Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its May 20 Meeting

At its May 20 meeting, the School Ethics Commission discussed one matter in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; 10 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; adopted and mailed orders to show cause for those board of education members (November election) who failed to complete annual training by December 31, 2024; considered adopting five decisions; considered two new advisory opinion requests; and considered making seven advisory opinions public.

Of the five decisions considered for adoption, three were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining two matters – C55-24 and C60-24 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.

SEC Decisions Made Public

In C58-24, the complainant said that the November 2023 board election was “closely contested,” and the respondent, the incumbent board president, was in a close race with a newcomer.  During the campaign, “an independent third-party group released an ad” that, among other things, “highlighted [the respondent’s] failure to rebuke … divisive comments as contrary to the district’s commitment to inclusivity.” According to the complainant, the respondent and her spouse “wrongly attributed” the ad to the newcomer’s campaign and, thereafter, the respondent’s supporters, including her spouse, sent the newcomer “several menacing [and racially charged] text messages.”

Following receipt of these messages, which the complainant described as campaign intimidation, the respondent’s opponent – the newcomer – issued a statement clarifying that she “had nothing to do” with the independent-third party group’s ad, and the respondent posted the statement on her social media page.  The complainant filed an ethics complaint alleging that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 1), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) (Count 2), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) (Count 3) when she coerced and then posted a public apology from her opponent on her social media page.

The SEC did not find probable cause for the claimed violations of the School Ethics Act as filed in the complaint.  Relevant to all asserted violations of the act, the SEC found that there was an insufficient nexus between the respondent’s social media page and her role/membership on the board and, therefore, a reasonable person could not construe the post as being offered in her official capacity. Not only did the social media page indicate it was the respondent’s official campaign page, but the account did not indicate that the respondent is a current board member or reference her position on the board. Most importantly, the post did not reference any action or matter pending before the board and, instead, was an “attempt to handle a matter concerning the school board election.” Because the post was not offered in the respondent’s official capacity, and did not concern board business, the SEC dismissed the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 1), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) (Count 2), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) (Count 3).

In C59-24, the complainant contended that the respondent “retained his own counsel with whom he consults on [board] matters” and, when doing so, disclosed confidential information in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because he “recommended individuals and/or law firms, who may be ‘friends or confidants,’ for hire,” and as a board member, he should not be involved in hiring personnel (except for the superintendent) (Count 2); “voted against plans set forth by the [s]uperintendent, which had been discussed at length, without giving good reason” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), and provided information to outside groups, including union members, and consulted a private attorney regarding board matters/business in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) andN.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 3); and has “attempted to circumvent the proper procedures and contact [d]istrict-appointed legal counsel” in violation of the board’s bylaws and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) (Count 4).

Based on the facts set forth in the complaint, the SEC did not find probable cause for the alleged violations of the act. Generally speaking, the SEC found that all of the claims in Counts 1-4 lacked specificity, detail, and the required factual evidence needed to support a finding(s) that the respondent violated the provisions of the act as claimed.

Nonetheless, the SEC declined to find the complaint frivolous because it did not have information to suggest that the complainant knew or should have known that the complaint was without any reasonable basis in law or equity, or that it could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

In C76-24, the complainant argued that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(h) because at the board’s meeting on May 13, 2024, she did not, despite the superintendent’s recommendation, vote to approve the reappointment of the complainant’s spouse’s employment (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because she discussed the complainant’s spouse’s employment at the May 13, 2024, board meeting without issuing her a Rice notice (Count 2); and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because she was the only board member to vote against hiring the complainant’s spouse at the board’s April 27, 2024 meeting, and did so after her own spouse (the respondent’s) had been vocal about not hiring the complainant’s spouse (Count 3).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the asserted violations of the School Ethics Act as set forth in the complaint.  With regard to Count 1, the SEC noted that board members are not obligated to follow the recommendations of the superintendent, and the complaint lacks evidence that the respondent acted on a personnel matter without a recommendation of the chief administrative officer. As for Count 2, the complainant failed to produce a copy of a final decision from any court of law or administrative agency of New Jersey demonstrating that the respondent acted illegally or unethically. Finally, and regarding Count 3, the SEC found that the complainant failed to demonstrate that the respondent surrendered her independent judgment, and the respondent’s actions at a board meeting, even if those actions are similar to the beliefs of her spouse, do not establish that she took the actions at the request of her spouse.

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous.

SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2025.

As a reminder, school officials who would like to request an advisory opinion regarding their own or another school official’s prospective conduct may do so through the SEC.

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