Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on July 22, 2025: Part I

At its meeting on July 22, 2025, the School Ethics Commission took the following action:  discussed three matters in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; seven matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 13 decisions; did not consider any new advisory opinion requests; and considered making nine advisory opinions public.

Of the 13 decisions considered for adoption, eight were posted on the Department of Education’s website. Therefore, the remaining five matters – C107-22; C79-24; C82-24; C85-24; C87-24 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.

This week’s article is limited to a review of the “Final Decisions” adopted by the SEC, and next week’s article will examine the “PC Review” Decisions adopted.

A.        “Final Decisions”

While his daughter-in-law was employed in the district, the Respondent in C24-18 – in his capacity as Board President – appointed other non-conflicted members to serve on the board’s personnel committee. Nonetheless, during a personnel committee meeting, Respondent raised a “carryover item” from the previous year, which was the superintendent’s contract status. Respondent was present for the entire meeting, which lasted between 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, Respondent asked board counsel to issue a Rice notice to the superintendent so his performance could be discussed. A few months later, Respondent again asked board counsel to issue a Rice notice to the superintendent so a different matter related to his employment could be discussed.

Following the filing of a motion for summary decision at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), and recommended a penalty of reprimand.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, and agreed with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) when, despite his daughter-in-law’s employment in the district, he was involved in a Personnel Committee discussion that affected the superintendent’s employment, and also directed board counsel to issue a Rice notice so that the board could discuss the superintendent’s performance. However, the SEC disagreed with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because Complainants did not provide the factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(1).

With respect to the penalty, the SEC recommended a censure because several previously issued Advisory Opinions state that the acts committed by Respondent would violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); Respondent was aware of, and admitted to, his daughter-in-law’s employment in the district and the conflicts that resulted therefrom; and Respondent was in a leadership/board officer position.

Prior to her election to the board, the named Respondent in C75-21 and C37-22 (Consolidated) was “an active member of the community and was at times at odds with the then existing [b]oard and administrator.” Respondent was also the administrator of a Facebook page entitled, “Monroe Township Watchdog” and “Unity in Community,” where she and other community members would post things related to the board. Following her election, Complainants alleged that Respondent posted comments/information on this social media account without a disclaimer, and that her comments/posted violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).

After a hearing, the ALJ determined that Respondent’s posts had a “clear nexus to the [b]oard” and were directly relevant to board matters or business; many posts did not include a disclaimer; and while some posts did include a disclaimer, they were still directly related to board matters and/or were related to matters that Respondent had specific knowledge of due to her position on the board. Therefore, the ALJ found that Respondent used or attempted to use her official position to secure advantages for the candidate(s) she supported in the upcoming board election (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)); made personal references to board matters that could have compromised the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and surrendered her independent judgment as a board member to support a particular political group (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)).  For these violations, the ALJ recommended a penalty of reprimand.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact; adopted the legal conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f); and adopted the recommended a penalty of reprimand. In adopting the ALJ’s legal conclusions, the SEC found that there was a sufficient nexus between Respondent’s social media posts and her board membership and, given the context of her posts, a reasonable member of the public could perceive that she was speaking in her official capacity or pursuant to her official duties. Although Respondent’s posts compromised the board, the SEC agreed that a reprimand was appropriate because it was Respondent’s first violation of the Act.

In C43-22, C44-22, C54-22, and C62-22 (Consolidated), these facts were presented:  in July 2021, a retired teacher and Respondent, who was also the Board President, engaged in a personal email communication about the upcoming board election. In this communication, Respondent expressed her personal opinion about many of the candidates, and also identified whom she supported and why. Respondent also indicated whom she believed should be the district’s next superintendent (“the email”). In December 2021, a new board member sent a text message to Respondent discussing her disagreement with a decision to grant tenure to a building principal. Respondent replied that she was at work, and would not engage in such discussions about employees via text/writing (“the text message”). In February 2022, a small committee of board members – including Respondent – began the process of finding a new superintendent. On March 22, 2022, the retired teacher read a portion of “the email” between he and Respondent at a public board meeting. Two days later, Respondent recused herself from the superintendent search, and later resigned as Board President. On April 26, 2022, Respondent read “the text message” that the new board member sent to her. Although Respondent did not disclose the name of the district staff member that was named in the text message, she disclosed his position, his salary, and his marriage to a part-time teacher in the district. In May 2022, Respondent resigned from the board. Finally, after Respondent applied for a position with a company, she contacted the CEO, identified herself as a board member, and wanted to know whether her application was jeopardized by the actions or opinions of one of the named Complainants (“the application”). Four complaints, later consolidated, were filed with the SEC, contending Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Act in connection with “the email”; “the text message”; and “the application.”

The ALJ found that Respondent’s action in reading “the text message” from a fellow board member at a board meeting violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i). However, the ALJ did not find that Respondent violated the Act with regard to “the email” or “the application.”  The ALJ recommended a penalty of reprimand for Respondent’s violations.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact; legal conclusions, and recommended penalty of reprimand.

InC74-23, the named Respondent used his personal social media account to respond “to a social media post made by an ‘anonymous member’ of the [social media group] ‘Parents & Taxpayers of Westwood Regional School District: Putting Kids First,’ of which [R]espondent is also a member.”  The post and the ensuing comments concerned, generally, the potential banning of books in schools. Members of the public then “reacted” to Respondent’s posts, and asked “for clarification and his thoughts on banning books.” Although Respondent did not directly reference the board in his comments, it was clear from the continuing string of comments that Respondent’s social media posts were being interpreted as discussing his role as a board member and the impending business and planned actions of the board. At no point during the social media discussion did Respondent post a disclaimer that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not as a member of the board.

Following a hearing, the ALJ determined that Respondent’s posts were reasonably interpreted as (1) being made in his official capacity as a board member and (2) public commentary on prospective, albeit unspecified, board business regarding history books in the district’s schools. However, the ALJ found that Complainant failed to present any evidence that Respondent’s posts had the potential to compromise, much less that they actually compromised, the board in the discharge of its duties. Therefore, the ALJ dismissed the matter.

Upon review, the SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, but modified the ALJ’s legal conclusion to find that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). The SEC agreed with the ALJ and found that there was a sufficient nexus between Respondent’s social media posts and his board membership such that a reasonable member of the public would perceive that he was speaking in his official capacity. However, the SEC disagreed with the ALJ that Complainant did not prove that Respondent’s comments had the potential to and/or did actually compromise the board. As a direct result of Respondent’s comments on social media, district staff members expressed concerns about “what was going to happen to the material they were teaching in their classrooms.” Therefore, the SEC found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).

Because this was Respondent’s first violation of the Act, and it was a one-time occurrence, the SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand.

B.        Next Meeting’s Article

In next week’s article, the “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the SEC at its July 22, 2025, meeting will be examined.

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.