). Petitioner challenged the board’s decision to terminate his employment as Board Secretary. To the extent that the board’s decision was not improper, petitioner challenged the board’s failure to recognize his tenure rights as an Assistant Business Administrator, and its failure to recognize his attendant “bumping” rights over those currently employed in the position.
The COE concurred with the ALJ, and agreed that the elimination of the Board Secretary position for reasons of economy did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9 or any other law or regulation, and when petitioner agreed to become Board Secretary, he voluntarily relinquished the tenure rights he held in the Assistant School Business Administrator position. As a result, petitioner could not now claim “bumping” rights for the Assistant School Business Administrator position. Therefore, the board’s motion to dismiss the petition of appeal was granted.
School Ethics Commission
Decisions Adopted on January 27, 2026
Docket No. C73-24. In May 2024, complainant’s charity had a meeting with members of the district’s administration to discuss, among other things, “how [the] [charity] was treated when offering bullying support, steps the schools could take to improve communication with families … and even discussing reinstating the [years-long] ‘partnership’” that the district abruptly ended after the charity indicated it would be discussing bullying in schools with community members. An hour after the meeting, respondent filed a “fict[it]ious harassment complaint” with the police department against complainant. Complainant contends that, by filing the criminal harassment complaint against him, respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e) (Count 1). In addition, and because the filing was precipitated by an email to the superintendent that complained/expressed concern about complainant’s conduct, respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
The SEC declined to find probable cause, and declined to find the complaint frivolous.
Docket No. C10-25. Complainant asserted that, at various board meetings, respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because they authorized and/or directed respondent G, on behalf of the board, to file an ethics complaint against complainant even though the board, as a public body, is not authorized to file an ethics complainant. In addition, and over the course of several months, respondents repeatedly authorized and/or directed the expenditure of district funds for the appointment of, and payments to, Special Conflicts Counsel to prosecute the ethics charges against the complainant. Per complainant, respondents also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because they “took public [b]oard action to initiate an adversarial position against one of their members,” and publicly discussed and pronounced “the merits of their actions against a fellow [b]oard member.” Finally, respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because they directed Special Conflicts Counsel “to prepare, file and litigate an ethics complaint against a fellow [b]oard member,” under the “pretext of taking official [b]oard action to authorize [the Board President] as a sole [c]omplainant on behalf of the [b]oard.”
Deciding the matter by summary decision, the SEC found that all respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), respondent G violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and all respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). For respondents’ violations of the Act, and after balancing both the mitigating factor of the advice of counsel with the aggravating circumstances surrounding the public nature of respondents’ violations, the SEC found that a censure was most appropriate.
Docket No. C33-25. Following the district’s harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) investigation, it was determined that complainant’s child violated the district’s HIB policy. Complainant and his spouse appealed to the board – the named respondents – and argued that “procedures were not properly followed” and that “there was additional evidence that needed to be reviewed.” Despite complainant’s arguments, the board affirmed the finding of HIB. Based on the board’s vote affirming the HIB determination, complainant argued that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), (d), (f), (g), and (i).
The SEC dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction, and found the complaint not frivolous.
Docket No. C34-25. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) when, in response to a question about how he would resolve the issue of staff cuts at a “Meet the Candidates” night, respondent stated, “I would immediately look at the bloated salaries of some of our underworked and overpaid administrators” (Count 1). Complainant additionally alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (g) when he “made a definitive statement against any potential privatization of jobs” at the “Meet the Candidates” night, and stated that he was “vehemently against privatization…so 100% against privatization there’s not really any more to be said on the issue” (Count 3). Finally, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (i) when, at a board meeting, respondent made “negative comments about district personnel” by stating, “there are salaries that need to be cut and jobs that don’t belong here that could have been phased out long ago that still exists [(sic)] … .”
The SEC declined to find probable cause. In its decision, the SEC reiterated that, when speaking at/participating in a voter forum (such as the “Meet the Candidates” night), it is not necessary for a school official to disclaim their speech as attendees “are aware that candidates will be making statements in their capacity as candidates and not in another capacity.”
