Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on March 24, 2026 – Part II
In last week’s article, we reviewed the 10 “PC Review” or “Probable Cause Review” decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on March 24, 2026. In this week’s article, we will analyze the five advisory opinions that the SEC voted to make public.
A. Public Advisory Opinions
A third-term board member advised that, during their second term of office, they retired from their position as a teacher in another school district after nearly 40 years of service. While employed as a teacher, the board member was a member of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA). As a retiree, the board member receives pension benefits from TPAF and PERS. The board member is not a member of the New Jersey Retired Educators Association (NJREA) or the NEA Retired Educators Association. Although the board and the union is not anticipated to engage in contract negotiations during their third term, “the [b]oard periodically appoints members to serve on the [negotiations] committee in anticipation of future negotiations.” Because of their previous membership in the NJEA and the NEA, and their receipt of pension benefits from the TPAF and the PERS, the board member inquired whether they can be a member of the negotiations committee.
The SEC advised that, as in A26-15, and because of the board member’s recent retirement, the board member “should not be a member of the negotiation[s] committee, for the duration of ‘one full term, which was [their] present term’” (their third term). The SEC also noted that because the board member is not a member of the NJREA or NEA Retired Educators Association, the fact that they collect pensions benefits from the TPAF and the PERS would not bar their service on the negotiations committee thereafter.
Board counsel advised that a board member “has been dating a [] teacher in the district,” and the couple is “residing together, are in the process of purchasing a home together, and will be financially interdependent with respect to bank accounts, mortgage payments, and household expenses.” Board counsel inquired whether the relationship between the board member and a district teacher would present a conflict for the board member’s participation in any board committee(s).
Before rendering its advice, the SEC noted, “it is not the employment role within the school district that governs the potential conflict, but rather, the relationship between the [b]oard member/school official and the district employee, which determines whether there would be any prohibitions and the nature of the prohibitions.”
Even though the relationship between the board member and the teacher does not meet the definition of “domestic partner” as defined in N.J.S.A. 26:8A-3 and N.J.S.A. 26:8A-4, the teacher is still considered to be an “other.” Unlike in A16-25, and because of the financial relationship/entanglement between the board member and a district teacher, the relationship “has the potential to compromise the [b]oard,” and “any matters related to the teacher’s employment would impact/affect the [b]oard member financially … .” As a result, the SEC advised that the board member “should not serve on any of the [board’s] committees while [they] remain[] in a relationship with the teacher and the [b]oard member should abstain from any matters that touch upon the teacher’s employment.”
A board member advised as follows: they serve as Board President; they are employed as a full time teacher in another school district, but will be retiring in June 2026 with no plans to join the NJREA; their spouse “has been a substitute staff member” in the district for 18 years; the district “directly engages” substitutes, and does not use an outside agency; the superintendent recommends the list of substitutes to the board; the substitutes are not affiliated with any bargaining unit; substitutes are assigned on “a first reply basis”; and substitutes report to and are managed by the [s]uperintendent, who also serves as a [p]rincipal.” Based on these facts, the board member inquired about the limitations on their service as a board member and as Board President because of their spouse’s employment in the district as a substitute, and the impact that their anticipated retirement will have on their service as a board member and as Board President.
After review, the SEC advised: (1) because substitutes – based on the facts and circumstances presented – are considered employees of the district, the board member would have a conflict regarding any and all matters related to the employment of substitute personnel, including any committees that are linked to the employment of substitutes or their payment, and also conflicted from any matters concerning the superintendent, including the search, hire, contract and evaluation; (2) consistent with A05-25 and A05-23, the board member/Board President cannot choose the members of and/or serve as an ex officio member of any committee that even remotely touches upon or directly relates to their spouse’s employment; and (3) the board member should not participate in, nor be a member of any committees that are related to the LEA for one full term after the date of their retirement.
Board counsel informed the SEC that a board member is the Chief of Police for the Township, and that their spouse is a teacher in the district and a member of the local education association’s (LEA) negotiations committee. Although board counsel advised that the board member would be prohibited from voting on or participating in matters involving the superintendent, personnel matters, the LEA contract negotiations, matters involving the supervisor of the board member’s spouse, budget discussions, student matters with police involvement, any contractual matter between the board and the Police Department, and from serving on the personnel, finance and negotiations committees, they inquired whether there are any “actual conflicts” which preclude this board member from participating in budget matters and/or serving on a Finance Committee.
The SEC advised that, as detailed in A05-23, the board member should not participate in any committees that “remotely touch upon or directly relate to” their spouse’s employment, including on the Negotiations Committees. In addition, to the extent that any other board committee(s) discusses budgets or any other issues related to teacher salaries/employment and/or discusses budgets or any other issues related to the board member’s employment (e.g., the school resource officers, or other police related matters), then the board member must abstain from all discussions and votes related to same, including not being a member of that committee. In this way, the SEC agreed with board counsel’s advice, namely that the board member “should not serve on the Personnel Committee, the Finance Committee and the Negotiations Committees.”
Finally, the SEC advised that, because the board member is the Chief of Police, they should not participate in the discussions regarding and/or votes on any matters that are linked to the board member’s employment, including student matters with police involvement and any contractual matter between the board and the Township’s Police Department.
Board counsel advised that a board member has a sister who is employed in the district, and is the president of the LEA. In addition, the board member’s “boyfriend/girlfriend” is also employed as a teacher in the district. Although board counsel advised that the board member would be prohibited from voting on or participating in matters involving the superintendent, personnel matters, the LEA contract negotiations, matters involving the supervisor of the board member’s sister and boyfriend/girlfriend, budget discussions, and serving on the personnel, finance and negotiations committees, they inquired whether there are any “actual conflicts” which preclude this board member from participating “in budget matters and/or serving on a Finance Committee.”
The SEC advised, in accordance with A05-23, the board member should not participate in any committees that “remotely touch upon or directly relate to” his/her sister’s employment. As for which committees, the SEC agreed with board counsel’s legal advice that the board member “should not serve on the Personnel Committee, the Negotiations Committee and/or the Finance Committee.”
B. SEC’s Next Meeting
On April 28, 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.
