Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission in June

At its June 17 meeting, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) discussed eight matters about the SEC’s new/amended regulations; discussed five matters concerning the SEC’s previous regulations; considered adopting 11 decisions; and considered making nine advisory opinions public.

Of the eleven decisions considered for adoption, only six were posted on the New Jersey Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining five matters – C61-24; C68-24; C69-24; C70-24 and C75-24 –  remain pending. The SEC also did not post any new public advisory opinions.

Final Decision

Prior to becoming a board member, the respondent in C125-22 co-founded and co-led the district’s Special Education Parental Advisory Group (SEPAG).  While a board member, the respondent continued to serve in her SEPAG leadership role and as chair of the board’s special education committee.  Prior to a board meeting, the respondent sent an email from her board email account to the SEPAG members, informing them that she “intended to attend the upcoming meeting as a co-leader of SEPAG and not as a board member.” 

An administrative law judge granted the complainant’s motion for summary decision, finding that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), and recommended a penalty of reprimand. In granting the complainant’s motion, the judge noted that “dual membership in SEPAG and the [b]oard per se would not reasonably be expected to prejudice (the) respondent’s independence of judgment in the exercise of her official duties as a board member.” However, here, the evidence demonstrated that the respondent  “advocat[ed] on behalf of special education students and their families.”  The judge focused on the email that the respondent sent to SEPAG from her board email account and concluded that the respondent “blurred the line between her role as a board member and co-leader of SEPAG,” and “create[d] a justifiable impression that the public trust was being violated.” 

The SEC adopted the findings of facts, the legal conclusion that the respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), and the recommended penalty of reprimand for the reasons expressed by the administrative law judge.

PC Review Decisions

In C74-24, the complainant argued that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because at a board meeting on March 26, 2024, the board approved the respondent’s “friend” and former campaign treasurer to the position of administrative assistant to the superintendent.

The SEC did not find probable cause for the asserted violation of the Act as set forth in the complaint.  The SEC determined that the complainant did not provide any evidence that the respondent interfered with the superintendent’s recommendation for his administrative assistant.  The SEC also found that the complainant did not demonstrate that the respondent and her former campaign treasurer “are more than mere acquaintances or that they share a current friendship and even if they were friends.”

Finally, although noting that it would have been prudent for the respondent to recuse herself from any matter concerning the employment of her campaign treasurer, the SEC focused on the fact that there were no allegations that the respondent actively rallied to hire the candidate or was involved in the hiring.  Therefore, in the absence of additional facts, the SEC concluded that the complainant did not prove that the respondent surrendered her independent judgment to a special interest/political group or used the schools for personal gain or the gain of friends.  

In C71-24, the complainant argued that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and (e) because he took action to amend Policy 0174 to remove the complainant as the board’s “legal designee” and instructed board counsel not to respond to the complainant’s requests for legal guidance (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because he “unilaterally approved” the superintendent’s employment benefits and remote work accommodations (Count 2); and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e)  because he and board counsel “conspired” to remove the superintendent, refused to provide the complainant with any information related to this “plan,” and acted without board approval (Count 3).

The SEC dismissed the allegations in counts 2 and 3 as untimely because it was clear that the complainant was aware of the incidents from the time of their occurrence and there were no “extraordinary circumstances” to compel relaxation of the 180-day statute of limitations.  

With regard to Count 1, and the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), the complainant failed to produce a copy of a final decision from any court of law or administrative agency of this state demonstrating the respondent acted illegally or unethically.  As for N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), although the complainant may not have agreed with the revisions to Board Policy 0174, by her own admission, she was consulted with and informed about the policy changes.  Finally, with respect to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the complainant did not demonstrate how the respondent made any personal promises or took action beyond the scope of his duties.  Without probable cause, the SEC dismissed the matter.

