Commissioner of Education
School Ethics Commission

Commissioner of Education

Noteworthy September Decisions

Docket No. 427-25 (September 2, 2025). Petitioner, a non-tenured teacher, violated multiple district policies when she left her classroom to confront a colleague about an incident involving their respective spouses at their workplace. As part of an investigation precipitated by petitioner’s filing of a complaint against a colleague, it was determined that petitioner “had engaged in behaviors that had caused problems with her colleagues and students.” After petitioner received notification of nonrenewal, the board provided her with a statement of reasons for nonrenewal.

Following an appeal, the Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner. Instead, the ALJ correctly concluded that the board had just reason not to renew petitioner’s employment contract.

Docket No. 432-25 (September 8, 2025). The district placed M.M. at an approved private school for the disabled, the Matheny School (Matheny) for the 2023-2024 school year, and signed a tuition contract with the school. M.M. was also admitted to and resided at the Matheny Hospital. After M.M.’s parents moved to Spain in January 2024, M.M. continued to attend Matheny while her parents looked for a new residential program in Spain. The board challenged its continued financial responsibility for M.M.’s tuition.

The ALJ found that the board was financially responsible for M.M.’s tuition through the end of the school year. The COE affirmed, concluding that although the board informed Matheny of the parents’ move to Spain, it never provided M.M.’s parents with written notice of termination of the placement in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3.

Docket No. 438-25 (September 8, 2025). As part of a plea deal in a criminal matter, appellant pled guilty to Terroristic Threats and agreed to complete a Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) program. The State Board of Examiners (SBE) subsequently issued an order to show cause based on the underlying  conduct for the criminal charges. The ALJ concluded that the SBE proved that appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming and that the conduct, even if the related criminal charges were dismissed following completion of PTI, warranted the revocation of his teaching certificates.

The SBE adopted the ALJ’s Initial Decision, and the COE affirmed.

Docket No. 443-25 (September 12, 2025). The COE concurred with the ALJ that the board did not act arbitrarily or without rational basis when it: suspended a student for 30 days following his involvement in a physical altercation based on the circumstances and his previous disciplinary record; and when it determined that the other students’ involvement in the altercation did not meet the definition of HIB because their conduct was motivated by peer conflict, and not a distinguishing characteristic. 

Docket No. 451-25E (September 19, 2025). L.Z. sought an emergent transfer of G.Z. – a rising tenth grade student – from one district high school to another because he had a “difficult year” in ninth grade, and argued it was in G.Z.’s “best interest academically, mentally, and socially” to transfer him.

The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief.

Docket No. 449-25 (September 19, 2025). Petitioners alleged that the board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 (Chapter 44) because it refused to offer paraprofessionals  who work less than 20 hours per week enrollment in a health insurance plan equivalent to the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (NJEHP) and Garden State Health Plan (GSHP) at the statutory contribution-sharing amounts.

The COE rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion, and found that the definition of “employee” codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.2 is applicable to Chapter 44 and, based on this definition, part-time paraprofessionals working less than 25 hours per week are not entitled to health benefits.

School Ethics Commission

Adopted September 23, 2025

Docket No. C15-24. The child of the named respondent, the interim superintendent, was employed in the district and supervised by a member of the district’s administrator and supervisors association. Despite his child’s employment in the district, respondent participated in labor negotiations with the union of the administrator who supervised his child’s employment. As part of the agreement approved by the board, respondent’s child’s supervisor received a pay increase and a stipend of $4,000.00.

The School Ethics Commission (SEC) 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), and modified the ALJ’s recommended penalty of reprimand to censure because there is a “plethora” of guidance from the SEC on this issue.

Docket No. C85-24. Complainant contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4) because her 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements did not disclose the company that she owns with her spouse, and did not list the company as one in which she has an “interest.”

Deciding the matter on a “summary basis,” the SEC found that respondent violated  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c); and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4)  However, the SEC did not find that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) because there was no evidence that respondent and/or her spouse received any income from the business. The SEC also determined that a reprimand was the “most appropriate” penalty given respondent’s acknowledgment of the “human error.” 

Docket No. C89-24. Complainant alleged that respondents “succumbed” to pressure from special interest groups to keep a book in the library despite a request to remove it; permitted the district’s librarian to host/maintain a social media page that disparaged parents and commended the work of the “special interest groups”; while at a board meeting, publicly acknowledged the role that the “special interest groups” played in saving the book, and voted against the removal of the book from the library; and admitted that “a book review committee leaked information to the special interest group.” Finally, complainant submits that certain respondents made a “pledge” against book banning.

The SEC found that the complaint was timely filed; there was no probable cause for the claimed violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g); the complaint was not frivolous; and sanctions should not be imposed.

Docket No. C95-24. In response to the substance of complainant’s campaign flyer, respondent, the Board President, prepared a “President’s Statement” which was read at a public board meeting by the Board Vice President. Because she “abused her position” to leverage her own campaign for her own benefit and gain, and because the substance of her statement (the “President’s Statement”) was not accurate, complainant claimed that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). 

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the School Ethics Act.

Docket No. C96-24. Following a question from a member of the public on social media as to whether a board member (not respondent) was authorized to post certain information online, respondent then posted a confidential e-mail from board counsel, and it contained a caption which stated, ““Huh? You really do just make up the rules as you go. Should I start screaming LIAR LIAR?”  By posting this email from the board’s attorney, presumably from her official board e-mail account, complainant argues that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).

The SEC declined to find probable cause; found the complaint not frivolous; and declined to impose sanctions.

Docket No. C99-24. Complainant contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e); and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because:  he and the superintendent had a private text exchange in which he “encouraged” the superintendent to take action against the board; when he was board president, he received notice of the superintendent’s “intention to file a legal complaint” against the board and several board members, including respondent; before the superintendent formally filed her lawsuit, respondent began facilitating the buyout of the superintendent’s employment contract; a few days later, the superintendent formally filed a lawsuit against several board members but, due to his private “collusion” with the superintendent, he was not named as a party; and respondent did not recuse himself from the final vote “of the settlement involving the [s]uperintendent.” 

The SEC dismissed all allegations, except for whether respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), as untimely. For those remaining allegations, the SEC declined to find probable cause; found the complaint not frivolous; and did not impose sanctions.

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