At its meeting on Dec. 16, 2025, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed 12 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting seven decisions; considered one new advisory opinion request; considered making one advisory opinion public; and considered whether to place one matter in abeyance.

Of the seven decisions considered for adoption, five were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining two matters – C24-25 and C27-25 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.

This article will review the five decisions (one “Final Decision” and four “PC Review” decisions) adopted by the SEC at its Dec. 16, 2025, meeting.

A. “Final Decision”

The underlying facts of C18-24 relate to a previous ethics matter.  Specifically, on Nov. 28, 2023, the SEC adopted a “Resolution of Censure” (Resolution) in connection with C71-20, and mailed a copy to the business administrator for reading at the Dec. 4, 2023, board meeting.  The board president forwarded the Resolution to respondent, and respondent informed him that she was appealing the determination. New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) officials advised the superintendent to “leave the [Resolution] off the publicly released version of the agenda until advised otherwise by the [b]oard [p]resident.” Although the Resolution was removed from the board’s agenda, the board was able to read the Resolution at the Dec. 4, 2023, meeting because the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, denied respondent’s request for a stay of the reading. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) by engaging in discussions about a matter – the Resolution – involving her own conduct.

The SEC dismissed the matter, rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and rejected the ALJ’s recommended penalty of a 60-day suspension.  The SEC explained that respondent was answering only the board president’s questions with procedural information and did not attempt to use her official position to secure an unwarranted privilege. The SEC also noted that the board’s decision to remove the Resolution from the agenda was based on guidance from DOE officials, not from respondent.

B. “PC Review” Decisions

InC25-25, respondent, a board member and member of the Republican County Committee, made comments on his podcast about complainant, who is a supervisor in the district and the president of the Township Council (Council).  Complainant alleged that respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), (g), and (i) because he referred to complainant’s position in the district and on Council, and called complainant a tyrant, narcissist, and creepy.  Complainant also mentioned additional statements made by respondent on his podcast, but the SEC dismissed those allegations as time-barred.

The SEC declined to find probable cause to believe the School Ethics Act was violated. For the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), the SEC reminded that board members “are entitled to their own personal political views and even if [r]espondent belonged to a group or political organization, this would not demonstrate that the individual took action, on behalf of, or at the request of, a special interest or political group.”  Additionally, because complainant did not show that any statements made by respondent on his podcast were confidential or anything more than his personal opinion, there was no violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).  Finally, in the absence of any evidence that respondent’s opinion undermined, opposed, compromised, or harmed complainant in the proper performance of his duties, complainant also did not prove a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).  The SEC also found the complaint not frivolous and, as a result, did not impose sanctions.

In C28-25, complainant’s child made threatening statements against the superintendent’s family and the school.  Complainant believed that his child’s conduct was in response to “incidents where [the superintendent’s child] had made inappropriate gestures” towards complainant’s child. Complainant alleged that the superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), (c), and (g) when he did not “recuse himself from an incident in which he had multiple personal roles” and, specifically: failed to appoint a designee to manage the incident; notified the police himself; withheld the identity of three potential witnesses; and attended complainant’s child’s Individualized Educational Plan meeting.  

In finding that the superintendent did recuse himself from the disciplinary process related to the incident and noting that there was no issue with the superintendent contacting the police about a potential threat to his family, the SEC dismissed all of the allegations because complainant did not provide sufficient facts and circumstances to support the stated violations of the Act.

In C29-25, a board member’s child received a grade change – from incomplete to a “well-beyond pass grade” – and was accepted into the National Honor Society (“NHS”) after the NHS committee initially denied the application.  Complainant claimed that the board member, assistant superintendent, and superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) due to their alleged involvement in the grade change and NHS admittance for the board member’s child. 

Although the SEC determined that the allegations were time-barred and no circumstances existed to relax the regulatory time period for filing an ethics complaint, the SEC still reviewed the merits of the matter and concluded that no probable cause existed. With respect to the grade change, the SEC emphasized that “[b]oard members are allowed to consult with teachers and staff on behalf of their own child regarding their child’s education.”  The SEC also determined that complainant did not articulate what actions the superintendent took and did not show how the assistant superintendent “provided any person with an unwarranted privilege or advantage when other students with similar accommodations have also received similar grade changes.”  As for the NHS admission, the SEC found no evidence that the board member used her official position to secure unwarranted privileges for her child, nor any evidence that the superintendent secured an unwarranted privilege for any student as 47 students were subsequently admitted to the NHS following a review of the denials.

In C30-25, complainant alleged that respondent’s actions at public board meetings violated the Act, specifically when he: voted “no” in response to a motion to “reaffirm the district’s stance to stand for all students with [an] Inclusion Resolution”, called the resolution “fake news” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b)); and asserted that a “staff member is not qualified to teach in their position” and “showed” the staff member’s resume from his seat at the board table (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)).

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act. In dismissing the claims related to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), the SEC explained that, although complainant may disagree with respondent’s “no” vote on a particular resolution, complainant did not demonstrate how respondent’s comments or vote was a willful decision, contrary to the educational welfare of children, or a deliberate action to obstruct the programs and policies that are designed to meet the needs of all children.  Finally, and because respondent “did not mention any specific teacher by name,” the SEC determined that complainant also did not establish a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).

C. SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 27, 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.