In C67-24, the complainant contended that the respondent published text messages, obtained privately posted information from a private citizen, and provided information to the press “for the direct purpose of needlessly causing injury to [a] parent in the district” in violation of  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (g), and (j) when she used her position as a board member to discuss the complainant’s spouse at a board meeting without using a disclaimer (Count 2); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), (g), and (j) when she used her position to provide false statements in the board’s name that condemned a private citizen (the complainant’s spouse), thereby compromising the board (Count 3); told the press that she “did not feel inclined to cooperate” with the complainant’s request that she not be on stage during graduation to hand the complainant’s son his diploma, which was not acting to protect the welfare of children in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) (Count 4); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (g) when she made a statement to the press that inaccurately described the complainant’s spouse’s conduct and disclosed a “private conversation between a private citizen and a board member” (Count 5); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), , and (j) when she made false statements to the press about the complainant’s marital problems (Count 6); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) and (g) when she referred to the “time and money [the board] spent on legal advice” in an interview with the press and acted on the article at a board meeting instead of seeking an administrative solution (Count 7); and posted the cease-and-desist letter and publicly supported it as a board member before the board took “any action in executive or public session” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 8).

Based on the facts pled in the complaint, the SEC did not find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act. Generally speaking, the SEC found that the claims in Counts 1-8 lacked specificity, detail, and the required factual evidence needed to support a finding(s) that the respondent violated the Act as claimed.

In C64-24, the complainants argued that Respondent R violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and (f) because at the board’s meeting on April 9, 2024, he “scolded parents and community members” who voiced concerns regarding the safety of women with biological males in their private spaces, showing that he is only concerned with the safety of transgender students, and labeled the parents as “right wing extremists, white Nationalists and modern-day Nazis” (Count 1); respondents S and M violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because they agreed with Respondent R’s statements at the April 9, 2024, board meeting and intimidated prospective speakers to the podium (Count 2); and Respondent R violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and (c) because his “tirade” at the April 9, 2024, board meeting was not confined to policy making, planning, and appraisal, and his “name-calling” was “modeled and adopted” by the student board representative (Count 3).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act.  With regard to Count 1, the SEC noted that, although the complainants may not agree with Respondent R’s comments about them or transgender students, the complaint lacks evidence that Respondent R willfully made a decision contrary to the educational welfare of children or took deliberate action to obstruct programs/policies designed to meet the needs of all students.  The SEC also noted that, even if Respondent R’s beliefs are similar to the beliefs of a special interest group, the complainants did not demonstrate that Respondent R made the comments, on behalf of, or at the request of a special interest group. 

As for Count 2, the SEC noted that, even if board members may naturally have similar beliefs as each other, there was no proof that Respondents S and M took action, on behalf of, or at the request of Respondent R, or any other special interest group.  Finally, and regarding Count 3, the SEC found that the complainants failed to demonstrate that Respondent R took action that was unrelated to his duties or that his comments towards the complainants and refusal to apologize were board actions to effectuate policies and plans, without consulting those affected by such policies and plans.

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous.

In C62-24, at a board meeting, the complainant questioned the respondent about his failure to respond to her emails.  In response, a community member charged the dais, shouted the complainant’s name, and “challeng[ed] [complainant].”  According to the complainant, the video of the board meeting captured the community member’s behavior, but the respondent edited the video to remove the footage in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), and (e).  The complainant also argued that the respondent does not enforce Board Policy 0167, which addresses public participation at board meetings, with respect to his supporters in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).  Additionally, the complainant requested security at future board meetings and claimed that the respondent did not share this request with legal counsel, as he represented, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). 

The SEC did not find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act.  With regard to the board meeting video, the complainant did not provide evidence showing that the respondent was responsible for the video, that he edited it, or that the alleged altercation even took place during the public meeting.  As for the respondent’s alleged failure to uphold Board Policy 0167, the SEC explained that it does not have jurisdiction over the enforcement of board policies.  Finally, with respect to the respondent’s alleged misrepresentation about the complainant’s request for security at board meetings, the SEC found that the complainant did not demonstrate that the respondent provided inaccurate information. 

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous.

SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for July 22, 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 Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for specific legal advice.