Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Jan. 27, 2026 – Part I

The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting on Jan. 27, 2026: discussed one matter in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed 11 matters pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 12 decisions; considered five requests for advisory opinions, including a request for reconsideration (A18-25); considered adopting and making five advisory opinions public; administratively dismissed 18 matters, including 13 matters filed in 2017, and five filed in 2025; and considered whether to place one matter (C73-25) in abeyance.

Of the 12 decisions considered for adoption, 11 were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining matter – C38-25 – remains pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions, but did remove A18-25 from its website. The website now indicates that the advice previously issued in connection with A18-25 is “no longer valid.”

This article will review five of the 11 decisions adopted by the SEC, and next week’s article will address the remaining six decisions.

A.        Summary Decision

In C10-25, complainant stated that, at a special board meeting on April 23, 2024, respondents “authoriz[ed] the appointment of [PB and N] as Special Conflicts Counsel.” At its next board meeting, respondents approved another motion, “presented by [r]espondent [G], authorizing [respondent G] . . . to file a complaint with the [SEC] against [c]omplainant,” and further authorizing Special Conflicts Counsel to assist respondents with filing an ethics complaint against a fellow board (complainant), on behalf of the board, using district funds. At a board meeting on Sept. 19, 2024, respondent G “introduced another … motion authorizing himself retroactively to file an ethics complaint against [c]omplainant.” Although respondent G abstained from the vote on the motion, “he introduce[d] the motion … by announcing it with commentary, read it in its entirety/stressed the need for the [b]oard to approve it, called for and participated in discussion with [another board member] on the merits/rationale of the motion, and requested a roll call to put the resolution before the [b]oard for a vote.”  The motion subsequently passed. From April through Dec. 2024, respondents “repeatedly voted to approve payment to … Special Conflicts [Counsel].”

Based on their actions at multiple board meetings, complainant asserted that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because they authorized and/or directed respondent G, on behalf of the board, to file an ethics complaint against complainant even though the board, as a public body, is not authorized to file an ethics complainant.  In addition, respondents repeatedly authorized and/or directed the expenditure of district funds for the appointment of, and payments to, Special Conflicts Counsel to prosecute the ethics charges against the complainant.

Complainant additionally asserted that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because they “took public [b]oard action to initiate an adversarial position against one of their members.” Finally, respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because they directed Special Conflicts Counsel “to prepare, file and litigate an ethics complaint against a fellow [b]oard member,” under the “pretext of taking official [b]oard action to authorize [the Board President] as a sole [c]omplainant on behalf of the [b]oard.” By doing so, respondents “used their official position to secure the privilege and advantage of free legal representation against their ideological rival ….”

Deciding the matter by summary decision in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8, the SEC found that all respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), respondent G violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and all respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). According to the SEC, respondents’ votes to authorize an individual to file an ethics complaint on behalf of the board against a fellow board member, and respondents’ votes to permit the use of board resources to file the complaint – when the board as an entity is not permitted to file an ethics complaint – was action outside of their roles to make policies, plans and appraisals in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c). In addition, and despite his direct conflict of interest/financial interest in ensuring that the attorney representing him was paid, respondent G voted to authorize the payment(s) to an attorney representing him in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). However, when all other named respondents voted to approve the legal bills for Special Conflicts Counsel, they did not act outside the scope of their duties because the ethics complaint was filed by respondent G. Finally, respondents used the schools to acquire a benefit in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) when they used district resources to file an ethics complaint.

For respondents’ violations, and after balancing both the mitigating factor of the advice of counsel defense along with the aggravating circumstances surrounding the public nature of respondents’ violations, the SEC found that a censure was most appropriate. Per the SEC, “Voting 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.”

B.        Probable Cause or PC Review Decisions

According to the named complainant in C73-24, the district ended its years-long “partnership” with his charity after posting on Facebook that it would be discussing bullying with community members. In May 2024, complainant’s charity had a meeting with members of the district’s administration to discuss, among other things, “how [the] [charity] was treated when offering bullying support, steps the schools could take to improve communication with families … and even discussing reinstating the ‘partnership’ … .” An hour after the meeting, respondent filed a “fict[it]ious harassment complaint” with the police department against complainant. Complainant contends that, by filing the criminal harassment complaint against him, respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e) (Count 1) and, because the criminal filing was precipitated by an email to the superintendent that complained/expressed concern about complainant’s conduct, respondent also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) (Count 2).

