At its first meeting of the year, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed one consolidated matter pursuant to its previous regulations; discussed six ethics complaints pursuant to new/amended regulations; considered adopting five decisions (C16-21; C26-24; C29-24; C30-24; and C39-24); did not consider any new advisory opinion requests; and did not consider making any new or previously issued advisory opinions public.
Of the five decisions considered for adoption, four were posted on the New Jersey Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining matter, C26-24, remains pending.
Final Decision
In C16-21, the superintendent sent letters to several district administrators on April 28, 2020, advising them that they would “be assigned to different building[s] for the 2020-2021 school year,” and that the reassignments were “pending” approval by the board at its next meeting. The letter further explained that the “movement of building administrators [was] part of [a] transformation process.” As the transfers were “unprecedented,” the alleged “transformation plan” had not been discussed with the administrative team at any time prior to the issuance of the April 28, 2020, letters, and the superintendent had purportedly told at least one district administrator (in February 2020) that “he was no longer going to be the superintendent and … any decisions that would be made going forward were not his.” The complainants contended that the named respondents must have given a direct order to school personnel regarding the transfers and/or inappropriately involved themselves in the decision to transfer certain district administrators before that decision was made by the superintendent in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).
Following the presentation of the complainants’ evidence, the administrative law judge granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the case. In dismissing the matter, the administrative law judge noted that “the record is bereft of any evidence demonstrating that the board members participated in the formation of the transfers, initiated the transfers, directed the administration to make the transfers, or were inappropriately involved in the transfer decisions before the board’s consideration and vote on May 12, 2020”; the witnesses “confirmed that they did not possess any evidence or personal knowledge to support their allegations that respondents initiated the transfers or were inappropriately involved in the transfers”; “the superintendent indicated that he did not ‘object’ to the transfers, and he signed the letters advising the administrators of their transfers”; and the superintendent “did not state that he had an issue with the transfers at the May 12, 2020, board meeting.”
The SEC adopted the administrative law judge’s factual findings, legal conclusions and decision to dismiss the matter. Per the SEC, “While Complainants may have been surprised that they were being transferred … and/or upset that they were not given notice in advance of the April 28, 2020, letters, the record lacks evidence specifically demonstrating that Respondents individually gave a direct order to school personnel or that they became directly involved in the decision to make the transfers prior to the recommendation and vote on May 12, 2020.” Despite their supposition that the respondents requested the transfers, “they failed to present any concrete evidence demonstrating that the transfers were at Respondents’ command.” Consequently, and particularly because the superintendent signed the transfer letters, the SEC agreed a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) had not been established.
Probable Cause Review Decisions
In accordance with the SEC’s amended regulations, “Probable cause shall be found when the facts and circumstances presented in the complaint and written statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the [School Ethics Act] has been violated.” N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.7(a).
In C29-24, the complainant stated that the named respondent, in her capacity as board president, co-authored an email with the superintendent that was sent to all district parents immediately prior to the board election. According to the complainant, the “email blast” was purportedly sent to clarify “any misinformation that had been circulating among the community” about district related operations but, in fact, it was sent to counter correspondence that had been sent to district residents from the Township Republican County Committee criticizing the current members of the “incumbent team” running for reelection. Not only did the respondent use “official … school district resources for personal gain,” the complainant claimed that the respondent attempted to “influence the outcome of the [2023 election] in favor of the incumbent team” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
According to the SEC, although the respondent co-authored the letter to the community, there were insufficient facts demonstrating that the respondent took action on behalf of, or at the request of, a special interest group or political party, or that she used the schools for personal gain. Not only did the email not mention the upcoming election or endorse any candidate or political party, the respondent was not running for office, and therefore, did not benefit from the “email blast” sent to district parents. In the absence of probable cause, the SEC dismissed the complaint.
Next, in C30-24, the complainant argues that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because he used the phrase “the LGBTQ and the rest of the alphabet” while speaking at a public board meeting, and such a comment could potentially compromise the board and/or the district’s transgender and LGBTQ+ students as they could perceive that they are being defamed, marginalized and/or subject to potential discrimination (Count 1). Complainant additionally argues that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Counts 1-3 and because he “liked” posts on social media (X (formerly Twitter) account that are anti-LGBTQ+, anti-teacher, and anti-women, and such “likes” could compromise the board (Counts 1-3), transgender and LGBTQ+ students and their families (Count 1), district teachers (Counts 2), and female students and staff members (Count 3). Per Complainant, Respondent does not include a disclaimer on his social media account. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) (Count 2) because his “anti-teacher and anti-public school social media content could suggest that he may not ‘support school personnel in the proper performance of their duties.’”
The SEC did not find probable cause for the allegations in the complaint. Regarding the respondent’s comment at the board’s meeting (Count 1), the SEC found that it “is not on its face a slur and Respondent, as a board member, may speak his opinion at a public board meeting.” As for the posts that Respondent “liked” on social media (Counts 1-3), although the subject matter of some posts may relate to the business of the board, the SEC found that there is “an insufficient nexus between Respondent’s personal X page and his membership on the board, such that a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that Respondent is speaking pursuant to his official duties.” Not only do the posts not mention the respondent’s membership on the board, he also does not advertise or rely upon his board membership when “liking” posts on his social media page. As a result, there is insufficient “factual evidence that the statements/likes on his X account were made in his capacity as a member of the board, or had the appearance of being representative of, or attributable to the board,” and the “lack of a disclaimer does not render Respondent’s conduct as being offered in an official capacity and pursuant to his official duties.”
With regard to the respondent’s anti-teacher statements, the SEC stated that “Respondent is permitted to have his own views and taking different positions on issues concerning teachers does not equate to undermining, opposing, compromising or harming school personnel in the proper performance of their duties” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
In addition to dismissing the matter for lack of probable cause, the SEC also declined to find that the complaint was frivolous and to impose sanctions.
Finally, in C39-24, the complainant asserts that the respondent, a middle school principal, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) when she: contacted the local police department and reported that the complainant “distributed a video (across social media) of a minor” student in the district (Count 1); contacted the parents of the minor student, and falsely stated that the complainant “shared a video of their minor child with” a member of the board (Count 2); and “officially filed a police report” with the local police department based on false information about the complainant (Count 3).
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the claims in the complaint. More specifically, the SEC found that there is no evidence that the respondent has an interest in a business organization, or engaged in any business, transaction, or professional activity that was in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of her duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a)); the complaint fails to explain how the respondent’s actions sought to secure a privilege, advantage, or employment for anyone (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)); there is no evidence as to how the respondent had or would have a financial and/or personal involvement in the matter involving a student, or how her actions sought personal financial gain for herself or a member of her family (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c)); the complaint does not allege that the respondent ever engaged in any outside employment or activity when she contacted either the police or the minor child’s parents about the video (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d)); and the complaint does not reference any proceeding or matter before the board, or how the respondent may have represented any person other than the board in a matter before the district (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g)).
In the absence of probable cause, the matter was dismissed.
SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2025, and future meeting dates can be found on its website.
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.
