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

Last week’s article reviewed the four “Final Decisions” adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on July 22, 2025. This week’s article is limited to an examination of the four “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the SEC.

A.        “PC Review” Decisions

In C80-24, the Respondent, a board member who is also a member of the Town Land Use Board, made a statement about Complainant at a public board meeting that was “neither related to the operation of the school board nor on the agenda.” More specifically, Respondent stated to/about Complainant, “Warren Hills enemy number one . . . Anyone that would oppose any kind of development in this town . . ..” According to Complainant, Respondent knew that Complainant and her spouse did not support the building of a cannabis facility near their home because she attended a Town Land Use Board meeting to oppose the development. By “publicly deriding” a parent at a board meeting, using his official position as a board member to “silence the free speech of a citizen and prevent an opposing viewpoint of a member of the community,” and surrendering his position as a board member to “serve his political fight” as a member of the Town Land Use Board and for his own political gain,” Complainant alleged that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (f).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the stated violations of the School Ethics Act. In declining to find probable cause, the SEC stated Respondent’s statements at the board meeting were  not board action or an attempt to take official board action (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)); because the issue of cannabis regulation will not be considered by the board, the board cannot be compromised by Respondent’s statements to Complainant (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and even if Respondent has the same viewpoint as a special interest group, Respondent’s statements do not establish that he made the statements at the request of said group (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)).

In February 2024, the Complainant in C81-24, a school counselor within the Camden County Educational Services Commission, was called “to assist with” an incident involving a student (Respondent’s child) in the Bellmawr Public School District (Bellmawr). Respondent is employed as the Director of Curriculum and Special Services for the Clementon School District (Clementon). According to Complainant, the student was physically aggressive toward him, but the incident concluded positively. However, 65 days after the incident, the student’s parents were notified that their child would not be “eligible to attend [the] grade-level field trip due to excessive disciplinary write ups for the year.” After being notified of this decision, Respondent then decided to contact the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) within the New Jersey Department of Children and Families (DCF) and report Complainant for “institutional abuse.” Although the investigation was unfounded, Complainant’s renewal for employment was rescinded, and Respondent’s child was allowed to attend the school trip.

Based on these facts, Complainant asserted that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because she “knowingly reported a false claim of physical abuse against [him], to intimidate and manipulate the administrative team at [the] … [d]istrict into allowing her [child] to participate in a privilege [the child] lost due to personal behavior, as well as retribution for that decision.” Per Complainant, Respondent “abused her standing as an administrator and intimate knowledge of school systems and processes …to willingly afflict [Complainant] as an individual, and the [d]istrict in which [he] was placed . . . to exact spiteful revenge for a decision that was made regarding her [child]” who “secur[ed] the privilege of attending the trip.”

Despite Respondent’s argument, the SEC found that the complaint was timely filed, but did not find probable cause for the claimed violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). Citing Bennett v. Sullivan, the SEC stated, “the mere fact that an individual may be a school official does not mean, without more, that all actions and conduct undertaken is in their official capacity and can violate the Act.” Although Respondent is an administrator, the SEC noted that, as a parent, Respondent is allowed to file complaints with DCF and/or the school district if she feels it is necessary. Because the complaint does not demonstrate how Respondent used or attempted to use her official position in Clementon when she filed a complaint (in Bellmawr) using the same process that all parents may utilize, the complaint must be dismissed.

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous, and to impose sanctions.

In C83-24, Complainant contended that the named Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (i), and (j) when, immediately following the swearing in of new board members at the reorganization meeting, they voted to rescind the appointment of board counsel, and to immediately appoint a new law firm to serve as board counsel (Count 1); Respondent R and Respondent S violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d), and (i) when they “directed staff administrators to create a hand-carried resolution for the [S]uperintendent to publicly accept arbitrary opinions of Respondents” and, when that resolution failed, directed that copies of the resolution “be placed at the entrance of the [board] offices to show the work of the Respondents and make it appear as though the resolution [was] in fact being considered and contemplated” (Count 2); Respondent R violatedN.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and (d) because he acted “in the capacity of a district human resources employee” by publicly soliciting recommendations and applications to fill district positions on social media (WhatsApp) and, when asked, indicated why a former employee left the district’s employment (Count 3); all but Respondent L-R violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and (d) because they “directed, or caused to direct, [board counsel] to immediately work on activities that are typically performed in Program Committee . . . ” (Count 4); and Respondent R violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and (d) because, in his capacity as a board member and Board President, he acted as the district’s “administrator” by making “unauthorized announcements” on social media (WhatsApp), hosted discussions about the district and took surveys on social media (WhatsApp), and purposely excluded teachers from discussions about the district (Count 5).

Because the events which formed the basis for the asserted violations of the Act in Count 1, Count 2, and Count 4 occurred more than 180 days prior to the date that Complainant filed her ethics complaint, and because the SEC found no reason to relax the 180-day limitation period, the SEC found those allegations to be time-barred. As for the remaining allegations in Count 3 and Count 5, the SEC declined to find probable cause.

With regard to Count 3, the SEC determined that the allegations do not consist of Respondent taking any official board action to effectuate policies or plans (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)), and there is no factual evidence that Respondent gave a direct order to school personnel or became directly involved in the hiring process or with specific candidates (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)). As for Count 5, the SEC found that Complainant failed to provide the factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4 to support a violation(s) of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and/or (d).

During the district’s back to school nights in C86-24, a pastor was handing out two flyers: a copy of the 2020 New Jersey Student Learning Standards Comprehensive Health and Physical Health (Health Standards), and a copy of the “opt out” statute for the health standards. When Complainant, a parent, accompanied the pastor to the intermediate school’s “Back to School Night,” Respondent allegedly approached Complainant and in “a loud voice and aggressive tone, told Complainant to keep her ‘hate’ away from him and to stop spreading ‘hateful lies.’” Following the incident, “multiple social media posts decried the individuals handing out the information to parents and included hateful rhetoric.”

According to Complainant, Respondent’s aggressive behavior and action hurt the board’s integrity and intimidated the public from coming forward in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because his “loud, aggressive, and public accusations against Complainant at a school-sponsored event” were not truthful.

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the asserted violations of the Act. According to the SEC, Respondent was at the event as a parent and, as a parent, he was entitled to refuse the flyers and to express his view of what the flyers represented (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)).  In addition, the complaint lacked evidence establishing that any inaccuracies were said by Respondent or that the purported inaccuracies were not due to reasonable mistake or his own personal opinion (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)). As a result, the SEC dismissed the complaint.

B.        SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for August 19, 2025.

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.