Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Aug. 19, 2025: Part II  

Last week’s article reviewed the three “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on Aug. 19, 2025. This week’s article is limited to an examination of the three “Final Decisions” adopted by the SEC.

A.        “Final Decisions”

The spouse of the Respondent in C115-22 is a music teacher in the district, who was also serving in an extra-duty assignment as the band director for the school musical.  When the spouse resigned from the extra-duty assignment, some community members misinterpreted the board agenda item as his resignation from his full-time position.  Because of the confusion, Respondent emailed the superintendent’s assistant; copied the superintendent, board president, and assistant superintendent on the email; and recommended the revision of the agenda item.  Respondent also emailed her spouse’s supervisor, alerting him of the situation in case anyone contacted him.  Complainant alleged that Respondent’s actions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d). 

The SEC disagreed with the Administrative Law judge’s conclusion that Respondent did not violate the School Ethics Act.  In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b),  the SEC emphasized that “[r]ecusal in a matter means recusal at all parts of a lifecycle of a matter” and, therefore, “Respondent should not be contacting the [s]uperintendent and [b]oard [p]resident about any matter involving her spouse, even if she believes it to be minor.”  The SEC categorized the email to the superintendent’s assistant as “an attempt to use her official position to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for herself and her spouse” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).  The SEC also determined that “[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” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d). 

In recommending a penalty of reprimand, the SEC noted that although Respondent “chose to insert herself into a situation where she knew she was recused,” it was her first infraction.

The Respondents in the remaining two “Final Decisions,” C109-22 and C75-18, are board members who are also the heads of nonprofit organizations.  In both decisions, the SEC highlighted that, although “simultaneous service on both the [b]oard and on a nonprofit, including in a leadership role, is not a per se conflict of interest, situations or circumstances may arise based on the dual positions that result in violations of the Act.”  As set forth in further detail below, due to the specific factual scenarios in both matters, the SEC found violations of the Act.

In C109-22, Respondent attended the NJSBA Workshop wearing a nametag with her board credentials and a shirt with the name of her nonprofit organization.   When speaking to vendors at Workshop, she livestreamed their conversations and introduced herself as a board member, and then proceeded 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) because her position in the nonprofit organization, alone, is not a conflict of interest. 

For the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f), the SEC explained that Respondent attempted to use her official position as a board member to secure business relationships with vendors because she attended NJSBA Workshop as a board member, her registration was paid for by the board, and she promoted her nonprofit organization in an attempt to “market and/or procure services/benefits/programs.”  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.”  Finally, the SEC concluded that Respondent should have listed her nonprofit organization on her financial disclosure statement because, at the time, it was a “for profit” organization and she had an interest in the organization. 

Given the “very serious nature of Respondent’s violations of the Act,” the SEC adopted the ALJ’s recommended penalty of censure. 

In C75-18, Respondent, while serving as board president, promoted the services of his nonprofit organization, Math Adventure and Word Play (MAWP), which provides free tutoring and enrichment services to students.  Specifically, with the permission of the superintendent and other district administrators, Respondent circulated flyers and emails about MAWP 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 dismissed all of the alleged violations of the Act in an Initial Decision, which the SEC rejected, and summarily determined that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). Respondent appealed and the Commissioner of Education remanded the matter back to the SEC for additional proceedings.  After further developing the record, the SEC again concluded that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). 

At the outset, the SEC noted that Respondent’s conflict “stems from the use of his [b]oard title and position as a means to generate clients and volunteers for his nonprofit.”  By promoting his nonprofit organization to students and teachers in the district, even if the services provided are free, Respondent was in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties as a board member in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a).  This conduct also “creates a conflict with the parents, teachers, and students who may feel pressured to use and/or volunteer for this nonprofit.”  The SEC further noted that the superintendent’s permission to promote the nonprofit in the district does not negate the fact that the conflict exists.  Finally, as for N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the SEC substantiated a violation because a reasonable person would view Respondent as lacking objectivity while performing his responsibilities as a board member and simultaneously promoting his nonprofit.

For Respondent’s violations of the Act, the SEC determined that a penalty of reprimand was appropriate.

B.        SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 23, 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.