Commissioner of Education
School Ethics Commission

Commissioner of Education

Noteworthy August Decisions

Docket No. 395-25 (August 11, 2025). The board challenged the Department of Education’s (DOE) determination that it was K.C.’s district of residence and financially responsible for K.C.’s education when K.C. was placed at residential State facilities or group homes.

On remand, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the board was financially responsible for K.C.’s educational costs because, immediately prior to entering Division of Child Protection and Permanency  Placement, K.C. last resided with L.T., her legal custodian, in the district. Because neither L.T. nor the State were ever granted guardianship of K.C., the ALJ rejected the board’s argument that the State should have assumed financial responsibility for K.C.’s educational costs.

The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the decision rendered by the ALJ; granted respondent’s motion for summary decision; and dismissed petitioner’s petition of appeal.

Docket No. 397-25 (August 11, 2025). Petitioner was employed by the board as an educational media specialist from 1993 to 2001, but was terminated following a criminal indictment. After the indictment was dismissed, he sought reinstatement in 2013, and claimed that he was a tenured employee. The COE dismissed the 2013 petition as untimely, and also noted that petitioner was not a tenured employee. Petitioner filed additional petitions in 2016, 2021, and 2022 seeking reinstatement, all of which were dismissed. In the instant petition, petitioner again sought reinstatement to his position.

The COE granted the board’s motion to dismiss, finding that the matter was time-barred, and also barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as the COE and the Appellate Division previously determined that petitioner’s termination was not improper, and that he was not entitled to be reinstated to his position.

Docket No. 402-25 (August 12, 2025). Petitioners challenged the DOE’s  determination that the Henry Hudson Regional School District (Henry Hudson) was ineligible (1) under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.6 for reimbursement for the costs of a voter referendum to establish the regional school district and (2) under N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(c)(4) for certain State aid incentives for regional school districts.

Of note, although the financial incentives petitioners sought were available under the School Regionalization and Efficiency Program (SREP), petitioners did not apply for and/or receive a SREP grant. Instead, Henry Hudson applied for and received a Local Efficiency Achievement Program (LEAP) grant.

The ALJ granted the DOE’s motion to dismiss, concluding that only school districts that applied for and received a SREP grant  – not a LEAP grant – are eligible for the regionalization benefits, and the COE concurred.   

Mandated Training. The COE also issued 15 decisions for those board of education members and charter school trustees who failed to complete mandated training by December 31, 2024. In these decisions, eight school officials were removed; six were censured; and one was suspended for 30-days.

School Ethics Commission

Adopted August 19, 2025

Docket No C75-18. Respondent circulated flyers and emails about his non-profit organization, which provides free tutoring and enrichment services, to students and teachers in the district.  Complainant alleged that this conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d). 

The ALJ found no violations of the School Ethics Act (Act), but the School Ethics Commission (SEC) disagreed.  The SEC concluded that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) because the promotion of his nonprofit was in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties as a board member.  The SEC also determined that respondent violated  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) because a reasonable person would view him as lacking objectivity while performing his responsibilities as a board member and promoting his nonprofit. Based on the conduct, the SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand.

Docket No C109-22. Respondent attended NJSBA’s annual workshop (Workshop) where she spoke to vendors (and livestreamed their conversations), first introducing herself as a board member and then proceeding to promote her nonprofit organization.  Based on this conduct, complainant alleged 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(d), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f).  Complainant also asserted that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4) because she did not report the nonprofit organization on her financial disclosure statement.

The SEC concurred with the ALJ’s legal conclusions 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(f), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4), but rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d).  The SEC determined that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f) when she attempted to use her official position as a board member to secure business relationships with vendors for her nonprofit.  As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the SEC found that “a reasonable person would view respondent as lacking objectivity or independence while performing her responsibilities as a [b]oard member when she was also promoting her nonprofit.”  The SEC explained that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d) because her position in the nonprofit, alone, is not a per se conflict of interest.  Finally, the SEC concluded that respondent should have listed her nonprofit organization on her disclosure statement because, at the time, it was a “for profit” organization and she had an interest in the organization. 

For this conduct, the SEC adopted the ALJ’s recommended penalty of censure.

Docket No C115-22. Respondent emailed district staff regarding an agenda item about her spouse that she believed was confusing and should be revised.  The ALJ found the email to be a “friendly recommendation” and concluded that respondent did not violate the Act. 

The SEC disagreed and found that respondent violated the Act because: she involved herself in a situation in which she was conflicted and attempted to use her official position to secure an unwarranted privilege for her spouse (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)); and “[s]taff could have reasonably interpreted her email as an attempt to instruct them on how to write the agenda and, thus, how to do their jobs” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)).  Because it was respondent’s first infraction, the SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand.

Docket No C94-24. Complainant claimed that respondent, the business administrator, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because he “selectively disbarred several small sized, minority owned school bus companies,” including the bus company owned by complainant, “from placing bids or quotes with [the district.].”  Complainant also contended that respondent violated several sections of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members; however, because respondent is an administrator, not a board member, the SEC dismissed all of those allegations.

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act and dismissed the Complaint, but declined to find the Complaint frivolous or to impose sanctions.

Docket No C92-24. Respondent, the board vice-president, sent an email from his personal email account to the union president’s personal email account, wherein he advocated for three board candidates (he was not on the ballot),  listed various election/campaign related activities, and asked for volunteers.  By doing so, complainant claimed that respondent violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) because he attempted “to force employees to work on his behalf”; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e) because he “accepted favors and services from staff in order for him to vote on their behalf for future employment”; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f) because he received employee information from the union to help him with the election of his supported candidates.    

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act and dismissed the Complaint, but declined to find the Complaint frivolous or to impose sanctions. 

Docket No C88-24. At a voter forum related to the upcoming board election, the moderator asked respondent why he believed there is “hostility” on the current board and, in his answer, respondent blamed the three new board members.  Complainant argued that, because respondent did not use a disclaimer, and attempted to use his position as a board member to endorse the other board candidates, he violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). 

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of  the Actand dismissed the Complaint, but declined to find the Complaint frivolous or to 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.