At its meeting on Aug. 25, 2026, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed two matters in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed eight matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting eight decisions; considered two new advisory opinion requests; and considered making one advisory opinion public.
Of the eight decisions considered for adoption, six were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining two matters – C23-26 and C24-26 – remain pending. The SEC also posted one new public advisory opinion.
- Final Decisions
The respondent in C90-24 endorsed three people for election to the board, which was memorialized in a letter and a flyer that the local Republican Organization distributed. Respondent did not prepare the letter or the flyer, but he signed the letter using his title as a board member, and did not include a disclaimer to clarify that his actions were not representative of the full board. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that respondent’s endorsement violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f), and recommended a penalty of reprimand.
Upon review, the SEC emphasized that, although it “has long held that [b]oard members do not give up their right to participate in political activity, [it] has warned that [b]oard members must ensure that the activity does not violate the [School Ethics] Act.” Here, because respondent “used his name and title, without a disclaimer, on an endorsement for school board candidates that was distributed by the [local] Republican Organization, his actions had the potential to compromise the [b]oard as it appeared … the entire [b]oard was endorsing the candidates,” which violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). The SEC also agreed with the ALJ that when respondent used his title, without a disclaimer, to endorse school board candidates, he obtained a benefit for himself and for his friends (the candidates) in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
Based on the above, the SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, adopted the legal conclusions that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f), and also adopted the recommended penalty of reprimand.
In C105-25, respondent, the superintendent, did not disclose a business that her spouse co-owns with a principal in the district, on her 2025 Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS). Respondent admitted that her spouse and the principal formed an LLC, which is intended to “generate rental income, but it has never made a profit,” and does not generate $2,000 in income. Respondent also noted that she consulted with board counsel regarding the LLC and whether she needed to report it on her FDS, but board counsel advised that it was “unclear.”
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4), a school official is required to disclose on their FDS whether, “[i]n the preceding calendar year, [the board member] or a member of [their] immediate family [has] an interest in a business organization[.]” Interest is defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23 as “the ownership or control of more than 10% of the profits, assets, or stock of a business…” The SEC explained that, regardless of whether the LLC made a profit, it has a rental property, which is an asset. Therefore, respondent’s spouse has an interest in the LLC, and it should have been disclosed on respondent’s FDS. The SEC reiterated that there is not a $2,000 income threshold amount disclosing an interest in a business organization, and that amount only applies to sources of income.
Based on the above, the SEC determined, by summary decision, that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 when she filed an inaccurate FDS that did not include the LLC. The SEC also rejected respondent’s “advice of counsel” defense because board counsel did not advise respondent not to disclose the LLC.
- Dismissals/No Probable Cause
In C11-26, complainant alleged that respondents, who are administrators in the district, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), (d), and (f) when their attorney attended a board meeting, spoke during public comment, and “relayed confidential district legal matters previously discussed in executive session and relayed lies to the public at the request of [respondents].”
The SEC generally found that complainant presented insufficient facts and circumstances to prove the stated violations of the Act, but, with respect to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), the SEC elaborated that complainant did “not articulate what confidential information [r]espondents’ attorney is alleged to have revealed or shared when he spoke in public session…[or] show[] how [r]espondents’ attorney’s statements during public session constituted [r]espondents using or attempting to use their official position to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment for themselves, members of their immediate family, or ‘others.’”
In C20-26, respondent’s spouse applied for a board vacancy and, according to complainant, respondent sent a text message to non-board members, in which he named the board candidates for the vacancy at a time when the information was not public, and also stated that, “[T]he Super said that she never received my wife’s email (bullshit)…”
Complainant alleged that respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because he used his board position for the gain of his spouse in her application for the vacant seat; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because he sent a group text to non-board members that disclosed the identity of the other applicants; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) because he failed to support personnel by publicly declaring that the superintendent lied about not receiving his spouse’s application.
The SEC concluded that complainant did not meet provide sufficient factual evidence to possibly establish violations of the Act.
In C25-26, complainant alleged that respondent violated several sections of the Act when he: advocated for and provided information to the vendor that was not available to other bidders (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c)); directed a board employee to take action toward contracting with this vendor outside of the procurement process (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and (e)); and advocated for a vendor in which he may have a financial interest, and used his position to advance private business interests (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and (b)).
The SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety because it was “devoid” of any facts regarding how respondent advocated for a specific insurance vendor or how he has a conflict related to the vendor; however, the SEC declined to find the complaint frivolous.
The respondent in C30-26 is a principal who emailed complainant about his child’s HIB investigation, and informed him that she did not see evidence of HIB and was going to include the child’s mother on the correspondence, so that she could share the child’s support plan with both parents. According to complainant, respondent and the child’s mother have a “personal relationship” and respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) by failing to recuse herself from matters involving his child.
In concluding that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the SEC stated that there was no evidence “that [r]espondent had a direct or indirect financial involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair her objectivity, or a had a personal involvement that created some benefit to her.” The SEC also noted that, although complainant “speculated that [r]espondent and his child’s mother have a ‘relationship,’ that could be a conflict, [c]omplainant [did] not even articulate what sort of relationship or conflict this would be, let alone provide evidence of said conflict.”
Although the SEC dismissed the complaint, it did not find that the complaint was frivolous. In declining to find the complaint frivolous, the SEC rejected respondent’s argument that this was not an ethics complaint, but rather a “disagreement between divorced parents regarding school communication and the [d]istrict’s handling of student-safety concerns.”
- Public Advisory Opinion
In A15-26, the requestor provided the following background information: the board’s Policy 1330 requires the board to evaluate the business administrator (BA); board members A, B, and C declined to participate in the BA’s evaluation; board member A explained that the board has not “historically” evaluated the BA and, therefore, had concerns because the current BA is the district’s first Hispanic BA.
Based on these circumstances, the requestor asked whether board members A, B, and C could participate in the repeal of Policy 1330. The requestor also inquired whether a board member would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) if they participated in the repeal of Policy 1330 with the purpose of protecting the current BA because of their ethnicity, or otherwise excusing their earlier non-compliance with Policy 1330.
As an initial matter, the SEC clarified that the board does not have the authority to hire or evaluate any district personnel other than the superintendent. Specifically, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1, only the superintendent can recommend appointments, transfers, removals or renewals of board employees, including the BA, to the board. In contrast, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(h), the role of the board member is to vote to appoint the best qualified personnel available after consideration of the recommendation of the superintendent.
That said, the SEC advised that the subject board members would not violate the Act if they were to discuss or vote on the repeal of Board Policy 1330, and that this was true “regardless of whether they declined to participate in completing the evaluation required under [the policy] in the past.”
- Training Decisions
In three of the four training decisions adopted by the SEC (T02-26, T04-26, and T05-26), the board members failed to complete mandated training by December 31, 2025, and, to date, have not completed the training. The SEC found that these board members violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33, and recommended a penalty of removal, which can be modified to a 30-day suspension if they complete the training before the Commissioner of Education issues a final decision. In T03-26, the board member also did not comply with the December 31, 2025 training deadline and, therefore, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33; however, because the board member completed the training by August 1, 2026 and before the SEC issued its decision, the SEC recommended a penalty of censure.
- SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for September 22, 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.
