At its meeting on June 23, 2026, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed four matters in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed five matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 12 decisions; considered two new advisory opinion requests; and considered making one advisory opinion public.
Of the 12 decisions considered for adoption, 10 were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining two matters – C141-25 and C07-26 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.
- Final Decision
In C46-24, complainants alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and (e) when he had a conversation with a food service vendor at the NJSBA convention, inquired about a possible food tasting, and advised that he would be adding a request for proposals (RFP) to the board’s agenda. Complainants also claimed that respondent was “improperly involved” in the hiring of the director of curriculum in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), (e), and (i).
Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint and found that: although respondent was involved in the initial discussions with the food services vendor, the administration handled the remainder of the process; and the evidence demonstrated that respondent “encouraged a qualified applicant to inquire with the administration regarding an open position in that [d]istrict,” but was not further involved in the matter.
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s conclusion that respondent did not violate the School Ethics Act. With respect to the food services vendor allegations, the SEC determined that complainants did not “demonstrate that respondent overstepped into the role of the [business administrator] or another member of the school personnel during the process of organizing a food tasting” and the RFP was handled by the administration (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)). In addition, the SEC explained that complainants did not prove that respondent promised the vendor a contract or took other action that would otherwise compromise the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)).
For the personnel matter, although respondent called a principal to discuss the open position of superintendent (for which the principal did not have the appropriate certification and then applied for the director of curriculum position), the SEC found that there was no further proof that respondent intervened or was otherwise involved in the hiring process (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)). In not finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC focused on the principal’s testimony that respondent and board counsel solely encouraged him to apply for the position. Finally, the SEC concluded that there was no violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) because complainants did not establish that respondent took any actions that would undermine school personnel.
- Dismissals
- No Probable Cause
In C122-25, respondents hired a superintendent and approved a three-year contract even though, according to complainant, the superintendent’s previous employer terminated him based on “multiple unnamed allegations.” The board later extended the superintendent’s contract to a five-year term. Complainant alleged that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and (e) when they: hired the superintendent without seeking “critical information” from the superintendent’s former employer; and “failed to exercise due diligence” in spending public funds to extend the superintendent’s contract.
The SEC dismissed the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because complainant failed to provide a copy of a final decision from any court of law or other administrative agency finding that respondent behaved illegally or unethically. As for the claims under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC explained that, although complainant may disagree with respondents’ choice for superintendent, respondents did not take action beyond the scope of their duties when they hired the superintendent or extended his contract.
Finally, although the SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety, it did not find the complaint frivolous.
In C134-25, respondent’s nominating petition (Petition) contained the signatures of a district secretary and the assistant superintendent, who were both district residents. Complainant argued that respondent “used her [b]oard position” to get the secretary to sign and notarize the Petition and, in return, respondent voted in favor of a stipend for the secretary. Complainant maintained that respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), (e), and (f), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f).
In finding no probable cause for the stated violations of the Act, the SEC emphasized that it previously addressed (in response to a request for an advisory opinion from complainant) the issue of school administrators signing nominating petitions of board candidates in their district. In that advisory opinion, the SEC indicated that, “signing a petition, in their private capacity, as individuals who live in the community, in and of itself, is not enough to present a conflict for” the subject board members and that “it cannot be assumed that [the board members] have or will surrender their independent judgment to the administrators” simply due to the signatures on an election petition.
Because complainant was aware of the SEC’s position on this issue, yet “file[d] a complaint anyway without any evidence to support her accusations,” the SEC found that complainant knew or should have known that the complaint was without any reasonable basis in law and fined her $100 for the frivolous filing.
In C05-26 and C27-26 (Consolidated), respondent, the superintendent, informed complainant that parents must “pick up their child or make other arrangements within 1 hour of receiving a phone call informing them that their child needs to be picked up.” After complainant requested “a copy of the written policy” for this directive, respondent replied that “failure to pick up [her child] within the ‘reasonable time’ may constitute child neglect and may result in notification to New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency.” Complainant argued that respondent’s “threats,” and “weaponize[ation] [of] the concept of mandated reporting” violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f), and her references to child neglect “during ongoing special education advocacy and records requests” violated N.J.S.A. l8A:12-24(b) and (d).
The SEC generally concluded that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to sustain violations of the Act, but declined to find the complaint frivolous.
In C13-26, the superintendent submitted her resignation letter to respondent, the board president, on or about January 12, 2026. Respondent informed the full board of the resignation at the board meeting on January 20, 2026. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (e), (g), and (i) because she only shared the resignation with the board vice-president (with instructions to keep the information confidential) and “knowingly and intentionally” withheld the resignation from the remainder of the board.
The SEC determined that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to prove the alleged violations of the Act. The SEC also explained that “determinations regarding when or how to share information regarding the resignation of an administrator is a matter of [b]oard governance, and not governed by the Act.”
- No Jurisdiction
In C140-25, complainants alleged that the principal/respondent’s handling of their child’s disciplinary incident violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), and (d). Because the SEC does not have jurisdiction over student disciplinary matters or board policies, the SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety, but did not find it to be frivolous.
In C142-25, complainant alleged that respondent, the business administrator, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), and (e) because he: failed to provide the required information and documentation regarding certain funding allocations; improperly charged expenditures related to federal grants; and issued energy savings improvement bonds that were incorrectly recorded in the debt service fund. The SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction over financial regulations and laws.
In C04-26, the New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of Special Education (OSE) substantiated “findings of noncompliance and misrepresentation” against the district. Complainants asserted that respondent, a board member, did not properly respond to OSE’s findings, and specifically alleged that respondent violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (f), and (j). The SEC explained that it does not have jurisdiction over whether the district or respondent has complied with the findings of OSE and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.
In C06-26, complainant alleged that the superintendent, assistant superintendent for special services, and supervisor of special services violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (f) in connection with various special education matters related to his child. Because the SEC does not have jurisdiction over such matters, the SEC dismissed the complaint.
- Settlement Agreement
Pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement reached in C12-24, respondent agreed to publicly apologize at the next board meeting for interrupting complainant and calling her a liar while she was addressing the public at a “Meet the Candidates” night in 2023. In exchange for the reading of this apology, complainant withdrew the complaint. The SEC adopted the ALJ’s initial decision (the settlement agreement) as the final decision.
- SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for 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.
