Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on July 28, 2026 – Part II

In last week’s article, we reviewed the two decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission (SEC) at its meeting on July 28, 2026, finding violations of the School Ethics Act (Act). In this week’s article, we will analyze the four matters dismissed by the SEC.

A.        Matters Dismissed by the SEC

After unsuccessfully running for the board in 2016 and 2018, the respondent in Docket No. C86-23 emailed her resume to the chairperson of the union’s Political Action Committee (PAC) in July 2021. In August 2021, the union announced its endorsement of the “Education Matters” slate, which included respondent. After being sworn-in in January 2022, respondent was chosen by the board to be one of two Vice Presidents. In October 2022, respondent emailed a “letter of support” for the “Education Matters” slate to the chairperson for the union’s PAC (for the November 2022 election).  The chairperson emailed the letter “with the added title of [Board] VP” to the Hudson County View. On Nov. 4, 2022, respondent had the added language removed by the Hudson County View.  In January 2023, respondent was appointed as Board President.  In “early” 2023, contract negotiations with the union began; on May 9, 2023, the parties agreed to the terms of a memorandum of agreement; and on May 25, 2023, the contract was approved by the board, and respondent voted in favor of its adoption.  Based on these facts, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), and (e), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f) because she “illegally and improperly accepted an election endorsement” from the union “in exchange for negotiating with that union, which resulted in the most generous contract in … history.”

Following cross-motions for summary decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision finding that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), and (e), and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f). In dismissing the matter, the ALJ emphasized that complainant failed to provide any evidence that respondent’s selection as one of two vice presidents on a nine-member board was orchestrated by the union; that the union orchestrated her selection as Board President in January 2023; that respondent played any substantive role in the 2023 contract negotiations; nor that any inappropriate or unethical “relationship” between respondent and the union existed, save for emailing a letter to the union supporting the “Education Matters” slate, for it to release to the media.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s factual findings, the legal conclusions that respondent did not violate the cited provisions of the Act, and the dismissal of the matter. In adopting the initial decision, the SEC reiterated that, historically, if “more than a year has lapsed between the campaign/endorsement and the start of contract negotiations, sufficient time has passed such that the board member should be able to separate themselves from the association.” However, if, despite this lapse of time, a board member continues to have a relationship/involvement with the union, then a violation could be found. In this case, more than a year had passed since respondent was endorsed by the union and contract negotiations with the union were initiated. Moreover, complainant failed to demonstrate that respondent continued to have any kind of relationship with the union sufficient to create a conflict of interest. The fact that respondent sent an endorsement of the “Education Matters” candidates in October 2023 for candidates on the same slate on which she was elected the prior year did not, on its own, demonstrate any entanglement with the union.

The SEC, like the ALJ, also found that complainant failed to produce sufficient factual evidence to support a violation of the Act.

In Docket No. C136-25, complainant contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 because (1) she did not include her employment with the Township (as a confidential employee of the mayor) or as a realtor on her 2025 Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS), and (2) also failed to disclose her spouse’s employment with the Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA). To the extent there was an error in her filing, respondent maintains she “omitted the information erroneously” and that, regardless, the complaint was untimely filed. More specifically, although the “date of occurrence of the alleged violation [of the Act] was [noted as] April 9, 2025,” complainant did not file his complaint until Dec. 15, 2025, which was well beyond the 180-day period of limitations.

The SEC found that the complaint was untimely, in part. With regard to the failure to report her own sources of income, the SEC found that there was not a credible basis upon which to find that complainant was unaware of respondent’s sources of income until he filed his complaint with the SEC. Complainant admitted that he was aware of the substance of respondent’s 2025 FDS on the date it was submitted (April 8, 2025), but did not file his complaint with the SEC until 244 days later; therefore, the SEC dismissed this allegation as untimely. On the other hand, and regarding the failure to report her spouse’s source of income, because complainant did not become aware of respondent’s spouse’s employment with the MUA until Sept. 12, 2025, this allegation, “regardless of whether meritorious,” was regarded as timely filed.

Although timely filed, the SEC found that the allegations were not supported by probable cause because N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) only requires the reporting of income from the “preceding calendar year,” and respondent’s spouse did not begin working with the MUA until March 3, 2025; therefore, his employment did not have to be disclosed on respondent’s 2025 FDS.

According to the complainant in Docket No. C10-26, respondent “‘was involved in a physical altercation at a local establishment’ in town that was witnessed by members of the public, including the local union president.” Although the union president tried to de-escalate the situation, respondent “refused and the situation worsened,” leading to law enforcement being called to the scene. By engaging in this conduct, complainant argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (e), and (i).

The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainant failed to produce sufficient factual evidence to support a violation(s) of the Act. With regard to the claimed violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC noted that, the “mere fact that respondent is a board member and was involved in an ‘incident’ in his personal capacity does not mean that his actions have compromised the board. In addition, the SEC did not “see how a member of the public could believe or interpret that respondent was acting on behalf of the board when he was involved in this incident.”

In Docket No. C43-26, the named complainants are parents of a district student, and share “50/50 custody” of their child. Although one of the parents is “permanently disabled” and cannot safely transport their child to/from school, complainants claim that respondent (the chief school administrator) has repeatedly denied their requests for a reasonable accommodation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504). Rather than provide a reasonable accommodation, complainants additionally claim that respondent has attempted to modify the terms of the parties’ court-ordered transportation agreement, and to otherwise encourage them to waive legal rights to which they (complainants) are entitled. Because of these actions, complainants assert that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), (e), (f), and (g).

The SEC administratively dismissed the complaint because it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether respondent’s conduct may have violated board policies or “laws or regulations concerning school transportation or disabilities”; to determine whether respondent or the district complied with or followed any court orders; and/or to review complaints involving Section 504 or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Although dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the SEC did not find the complaint to be frivolous.

B.        SEC’s Next Meeting

On Aug. 25, 2026, the SEC will hold its next regularly scheduled meeting.

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.