The SEC declined to find probable cause and declined to find the complaint frivolous. Per the SEC, complainant had not established what direct order respondent gave to school personnel (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)); “[r]espondent filed the harassment complaint as a private citizen, not as a [b]oard member … ” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and respondent “was not required to follow an administrative procedure prior to going to the police” to file a criminal harassment complaint against complainant (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j)).

In C33-25, the named complainant indicated that his child was involved in a “[p]eer to [p]eer conflict” on the playground. As part of an “informal” investigation, complainant’s child took responsibility for what transpired, but also admitted to making a racial slur. The district subsequently conducted a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB)  investigation which resulted in a finding that complainant’s child violated the district’s HIB policy. Complainant and his spouse appealed to the board – the named respondents – and argued that “procedures were not properly followed” and that “there was additional evidence that needed to be reviewed.” Despite complainant’s arguments, the board affirmed the finding of HIB. Based on respondents’ votes affirming the HIB determination, complainant argued they violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), (d), (f), (g), and (i).

In its “Decision on Probable Cause,” the SEC did not analyze whether, based on the facts and circumstances presented, a reasonable person could believe that the cited provisions of the Act were violated. Instead, and because the SEC “does not have jurisdiction over HIB investigations,” including the process or outcome of those investigations, the matter was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Despite dismissing the matter for lack of jurisdiction, the SEC did not find the complaint frivolous.

In C34-25, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) when, in response to a question about how he would resolve the issue of staff cuts at a “Meet the Candidates” night, respondent stated, “I would immediately look at the bloated salaries of some of our underworked and overpaid administrators” (Count 1). Complainant additionally alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (g) when he “made a definitive statement against any potential privatization of jobs” at the “Meet the Candidates” night, and stated that he was “vehemently against privatization…so 100% against privatization there’s not really any more to be said on the issue” (Count 2). Finally, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (i) when, at a board meeting, respondent made “negative comments about district personnel” by stating, “there are salaries that need to be cut and jobs that don’t belong here that could have been phased out long ago that still exists [(sic)] …” (Count 3).

The SEC did not find probable cause because complainant did not provide the necessary factual evidence to support a violation(s) when he expressed his personal opinion(s) and/or viewpoint(s) at the “Meet the Candidates” night and/or from the dais. In its decision, the SEC also reiterated that, when speaking at/participating in a voter forum (such as the “Meet the Candidates” night), it is not necessary for a school official to disclaim their speech as attendees “are aware that candidates will be making statements in their capacity as candidates and not in another capacity.”

In C35-25, complainant indicated that, on a community Facebook page, respondent posted the following message (in part): “As a [board] member, I respect and honor your right to hold differing opinions and expressed [(sic)] concerns about the [board]. Nonetheless, discussing my child’s or any other child’s personal education record is not permissible. Consider this a formal warning to act with respect and integrity. As a parent, it’s disappointing that you would engage in any discussions about my child’s personal educational information. …”  Responent’s post had a disclaimer emphasizing that the post was a “reflection of [her] personal views and opinions”

Based on this post, complainant argued that respondent “invoked her authority as a [board] member to threaten and discourage community speech regarding board matters”; violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because she “exceeded her role as a [board] member by issuing what she called a ‘formal warning’ to the community”; violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because she “acted independently and compromised the collective authority of the [board] by unilaterally threatening the community”; and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because she “referenced her child’s educational records and invoked potential discussions of other children’s private educational information in a public Facebook forum.”

The SEC declined to find probable cause. Based on the substance of the post, the SEC found that a reasonable member of the public could not perceive that respondent was speaking in her official capacity or pursuant to her official duties as a board member. Because, as a parent, respondent is allowed to comment or talk about matters involved her child, her comments could not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) or (e). Moreover, complainant failed to present evidence that respondent’s post disclosed any confidential information in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).

C.        Next Week’s Article

Next week’s article will address the remaining six decisions adopted by the SEC at its meeting on 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.