Last week’s article reviewed six decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on April 28, 2026, two of which involved the adoption of settlement agreements, and the other four discussed dismissal following the SEC’s “PC Review” or “Probable Cause Review” determinations. This week’s article is limited to an examination of the seven remaining “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the SEC.

A.        “PC Review” Decisions

According to the SEC’s regulations, probable cause “shall be found when the facts and circumstances presented in the complaint and written statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the [School Ethics] Act has been violated.” N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.7(a). After review, the SEC did not find probable cause for any of the claimed violations of the School Ethics Act that were pled in C102-25; C103-25; C104-25; C106-25; C108-25; C109-25; and/or C114-25.  

Summarized below are the facts and circumstances from each matter, as well as the associated purported violations of the Act, for which the SEC did not find probable cause.

  • Although C102-25 and C104-25 were not formally consolidated, complainant relied upon the same facts in both matters. 
  • Facts:   Complainant, the superintendent, claimed that respondent L., the district’s business administrator, directed the high school print shop to produce “promotional material” for an Education Foundation (“EF”) golf fundraiser.  Complainant also indicated that respondent M-H. is the founder/president of the EF.  According to complainant, there was no invoice for this project or payment received from the EF.  According to respondent L., the board “voted to accept donations to the student scholarship fund from several upcoming fundraisers during that school year,” including the EF’s golf fundraiser.  In light of this “partnership,” respondent L. arranged for the high school print shop to prepare promotional material for the golf event.    
  • Facts: Complainant, the superintendent, alleged that respondent, the business administrator, “directed” the high school print shop teacher to “produce promotional materials for [r]espondent’s private business using district equipment, materials, and staff time.”  Respondent explained that the print shop “offers students the opportunity to simulate the operation of a commercial printing facility” and, to that end, “accepts printing orders from individuals and organizations and charges for its services.”  The print shop sent respondent an invoice on July 7, 2025, for its services, which he has since paid.

Complainant also claimed that respondent “leveraged his official role” when he told staff to clean out his office while he was on administrative leave (which also ignored a “written directive to refrain from contacting staff/board members” during his leave).  However, according to respondent, he only emailed the Director of Human Resources to request “a time to retrieve his personal belongings.”

  • Facts:  Complainant alleged that respondent “distributed campaign mailers…which prominently featured and were paid for by [an assemblyman]” and included “shared photographs and endorsements.”  Complainant argued that the mailers “presented” respondent and the assemblyman “as running jointly or in alignment, using coordinated political branding and messaging.”
  • Other Findings:The SEC emphasized that, although “there is no statute specifically prohibiting candidates from being endorsed by a political party, the Commissioner of Education has traditionally cautioned against political party endorsements of school board members, as school elections should be nonpartisan.”  See I/M/O the Annual Election in the Brick School District, 93 N.J.A.R. 2d 360.  The SEC also indicated that board members should be guided by A10-18 and A03-07 with respect to endorsements.  The SEC additionally found that the complaint was not frivolous.
  • Facts:  At a board meeting, respondents made the following statements to community members: “[y]ou do not have kids in our schools” and your concerns are “not up for discussion” (in reference to an upcoming referendum); and “for six years, she approved the contract until she lost the election. She didn’t have questions about Shared Services until she was off the board. It became a problem . . . I’ve kept my mouth shut for a while but the misinformation . . . she has stated in the past that she contacted the board and we failed to respond and she assassinated our character.”
  • Other Findings: The SEC determined that the complaint was not frivolous.
  • Facts:  In October 2025, the Israeli-American Coalition for Action (“IAC”) provided a survey form to each board candidate, to which the three “non-incumbent candidates did not respond.”  IAC published respondents’ responses in a “Policy Survey on Antisemitism” and this publication specifically referenced the name of the board of education, and pictures of respondents, labeling them as “current” board members.  According to complainant, the survey included “politically and internationally sensitive topics” and a post showing the survey questions and respondents’ answers was publicly shared in a Facebook group (and respondent K. is the sole administrator of this group).  Respondent K. explained that that the Facebook page is private and has a disclaimer stating that it is a personal Facebook page and is not affiliated with any organization to which Respondent K. belongs, including the board.  Respondent K. also claimed that a member of the group, not one of the respondents, posted about the IAC survey on the page.    
  • Other Findings:The SEC noted that many groups (e.g., the League of Women Voters, news publications, etc.) distribute surveys to candidates for elected office, which are designed to inform the public where candidates stand on certain issues.  The SEC emphasized that even if respondents’ views or answers on the survey may be unpopular or controversial, this does not mean that they have taken action beyond the scope of their duties that had the potential to compromise the board when they participated in a survey that was provided to all candidates.   
  • Facts:  On Election Day, complainant voted, sat for awhile “in a chair designated for challengers,” and then went home.  At home, someone informed her via text message that a police officer questioned workers at the polling site regarding an “alleged election violation” by complainant.  Complainant claimed that, based upon information she received from the police department, respondent (who is the Chief of Police in another municipality and complainant’s former opponent in a board election) reported the alleged violation to the Chief of Police.
  • Other Findings:In dismissing the matter, the SEC explained that it does not have jurisdiction over election laws or respondent’s actions as a police chief, and did not otherwise address the substance of the alleged violations of the Act.  The SEC additionally found that the complaint was not frivolous.

B.        SEC’s Next Meeting  

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for May 26, 2026. 

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.