At its meeting on April 28, 2026, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed 12 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 17 decisions; considered two new advisory opinion requests; and considered making one advisory opinion public.
Of the 17 decisions considered for adoption, 13 were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining four matters – C98-25 and C99-25 (Consolidated); C105-25; C110-25; and C113-25 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.
Of the 13 decisions adopted, two involved settlement agreements, and the other 11 were “PC Review” decisions that were all dismissed because “the facts and circumstances presented in the complaint and written statement would [not] lead a reasonable person to believe that the [School Ethics] Act has been violated.” N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.7(a).
This article will review the two settlement agreements, and four of the “PC Review” decisions, one of which included a determination that the complaint was frivolous. Next week’s article will review the remaining seven “PC Review” decisions.
- Settlement Agreements
C79-24: Pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, the parties agreed: respondent will issue a public apology to the superintendent at the next scheduled board meeting following approval of the settlement, the wording of which will be shared with and approved by the superintendent; upon issuance of the public apology, respondent will be eligible for appointment(s) to committee assignments; and complainant will make a public statement at the next scheduled board meeting following approval of the settlement that the ethics complaint has been resolved, and respondent has accepted a reprimand from the SEC.
C87-24: Through a settlement agreement, respondent admitted that her conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), and accepted the penalty of censure to be read into the official record of the board within 60 days of the approval of the settlement agreement. In exchange, complainant agreed to withdraw his claim that respondent also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s initial decisions (the settlement agreements) as the final decisions, and recommended the agreed upon penalties of reprimand (C79-24) and censure (C87-24) to the Commissioner of Education.
- “PC Review” Decisions
- Frivolous Matter
In C112-25, complainant alleged that the superintendent violated multiple provisions of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, namely N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (e), (g), and (i), for matters related to a student residency dispute, Section 504, public school contracts law, and board governance. Because the SEC does not have jurisdiction over such matters, and because the superintendents are not subject to the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, the SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
In finding the complaint to be frivolous, the SEC noted that complainant initially submitted a complaint on October 16, 2025, which the SEC did not accept due to lack of jurisdiction and timeliness. However, complainant then filed another complaint with the same allegations. Therefore, the SEC concluded that complainant knew or should have known that the complaint was without 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 pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.2. Because complainant pursued a duplicative (and already rejected) complaint, the SEC ordered complainant to pay a fine in the amount of $50.
- Social Media Posts/Endorsements
In C75-24, respondent “posted an extensive endorsement” for a board member’s re-election on his “board of education campaign Facebook page.” Although respondent included a disclaimer prior to the endorsement, the SEC originally found probable cause for a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because respondent identified himself “as a trustee” in the endorsement and also referred to board matters.
However, following the SEC’s decision in connection with C56-25, which NJSBA summarized in the April 7, 2026, edition of School Board Notes, the SEC voted to withdraw the probable cause determination to ensure consistency. In reaching this determination, the SEC focused on the “personal context” of respondent’s post, specifically the language that he is “not only as a trustee but also as a lifelong volunteer, youth coach, mentor, father, and dedicated [district] stakeholder,” who has “deep roots in [the district],” and chose to make the district his “forever home.”
Based on the above, the SEC concluded that: respondent’s disclaimer was appropriate; a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that he was speaking in his official capacity as a board member; and, therefore, a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) could not be sustained.
- Display of Branded Material/Statements During Public Comment
In C95-25, complainant maintained that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) when, during a board meeting, he “wore clothing branded with his private podcast/business and distributed merchandise associated with the enterprise to attendees.” Complainant also argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (f), (g), and (i) when he “left his seat at the dais,” went to the “public comment microphone” and questioned the process that the board used in selecting the new superintendent. Finally, complainant also included allegations regarding respondent’s use of the district’s facilities and logo, but the SEC deemed those to be board policy matters and dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction.
In addressing respondent’s display of branded material at a board meeting, the SEC distinguished this matter from C109-22 (where there were several violations of the Act) and emphasized that, here, the wearing of a shirt with the name of respondent’s nonprofit organization, alone, did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) or (c), or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). As part of this determination, the SEC also relied upon the lack of sufficient details regarding respondent’s alleged distribution of materials at the board meeting.
As for respondent’s statements during public comment, the SEC generally found that complainant did not demonstrate violations of the stated sections of the Act, but provided a further analysis with respect to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), explaining that respondent “is permitted to have his own views and asking questions about the transparency of a hiring process does not equate to undermining, opposing, compromising or harming school personnel in the proper performance of their duties.” The SEC also highlighted that respondent “notably came down from the dais, and provided a disclaimer, before making his statement,” and did not appear to share information he received as a board member, as he announced that he had been recusing himself from matters regarding the superintendent.
Although the SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety, the SEC declined to find the complaint frivolous.
- Sharing Emails from Board Counsel
In C130-25 and C131-25 (Consolidated), the SEC slightly expounded on the concept of “generic legal advice,” which was referenced in a decision issued on September 23, 2025, in connection with C96-24.
Here, complainant alleged that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (g) when they disclosed a “confidential attorney-client communication.” Specifically, according to complainant, respondent T. sent an email to an NJSBA employee that contained three quoted paragraphs of “internal legal guidance” from the board’s attorney. Complainant also claimed that respondents’ exhibits to a complaint they filed with the SEC contained the guidance from the board’s attorney.
Although cautioning that board members should not share emails from their board attorney, as such disclosure could violate the Act, the SEC concluded that the content of the email in question did “not appear to be confidential” because it “only contained generic legal advice and did not provide any identifying details related to a specific [b]oard or legal matter.”
Because, according to the SEC, the information in the email was not confidential, there were insufficient facts and circumstances to prove the stated violations of the Act.
- Next Week’s Article
Next week’s article will analyze the remaining seven “PC Review” Decisions that the SEC adopted at its April 28, 2026 meeting.
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.
