The School Ethics Commission (SEC) took the following actions at its meeting on July 28, 2026: discussed one matter in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed 10 matters pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations; adopted six orders to show cause for those board members and/or charter school trustees who failed to timely complete mandated training; considered adopting seven decisions; considered one new advisory opinion request; and considered making one advisory opinion public.
Of the seven decisions considered for adoption, six were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining matter – C07-26 – remains pending. The SEC did not post any new advisory opinions.
This article will review the two decisions finding violations of the School Ethics Act (Act), and next week’s article will analyze the four matters dismissed by the SEC.
A. Violations of the School Ethics Act
In Docket Nos. C75-20, C76-20, C77-20, and C79-20 (Consolidated), complainants alleged that respondent violated multiple provisions of the Act. However, the factual basis for the asserted violations of the Act was not detailed in the SEC’s decision.
Following transmittal to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the parties executed a settlement agreement which stated, in relevant part: respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (e), (f), (g), and (h); respondent voluntarily agreed that he will not serve and/or fill a seat on the board for two years from the date of the entry of the Commissioner of Education’s (COE) final agency decision in this case; respondent may continue to volunteer for the school district in any other capacity; respondent will submit a personal letter of apology directly to certain named complainants; and respondent should be reprimanded for his violations of the Act.
The SEC adopted the initial decision as its final decision, but did not take a position on the enforceability of the parties’ settlement agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, the SEC recommended that the COE impose a penalty of reprimand.
In the remaining counts of Docket No. C61-24, complainant advised that the agenda for a public board meeting included a motion to accept the superintendent’s recommendation to non-renew and eliminate staff positions. Individuals who wished to speak were required to write their name and address on a sign-in sheet, which respondent did prior to the start of the board meeting. When her name was called, respondent left the dais and went to the microphone designated for public comment. Respondent made clear that she was speaking as a taxpayer, citizen, and community liaison. During her comments, respondent criticized the superintendent for ridiculing a Muslim man and for not supporting Muslims during Ramadan, and insinuated that the superintendent “stole staff ideas and usurped the planned Juneteenth holiday celebration” (Count 3).
After she returned to her seat on the dais, respondent made additional comments about the non-renewal process, and used the word “trickery” and stated that “skin-color” was a common component among the eliminated staff; stated that she received complaints and saw pictures of food contaminated with mold being served to the students; and stated that she heard from staff members that they were told – ostensibly by the superintendent – not to speak to board members about complaints or there would be consequences (e.g., the non-renewal of their employment contracts) (Count 5).
In finding violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), (e), and (j) in Count 3, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that respondent admitted that she did not have firsthand knowledge about the “criticisms” she made of the superintendent during public comment and, instead, merely repeated the information that was provided to her from the assistant superintendent without knowing whether those “criticisms” were true or accurate. According to the ALJ, “by going to the microphone to speak as a community liaison and voice complaints against the [s]uperintendent based on allegations that had undertones of religious discrimination and unfair practices, [r]espondent involved herself in activities or functions that are the responsibility of school personnel” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)); respondent’s comments, even with a disclaimer, had the ability to compromise the board and put the board “publicly at odds with the [s]uperintendent” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and respondent conceded she did not refer the “criticisms” or complaints that she received from the assistant superintendent, and which formed the basis for her public comments, to the superintendent (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j)). Essential to the ALJ’s legal conclusions was that (1) respondent admitted she did not have firsthand knowledge of the basis for her public comments and (2) the “source” of her public comments and criticisms was a district administrator.
As for Count 5, the ALJ found that there was nothing in the record to support complainant’s claims that respondent informed the public that she administers the schools and/or that she informed the public that she handles the day-to-day operations of the school (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)). However, by “publicly stating that she [(respondent)] was hurt to hear that the staff were not allowed to speak directly with [b]oard members,” and commenting that the superintendent eliminated staff positions based on race, trickery, and retaliation for talking to board members, respondent undermined the superintendent in the proper performance of her duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)). In addition, respondent’s public statements from the dais about the non-renewal process without first referring such “complaints” to the superintendent were also violative of the Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j)).
In terms of the appropriate penalty, the ALJ stated, “Although [r]espondent is a dedicated and committed community liaison, she cannot “circumvent her ethical obligations as a [b]oard member by figuratively removing her [b]oard member hat to accuse the [s]uperintendent of wrongdoing at a [b]oard meeting.” Because respondent made “serious and inflammatory accusations” against the superintendent, and repeated false accusations against the superintendent and undermined her authority as the chief administrator of the school, a penalty of censure is appropriate.
The SEC concurred with the legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 3) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) (Counts 3 and 5); concurred with the legal conclusion that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) (Count 5); modified the legal conclusion to find that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) (Count 3) or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) (Count 5); and concurred with the recommended penalty of censure.
Contrary to the ALJ’s legal conclusion, the SEC found that the record does not establish that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count 3 “when she repeated allegations against the superintendent at the public microphone that involved accusations affecting the daily operations of the school.” Per the SEC, “simply repeating allegations is not evidence that respondent gave a direct order to school personnel or that she became directly involved in activities or functions that are the responsibility of school personnel or the day-to-day administration.”
The SEC also disagreed with the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 5 “when she took deliberate action by her choice of words to undermine the [s]uperintendent in the proper performance of her duties.” According to the SEC, not every negative comment about the superintendent undermines the superintendent or school personnel. In this case, there was “no factual basis to support that [respondent] stated she handles the day-to-day operations of the school or encouraged staff to come to her with their concerns.” Such comments may have been action that would have resulted in undermining, opposing, compromising or harming school personnel in the proper performance of their duties, but the ALJ found those facts were not demonstrated.
As to respondent’s argument that she relied on the advice of counsel prior to speaking during public comment, the SEC noted it did not find that respondent violated the Act by speaking at a board meeting as a member of the public. Instead, the SEC found that respondent violated the Act because she did not follow the chain of command and instead chose to publicly repeat information that she received before discussing the information with the superintendent, as she was required to do. Because respondent did not assert that she asked board counsel for advice regarding this specific issue, the advice of counsel defense was of no import.
Finally, the SEC agreed with the ALJ that a censure was appropriate. Respondent spoke at a board meeting where she mentioned complaints without referring them to the superintendent, and made comments that compromised the investigation and complaint process, as well as the chain of command and, thus, compromised the board. Because respondent’s actions occurred in public, the public should be aware of her sanction with a public admonishment (a censure).
B. Next Week’s Article
Next week’s article will analyze the four matters dismissed by the SEC at its meeting on July 28, 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.
