The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting on March 24, 2026: discussed 16 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 13 decisions; considered five new advisory opinion requests; and considered making five advisory opinions public.

Of the 13 decisions considered for adoption, 10 were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining three matters – C74-25, C76-25, and C77-25 – remain pending. The SEC also posted five new advisory opinions.

This article will review the 10 “PC Review” or “Probable Cause Review” decisions adopted by the SEC at its meeting on March 24, 2026, and next week’s article will analyze the five advisory opinions that the SEC made public.

A.        “PC Review” Decisions

According to the SEC’s regulations, probable cause “shall be found when the facts and circumstances presented in the complaint and written statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the [School Ethics] Act has been violated.” N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.7(a). After review, the SEC did not find probable cause for any of the claimed violations of the School Ethics Act that were pled in C56-25; C70-25; C71-25; C75-25; C79-25; C80-25; C82-25; C86-25; C90-25; and/or C92-25.

Summarized below are the facts and circumstances from each matter, as well as the associated purported violations of the Act, that were dismissed by the SEC.

  • Facts:   In a “political opinion article” that respondent authored and published in an online newspaper, respondent “criticized” two candidates running for Township Committee, including complainant. Per complainant, respondent’s “political opinion article” “asked the residents to support two [other] candidates” for Township Committee, and he “appeared to leverage his board title and official standing to influence the voters.” According to complainant, respondent also posted the article on his Facebook page entitled, “[Respondent] Township Board of Education Member.”
  • Other Findings: The SEC also found that there was no factual evidence that respondent’s op-ed and/or the posts on his private Facebook account were made in his capacity as a member of the board, or had the appearance of being representative of, or attributable to the board.
  • Facts: On July 1, 2019, the district entered into a Shared Services Agreement (SSA) with district B to share a business administrator (respondent). According to complainant, the SSA indicated that, in exchange for respondent working for district B for four hours per week, the district would be compensated $20,000.00. However, a review of respondent’s employment contract indicated that the district’s “compensation” was directly applied to respondent’s salary. During the 2020-2021 school year, and “without explanation,” the SSA was increased from $20,000 to $40,000, and the total increase was again applied to respondent’s salary. Moreover, respondent’s salary continued to increase by $40,000 in all subsequent school years. On September 1, 2025, respondent began employment in another school district.
  • Other Findings: The SEC also found that the only timely allegations were those pertaining to the contracts signed for the 2025-2026 school year, and that the complaint was not frivolous.
  • Facts:  Complainant, the administrative assistant to the Business Administrator (BA), claims that respondent “confronted” her at the board office during business hours, and questioned whether she (complainant) “greeted her.” Per complainant, respondent continued “to berate” her in front of her colleagues and supervisor. In addition, complainant contends that respondent separately “confronted a tenured staff member and directed [her] on how to perform [her] duties.”
  • Facts:  According to complainant, the district’s Transportation Coordinator, a bus driver told her (complainant/the district’s Transportation Coordinator) that respondent – a board member – approached him at a sporting event, made a comment about complainant’s “lack [of] communication when it comes to bus delays,” expressed her thoughts on what she believed complainant’s/the transportation department’s work hours should be, and asked the bus driver what complainant does during the day.  Complainant met with respondent and board counsel a few months later, and “said she was sorry and by no means was [complainant’s] job in jeopardy,” and that “she signed [complainant’s] new contract,” but “could have voted not to renew” it. Complainant responded that respondent “needs to learn her roles as a board member and stay out of [complainant’s] lane.” During this meeting, respondent reported that “parents talked to her about transportation” issues in the district, and board counsel informed respondent that she should refer the parent to complainant. As part of her filing, complainant submitted several exhibits, including e-mails from respondent and/or her spouse sent to complainant expressing concern when the bus did not pick up their child for school on multiple occasions.
  • Other Findings: The SEC also determined that respondent spoke with the bus driver in her capacity as a parent who was frustrated with the unreliability of her child’s bus transportation and did not do so in her capacity as a board member.
  • Facts:  Immediately following the resignation of a board member on June 16, respondent/the Board President directed the superintendent to post the vacancy (on June 17) with a July 11, 2025, deadline for interested candidates. According to complainants, respondent recruited R.G., “promised” him the seat, and instructed him to “get his fingerprints processed so that he can be sworn in” at the board’s July meeting. Complainants additionally contend that, after a meeting with the superintendent, respondent instructed the superintendent’s assistant to provide him with the “fingerprinting instructions,” so he could give them to R.G.

