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

Last week’s article reviewed five of the 11 decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on Jan. 27, 2026. This week’s article addresses the remaining six decisions.

A. Remaining Probable Cause or PC Review Decisions

During a board meeting in March 2025, the named complainant in C39-25 claims that respondent was “unusually hostile, combative, and erratic,” used an aggressive tone without provocation, and glared in a confrontational manner at both the superintendent and board attorney. By behaving in this manner, complainant contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and (i) (Count 1). Beyond the board meeting in March 2025, complainant claimed respondent “has consistently exhibited a pattern of behavior” at board meetings whereby she verbally attacks other board members, administrators, and the public when they disagree with her. Due to her pattern of ill-mannered conduct, complainant argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (e) (Count 2). Finally, respondent’s behavior at board meetings violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because her public criticisms of district personnel and operations are made without evidence, and violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) because she does not follow the proper reporting channels and raises grievances in public (Count 3).

The SEC did not find probable cause because complainant failed to provide the factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4 to substantiate a violation(s). The SEC also did not find the complaint frivolous or impose sanctions.

Per the complainants in C40-25, and prior to a committee meeting, respondent submitted an organizational chart to the interim superintendent that she “independently created,” and which included a proposal for a reduction in force (RIF); identified newly created positions with their suggested salary(ies); and which identified those personnel who should receive be subject to the RIF. As chair of the negotiations committee, respondent also prioritized the contract for support staff above those for other bargaining units. Based on these facts, complainants assert that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i).

The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainants failed to provide the factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4 to substantiate a violation(s). In its decision, the SEC noted that: respondent’s discussion of her proposed organizational chart happened at committee meetings that were not open to the public; she was asked by the business administrator (BA) and the interim superintendent to share her thoughts on the budget issue; the interim superintendent and the BA were free to consider respondent’s recommendations or to reject them; and respondent is entitled to her own opinions and having said opinions does not on its own, demonstrate that an individual took action, on behalf of, or at the request of, a special interest or political group.

According to the complainant in C41-25, the superintendent allowed her adult child to use the school for his basketball league; altered her son’s Certificate of Insurance; forged the signature of the facilities manager; and did not require him to pay the facility usage fee. Despite being “informed” of this, respondent failed to investigate; failed to question the superintendent; failed to discipline the superintendent, and failed to issue a Rice notice to the superintendent. Thereafter, respondent’s child was named “Student of the Month.” Complainant asserts that respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (d), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e) (Count 1).

Complainant additionally states that, “due to her [] history with the superintendent,” respondent advised complainant that all of her “correspondence/questions” needed to be sent to him and that he, in turn, will obtain answers. Although complainant has abided by this request, respondent has failed to provide answers to her questions, and has also failed to secure the necessary administrative approval for her to enroll in conferences/courses, one of which is mandated by law. Moreover, and despite numerous requests, respondent has refused to investigate her (complainant’s) claims of harassment by staff. Consequently, complainant submits that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f) (Count 2).

Complainant also maintains that respondent’s spouse is employed as a music teacher “at several sending school districts” and, by virtue of her employment, “receives payment” from the district. Despite his spouse’s employment, complainant asserts that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f) because he did not recuse himself from the superintendent’s evaluation, from “other” matters related to the superintendent, or from matters related to theater personnel (Count 3).

The SEC did not find probable cause because complainant failed to provide the factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4 to substantiate a violation(s). In not finding probable cause, the SEC specifically noted that the mere fact that respondent’s child received an honor from the school was “not indicative that respondent used his position to ask for it” (Count 1), and because respondent’s spouse was not directly employed by the district, it was not a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) or (c) for respondent to participate in matters involving the superintendent (Count 3).

In C42-25, C47-25, C49-25, C50-25, and C51-25 (Consolidated), complainant states that, at the board’s reorganization meeting in January 2025, the superintendent recommended the law firm of S & W to continue to serve as board counsel; however, the appointment was tabled. Instead of approving a request for proposal (RFP) for general counsel – as required by the board’s bylaws – the board advertised a request for qualifications (RFQ) and, per complainant, it was “not scored.” Nonetheless, at the board’s meeting in April, respondent E.G. made a motion to appoint the “politically connected” law firm of B, H & D to serve as board counsel. Although not recommended by the superintendent, the motion to appoint the law firm of B, H & D passed.

Complainant additionally claims that, because of the following “conflicts,” respondents should not have voted on the selection of the board’s counsel: respondent E.G.’s spouse is employed as a teacher in the district, and is a member of the teacher’s union; respondent J.R. is a trustee on the community college board of directors, and the chief of staff for a State Assemblyman; respondents J.R., M.R., and H.N. are employed by the city in various capacities; respondent K.R. holds a volunteer position with the municipality; and respondents J.R., M.R., K.R., and H.N. are members of the County Democratic Committee.  Based on these facts, complainant argues that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (d), (e), and (f), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (f).

The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainants failed to provide the necessary factual evidence to sustain a violation(s). In addition to noting that nearly all of the claims in the complaint concern subjects – board policy, governance, and/or the public school contracts – for which the SEC does not have jurisdiction, the SEC found that complainant failed to articulate how respondents’ respective “conflicts” precluded them from selecting and voting to appoint the board’s legal counsel. In this regard, the SEC reiterated that mere membership in the same political party as a principal with the law firm of B, H & D did not mean, without more, that respondents took action on behalf of, or at the request of, a particular political party, particularly because complainant did not allege with any specificity when the law firm donated or how the law firm advocated for respondents.

In C46-25, the named complainant filed an ethics complaint against the board president (the respondent) after he denied her request for the board to conduct a “third party investigation” of the superintendent, assistant superintendent, business administrator (BA), and three board members for “harassment, retaliation and impediment of [their] duties.”  According to complainant, respondent inappropriately discussed her request with the three board members she wanted investigated; failed to provide “complete information” about her request to the non-conflicted board members; and reached his decision without a “formal discussion and recorded voted.” Based on these facts, complainant asserted that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e).

The SEC did not find probable cause because the complaint did not demonstrate how respondent created an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment for himself or others when he denied complainant’s request for a third party investigation (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)); the complaint did not allege that respondent has a direct or indirect financial interest or personal involvement in the third party investigation, or that it created a benefit to him or a member of his immediate family (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c)); the complaint was devoid of facts as to how respondent became involved in activities or functions that are the responsibility of school personnel because whether the board conducts a third party investigation is a board decision (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)); and surveying board members regarding a board issue is not outside the scope of respondent’s duties as Board President, nor does it have the potential to compromise the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)).

According to the complainant in C53-25, respondent was the chair of the ad hoc referendum committee during “the … school bond referendum campaign.”  While in this role, respondent “injected himself into the [community’s] public discussion” by replying to residents’ Facebook posts. In his posts, respondent “publicly ridiculed” members of the public who raised questions about the financial transparency of the proposed referendum. In another, he encouraged a resident, who is also a staff member, to run for the board and to come up with a better “answer” to the district’s financial issues. Complainant maintains that respondent’s “pattern of undisclaimed advocacy” blurs the line between private speech and official representation, and leverages insider board knowledge to influence public opinion. Based on the substance of his social media posts, complainant alleges that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (f).

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act. With regard to the claimed violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (e), because respondent’s social media posts were made from his personal social media account and it did not reference his membership on the board, the posts were not offered pursuant to his official duties. As for the stated violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), the SEC found that complainant failed to provide the factual evidence necessary to prove a violation(s).

B. SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 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.