At its meeting on Feb. 24, 2026, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed 13 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 11 decisions; considered three new advisory opinion requests; and considered making two advisory opinions public.
Of the 11 decisions considered for adoption, eight were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining three matters – C75-20, C76-20, C77-20, C79-20 (Consolidated); C67-25; and C69-25 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.
This article will review the eight decisions adopted by the SEC at its Feb. 24, 2026, meeting.
- “PC Review” Decisions
In C65-25, complainant alleged that respondent violated the School Ethics Act based on the following behavior at board meetings: publicly referenced confidential board discussions and internal disputes (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and (i)); publicly accused board leadership of “knowingly communicating the wrong information” about the timing of tax increases (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (g)); failed to submit questions in advance in accordance with board policy and, instead, raised issues in public (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (d), (e), and (i)); “misrepresent[ed] [b]oard actions” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)); and failed to support school personnel in the proper discharge of their duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)).
The SEC generally found that the complainant did not provide sufficient facts and circumstances to support the stated violations of the Act, but elaborated on two sections. For N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), the SEC explained that the complainant did not reference the substantive content of what the board discussed in executive session and, therefore, did not demonstrate how the comments would be considered confidential under any statutes or regulations. The SEC also noted that the complainant only referenced the respondent’s comments about fellow board members and board issues, not school personnel, which precluded a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
In C64-25, complainant alleged that the respondent board members violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because they hired the “least qualified, most expensive attorney, who was a friend, in violation of contract law”; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because they endorsed candidates for State Assembly on flyers and social media without disclaimers; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because they elected respondent H to be the board president, who had been endorsed by the president of the local education association to “gain influence over the [b]oard and negotiations.” Complainant also claimed that respondent O-P, the acting superintendent, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because she “orchestrated with her family members who work within the school district to ‘secure unwarranted privileges, advantages or employment for herself,’” and also failed to report these family members on her Personal/Relative Disclosure Statements in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(a) and (c).
With respect to the allegations against the respondent board members, the SEC dismissed the contract law claims for lack of jurisdiction and the remaining allegations for the complainant’s failure to provide the evidence required to sustain violations of the Act. As for respondent O-P, the complainant did not articulate what specific actions she took to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage, or employment for herself besides “simply … being promoted to [a]cting [s]uperintendent.” The SEC also confirmed that the employees listed by the complainant do not meet the definition of “relative” and, therefore, respondent O-P did not have to list them on her disclosure statement filing. Finally, the SEC also found the complaint not frivolous.
The complainant in C62-25 is the district’s superintendent/principal and, in this capacity, recommended the non-renewal of respondent Gu when she was employed by the board as a teacher’s assistant in 2022. In January 2025, the complainant learned that respondents Gu and G signed a petition supporting dividing the complainant’s dual role as superintendent/principal into two positions. Complainant alleged that respondents G and Gu violated several sections of the Act by signing the petition (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (i), and (j)) and respondent Gu violated additional sections of the Act due to her conflict with complainant based on her non-renewal in 2022 (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), (e), (f), (i), and (j)).
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act. Notably, the SEC explained that respondents “could have made their views known at public meetings or on social media, and therefore, signing the petition would be no different.” In analyzing respondent Gu’s alleged conflict with the superintendent based on the non-renewal, the SEC referred to A02-24, and reinforced that the SEC “considers each circumstance on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the public might reasonably perceive that a prior animus has the potential to prejudice or interfere with a board member’s independence of judgment in the exercise of their official duties as a board member or could create a justifiable impression that the public trust has been violated.” Here, “given the amount of time that has passed since [r]espondent [Gu’s] contract was not renewed, in conjunction with the fact that [c]omplainant has not provided any additional examples of animus,” the SEC found that a conflict did not exist.
In C60-25, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), and (c) by permitting staff to leave school early to attend an event for retirees that was hosted by a foundation of which respondent F is the “recording secretary” and respondent M is a “liaison.” Although the SEC determined that the complaint was not frivolous, the SEC dismissed all allegations for the complainant’s failure to meet the evidentiary requirements for violations of the stated sections of the Act.
The complainant in C58-25 alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (i) due to her ongoing harassment of the interim superintendent, which included late-night emails, disruptive behavior at board meetings, and following him to his home after a board meeting (respondent claimed that she was following a board member and was not aware of where the interim superintendent lived).
The SEC explained that, although the respondent’s behavior of following a board member to the interim superintendent’s house is concerning, the complainant did not demonstrate that the respondent made any personal promises or took any private action that could have compromised the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)). This incident did not occur when the interim superintendent was performing his official duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)). Therefore, the SEC declined to find probable cause and dismissed the complaint.
In C57-25, the respondent “exchanged text messages” with A.C. (the husband of the district librarian) to show him that the complainant had made comments about him on a podcast. Later, in connection with a defamation lawsuit, the complainant’s attorney deposed A.C., and he admitted that he had asked the respondent for personal information about the complainant before filing the lawsuit. Based on this sharing of information, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), and (g).
Although the respondent sent the text messages to A.C. more than 180 days before the complainant filed her complaint, because the complainant was not a party to the text messages, the SEC found it credible that the complainant was not aware of the respondent’s actions until the deposition of A.C. in April 2025. Although it regarded the allegations as timely, the SEC determined that, in light of the substance of the claims, there were no violations of the Act. The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous.
In C55-25, the complainant’s child assaulted another student, and the principal suspended him and banned him from participating in the sixth-grade promotion ceremony. Respondent T, the superintendent, met with the complainants at their request but did not alter the principal’s discipline. Because the victim of their child’s assault was a distant relative of respondent T’s deceased brother, complainants claimed that respondent T’s involvement in the matter violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and (b). Complainants also filed an “ethics complaint” with the board about respondent T, but did not believe that the board responded to the complaint (which complainants argued violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a)).
For the allegations against respondent T, the SEC concluded that complainants did not provide proof that she engaged in a professional activity that was in substantial conflict with her duties as a superintendent (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a)). As for N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), complainants did not show how respondent T’s “distant relationship with the alleged victim resulted in any sort of unwarranted privilege or advantage to the victim.” Finally, the complainants did not produce the required proof of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a).
The respondent in C54-25 did not disclose his interest in a political committee on his Financial Disclosure Statement, which the complainant alleged violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26. The complainant also argued that this political committee was formed to influence a public referendum concerning ownership and rates of a public sewer utility that contracts with the board, which further violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g).
Because the complainant did not provide evidence that the respondent owns or controls more than 10% of the profits, assets, or stock of the political committee, the SEC could not determine whether the respondent had an “interest” in a business organization (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26). The SEC also concluded that there was no evidence that the respondent, or the political committee, represented any party in connection with a proceeding before the district (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g)), emphasizing that the respondent is not prohibited from advocating on a local issue. Finally, the SEC found the complaint not frivolous.
- SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for March 24, 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.