When the board received the applications of interested candidates on July 14, R.G.’s application was not included. Respondent then contacted the superintendent who, after some time, was able to locate the application (it was in the spam folder). R.G.’s application was then forwarded to the board. Of note, R.G.’s fingerprints cleared on July 15.

At the board’s July 28 meeting, two candidates were interviewed. During executive session, respondent “admitted to recruiting [R.G.] for the vacancy and instructing [him] to get fingerprinted.” After neither candidate was appointed, respondent contacted “several [board] members … seeking their availability to hold a special meeting to get” the vacancy filled. When two individuals indicated that they were unavailable, and two others suggested reposting the vacancy, respondent stated: “In the spirit of cooperation and the fact that we are still within the 65 day window of appointing a 9th board member, let’s bring back both candidates for a second interview on August 25th. …. .”  According to complainants, respondent never provided the other candidate “with the instructions and details of how to get fingerprinted and cleared for the [b]oard.”

  • Facts:  Complainant was formerly employed by the board as a paraprofessional, but “voluntarily resigned” after an “incident” in 2018 which was “classified as ‘Not Established.’”  The incident was discussed by the board in executive session but, importantly, respondent D.C. was not on the board. When complainant applied for a vacancy on the board in 2025, she was informed by a community member that respondents stated she (complainant) “was not a good person and did not deserve to serve on the [b]oard” because of the incident that occurred in 2018.
  • Facts:  The MEF is a non-profit organization “that provides financial support to the school district.” Per complainant, respondent “volunteered his time at the [MEF] fundraiser” and is also the administrator of a Facebook group which was listed “as a monetary sponsor” to MEF. At a board meeting on Aug. 26, 2025, respondent “failed to recuse himself when voting to recognize the [MEF].” In addition, respondent “has never abstained from voting on matters pertaining to the MEF before the [b]oard.”
  • Other Findings: The SEC additionally found that the complaint was not frivolous.
  • Facts: On Dec.16, 2024, the district “entered into a binding Mediation Agreement [(Agreement)], which required the [d]istrict to re-evaluate the [c]omplainant’s child . . . to determine [the child’s] continued eligibility for special education and related services.” Despite this agreement, respondents “failed to ensure compliance with the [A]greement, the law, and the [d]istrict’s own data.” Instead, “under the ultimate authority of” respondent J.B., the superintendent, respondents “unilaterally proceeded with the declassification of [complainant’s child] and terminated [the child’s] special education services.” Complainant maintains this “action was taken despite a formal disagreement from [] [c]omplainant challenging the legal validity of the declassification determination and requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE).” Per complainant, the named respondents, all school district administrators, collectively failed “to enforce the binding legal agreement and uphold the integrity of the evaluation process forms.”
  • Other Findings: The SEC did not analyze whether probable cause existed for the stated violations of the Act. Instead, and after outlining the scope of its jurisdiction, the SEC indicated it “is not the appropriate entity to adjudicate” complainant’s claims and dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Facts: According to complainant, respondent posted on social media using an “alias ‘Elisha Beesha,’” and “made a series of public social media postings in which she disparaged parents and students of [the district] who hold conservative viewpoints.” Specifically, after a parent “urged unity for the sake of students,” respondent stated, “Hard to get along with bigots and racists.” Complainant further provides respondent made the comments “in a public online forum accessible to community members,” the “comments were disparaging toward parents and students based on their political or social viewpoints” and her “actions created the appearance of bias and hostility inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a school board member.”
  • Other Findings: The SEC also determined that there was “an insufficient nexus between [r]espondent’s personal Facebook page and her membership on the [b]oard, such that a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that [r]espondent is speaking pursuant to her official duties.”
  • Facts:  After respondent L.F. “moved to repeal policy 5756,” and respondent E.V. seconded the motion, the policy was referred to the board’s policy subcommittee “for detailed analysis.” On March 28, 2025, a board member (unidentified) submitted an OPRA request “seeking records related to [b]oard discussions about this policy.” According to complainant, the named respondents “refused to search their personal devices for responsive text messages and electronic communications” and, instead, resigned. Following their resignations, complainant filed an OPRA request on April 29, 2025, and sought “records related to [r]espondents’ resignations and the [b]oard’s compliance efforts regarding the [first OPRA] [r]equest.” Respondents failed to comply with this request and/or to certify that they did not have any responsive documents.
  • Other Findings: The SEC additionally found that complaint was timely filed, and that the complaint was not frivolous.

B.        Next Weeks’ Article

Next week’s article will analyze the five advisory opinions that the SEC made public.

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.