Docket No. C35-25. On a community Facebook page, respondent posted the following message: “As a [board] member, I respect and honor your right to hold differing opinions and expressed [(sic)] concerns about the [board]. Nonetheless, discussing my child’s or any other child’s personal education record is not permissible. Consider this a formal warning to act with respect and integrity. …” Based on this post, which had a disclaimer emphasizing that the post was a “reflection of [her] personal views and opinions,” complainant argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (g).
The SEC did not find probable cause, and determined, based on the substance of the post, that a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that respondent was speaking in her official capacity or pursuant to her official duties as a board member.
Docket No. C39-25. Complainant claims that, while at a board meeting, respondent was “unusually hostile, combative, and erratic,” and glared in a “confrontational manner” at both the superintendent and board attorney. By behaving in this manner, complainant contends that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and (i) (Count 1). In addition, because she “has consistently exhibited a pattern” of ill-mannered conduct at board meetings, complainant argues that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (e) (Count 2). Moreover, respondent’s behavior at board meetings violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because her public criticisms of district personnel and operations are made without evidence, and violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) because she does not follow the proper reporting channels and raises grievances in public (Count 3).
The SEC declined to find probable cause, and declined to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions.
Docket No. C40-25. Per complainants, and prior to a committee meeting, respondent submitted an organization chart to the interim superintendent that she “independently created,” and which included a proposal for a reduction in force (RIF); identified newly created positions with their suggested salary(ies); and which identified those personnel who should receive be subject to the RIF. As chair of the negotiations committee, respondent also prioritized the contract for support staff above those for other bargaining units. Based on these facts, complainants assert that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i).
The SEC did not find probable cause.
Docket No. C41-25. Complainant contends that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (d), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e) when he did not question the superintendent or otherwise investigate alleged improprieties regarding her son’s use of the district’s facilities (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f) because he refused to investigate complainant’s claims of harassment by district staff, failed to provide her with responses/answers to questions, and delayed her registration for courses/programs (Count 2); and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f) because he did not recuse himself from the superintendent’s evaluation, from other matters related to the superintendent, and from matters involving theater personnel despite this spouse’s employed in one of the sending districts (Count 3).
The SEC declined to find probable cause.
Docket Nos. C42-25, C47-25, C49-25, C50-25, and C51-25 (Consolidated). Although, at the board’s reorganization meeting, the superintendent recommended that the board reappoint its current counsel, the matter was tabled. Following the issuance of a request for qualifications which, per complainant, was contrary to the process set forth in the board’s bylaws, respondent E.G. made a motion to appoint the “politically connected” law firm of B, H & D to serve as board counsel. Although not recommended by the superintendent, the motion to appoint the law firm of B, H & D passed. Complainant additionally claims that because of various “conflicts” stemming from their employment/volunteer work/membership/affiliation with a county political committee, respondents should not have voted on the selection of legal counsel. Based on these facts, complainant argues that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (d), (e), and (f), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (f).
The SEC did not find probable cause.
Docket No. C46-25. The named complainant filed an ethics complaint against the board president (the respondent) after he denied her request for the board to conduct a “third party investigation” of the superintendent, assistant superintendent, business administrator (BA), and three board members for “harassment, retaliation and impediment of [their] duties.” According to complainant, respondent inappropriately discussed her request with the three board members she wanted investigated; failed to provide “complete information” about her request to the non-conflicted board members; and reached his decision without a “formal discussion and recorded vote.” Based on these facts, complainant asserted that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e).
The SEC declined to find probable cause.
Docket No. C53-25. While serving as the chair of the ad hoc referendum committee during “the … school bond referendum campaign,” respondent “injected himself into the [community’s] public discussion” by replying to residents’ Facebook posts. In his posts, respondent “publicly ridiculed” members of the public who raised questions about the financial transparency of the proposed referendum. In another post, he encouraged a resident, who is also a staff member, to run for the board and to come up with a better “answer” to the district’s financial issues. Based on the substance of his social media posts, complainant alleges that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (f).
The SEC did not find probable cause, and determined that because respondent’s social media posts were made from his personal social media account and it did not reference his membership on the board, the posts were not offered pursuant to his official duties.
*For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for formal legal advice.
