Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Feb. 18, 2025

The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting Feb. 18, 2025: discussed three matters subject to the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed five matters pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting seven decisions (C64-22, C77-22, and C92-22 (Consolidated); C25-24; C27-24; C31-24; C35-24; C37-24; and C41-24); considered two new advisory opinion requests (A01-25 and A02-25); and considered making one new advisory opinion public (A01-25).

Of the seven decisions considered for adoption, four were posted on the New Jersey Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining three matters – C31-24, C35-24, and C37-24 – remain pending. The SEC also did not post a new advisory opinion.

Final Decision

In C64-22, C77-22, and C92-22 (Consolidated), it was alleged that the six named Respondents violated multiple provisions of the act when they voted to adopt a resolution approving the filing of ethics charges against another board member; voted to approve the drafting of the ethics charges by the board’s attorney; voted to authorize Respondent S to file the ethics charges on behalf of the board, and to be represented by the board’s attorney; and voted against a motion to require Respondent S to hire her own attorney to draft and file ethics charges against another board member.

In its review of the initial decision issued by the administrative law judge, the SEC adopted the legal conclusion that Respondent S violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), and (f), and that all named respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (f); modified the legal conclusion to find that none of the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g); and modified the administrative law judge’s recommended penalty of reprimand in favor of censure.

With regard to Respondent S, the SEC found that Respondent S used her position as a board member to secure the privilege and advantage of using board counsel to represent her in an ethics proceeding that she filed, which was “a clear privilege or advantage that she received solely because of her position as a board member” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)); took action in her official capacity in a matter where she has a financial involvement – free legal representation – that might reasonably be expected to impair her objectivity or independence of judgment (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c)); and received a financial gain – free legal services – that were only available to her because of her position on the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f)).

As for the allegations levied against all named respondents, the SEC determined that their vote to authorize the filing of ethics charges on behalf of the board and to authorize board counsel to facilitate the filing when the board is not permitted to file ethics charges, was action outside of their roles “to make policy, plan, and appraise” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)); action beyond the scope of their duties as board members that had the potential to compromise the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and constituted use of the schools to secure a benefit for themselves (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)).

Although not addressed by the administrative law judge, the SEC found that it had not been established that, in authorizing the filing of ethics charges, respondents took action to make public, reveal or disclose any information that was confidential or not public in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).

As for the penalty, the SEC concluded that a censure was more appropriate than a reprimand because “Respondents unquestionably weaponized the board to file legal proceedings against a fellow board member … .” Moreover, because the board is not authorized to file ethics charges, “Respondents improperly used the board and its resources to support their own goals.”

In addition, while the administrative law judge believed that a reprimand was appropriate because respondents were purportedly informed by board counsel that their actions were appropriate, the SEC found insufficient information in the record to support this position. Even if board counsel did so advise respondents, the SEC stated that “there are also aggravating circumstances in this matter, specifically the public nature of respondents’ actions.” According to the SEC, “[v]oting in public to authorize the filing of ethics charges against another board member, and asking counsel to handle the matter, deserves a heightened and public remedy of censure, not the private remedy of reprimand.”

Probable Cause Review Decisions

In C25-24, the named respondents, six members of the board, ran together in November 2022 as “parental rights” candidates “under the slogan ‘Students First.’” Respondents were also “openly supported” by the local Republican political party, “the Sussex GOP [(GOP)].” On Sept. 7, 2023, the GOP hosted the Sussex County Republicans’ Salute to Freedom award night, and the named respondents all received awards. According to the complainant, “any reasonable person would deduce all six current and former [board] members accepted the awards in their capacity as [board] members during the event.” The complainant maintains that the respondents have surrendered their independent judgment and are “beholden” to the GOP, as is evidenced by their board action regarding the district’s transgender policy and “removing books.” Because they have surrendered their independent judgment to a partisan political group for their own personal gain, they have violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).

In finding insufficient facts and circumstances to support a finding of probable cause, the SEC stated that the respondents’ receipt of an award from the GOP because the respondents may have supported an issue(s) or advocated a position(s) aligned to that of the GOP, and may have taken board action that is affiliated with or similar to the beliefs held by the GOP does not mean, without more evidence, that the respondents took action on behalf of, or at the request of, the GOP.

In addition to dismissing the matter for lack of probable cause, the SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions.

In C27-24, individuals interested in filling a board vacancy were asked to submit letters of interest.  After the superintendent advised the interested candidates that interviews would be conducted in executive session, the complainant, among others, requested that the interviews take place in public. At the meeting when interviews were to take place, a motion and a second were made to convene the interviews in public. During discussion of the motion, and when it was asked why the interviews should take place in executive session, the named respondents both indicated, more or less, that “that was what the board agreed to” in December. The motion to conduct the interviews in public failed, and the board went into executive session. Based on these facts, and because the complainant believed that the interviews should have taken place in public and that the respondents misrepresented a board “agreement” to conduct interviews in executive session, the complainant filed a complaint asserting violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (e), and (g).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the stated violations of the act, and dismissed those claims beyond its jurisdiction, namely the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15 (and the failure to timely fill the vacancy claim), the board’s bylaws, and the Open Public Meetings Act. Regarding the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), the SEC found that the complainant failed to provide a “final decision from a court of law or other administrative agency” finding that either the respondent engaged in any illegal or unethical misconduct in Count 1, Count 3, and/or Count 4.

As for the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC determined that the respondents’ statements at the public board meeting were neither personal promises nor action beyond the scope of their duties as board members. Instead, the statements constituted their beliefs about the established process for conducting interviews for board vacancies. In addition, there was no evidence that any board member was “forced” to hold interviews in executive session.

Finally, and with regard to the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), the SEC concluded that the complainant failed to present evidence that the respondents discussed or disclosed confidential information; “knowingly” provided inaccurate or misleading information about the meeting or interview process; or that their statements were anything other than a reasonable mistake.

In C41-24, the complainant stated that after a township committee voted to approve its minutes from an executive/closed session, a member of the committee “improperly leaked those confidential minutes” to the named respondent. Thereafter, the respondent shared the “confidential” minutes with the superintendent. According to the complainant, the committee intended to censure the committee member who improperly “leaked” the minutes to the respondent. Based on these facts, the complainant asserts that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).

In finding insufficient facts and circumstances to support a finding of probable cause, and with regard to the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), the SEC determined that the complainant did not present any evidence that the respondent took board action or was acting in his capacity as a board member when he accepted the committee minutes or shared them with the superintendent, nor did it see how accepting meeting minutes from another governing body would effectuate board policies and plans.  As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC concluded that the complaint was devoid of any allegations or evidence that the respondent has made any personal promises; the complainant failed to establish that the respondent was under any responsibility or obligation to keep the meeting minutes confidential; and the complainant has not shown that the respondent acted in his capacity as a board member when he received the meeting minutes or when he gave them to the superintendent.

SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for March 25, 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 and Labor Relations Department at 609-278-5279, or your board attorney for specific legal advice.