Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on March 25, 2025:  Part I

At its meeting on March 25, 2025, the School Ethics Commission took the following action:  discussed five matters pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting eight decisions (C56-20; C84-21; C11-23; C40-24; C45-24; C46-24; C49-24 and C50-24 (Consolidated); and C52-24); considered three new advisory opinion requests; and considered making four advisory opinions public.

Of the eight decisions considered for adoption, five were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining three matters – C11-23, C40-24, and C46-24 –  remain pending. The SEC also did not post any new public advisory opinions.

This week’s article is limited to a review of the “Final Decisions” adopted by the SEC, and next week’s article will examine the “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the SEC.

A.  “Final Decisions”

After multiple members of the board expressed concern to the named Complainant in C56-20 that her and her spouse’s incorporation of Valley Kids Matter Foundation (VKMF) – a foundation with a mission to “help families in the local area receive the services and support they need for their children with special needs” – could be in conflict with her duties as a board member, the Board President contacted board counsel for legal advice. After conducting legal research, board counsel sent a letter to the Board President indicating that the Complainant’s involvement with VKMF could violate the Act, but “it would be advisable to meet with [Complainant] to obtain additional information.” Board counsel billed over $3,000.00 for the time spent conducting legal research and drafting correspondence to the Board President. Based on this advice, the Board President sent a series of questions to Complainant which she refused to answer. Complainant also refused to provide the Board President with a copy of the advisory opinion request she submitted to the SEC. Following “unsuccessful” efforts to meet with Complainant, the named Respondents filed separate ethics complaints against Complainant, which were later consolidated.

Several months later, Complainant filed an ethics complaint alleging that the named Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f) because they used taxpayer funds to obtain “free personal” legal advice and guidance from board counsel regarding VKMF, which they then used to file their consolidated complaint.

Following transmittal of the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, an administrative law judge issued an initial decision granting Respondents’ motion for summary decision, and finding that Respondents did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f).

The SEC adopted the initial decision’s findings of fact, the legal conclusions that Respondents did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f), and the dismissal of the matter.  With regard to the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), the SEC found that “Respondents did not seek the advice of counsel for the purpose of filing an ethics complaint, but rather to internally resolve a potential concern with a fellow [b]oard member.” Moreover, “Respondents were not attempting to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage in their future ethics proceeding that was not anticipated at the time they reached out to counsel.”

As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f), the SEC determined that the information used in Respondents’ ethics complaints was publicly available, and was not obtained as a result of their board membership. In addition, the legal advice that they received from board counsel was not substantive; it merely indicated that Complainant’s association with VKMF could violate the Act; and it was offered before Respondents intended to file ethics complaints. As a result, Respondents did not receive any financial gain.

In dismissing this matter, the SEC distinguished this case from C64-22, C77-22, and C92-22 (Consolidated) – in which violations of the Act were found – noting that the Respondents here “were not attempting to resolve an ethics concern on behalf of the [b]oard as a whole through the filing of their individual ethics complaints.”  Unlike in C64-22, C77-22, and C92-22 (Consolidated), the board here did not adopt a resolution or otherwise authorize the filing of ethics charges on behalf of the board, and the board’s attorney did not draft the ethics complaints that were filed with the SEC.  Instead, the named Respondents in this case “drafted their own ethics complaints, and did not use [b]oard resources or have [b]oard counsel draft or file the ethics charges free of cost to them individually.”

Next, after C84-21 was transmitted to the OAL, an administrative law judge dismissed all alleged violations of the Act, except for N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 3.

In Count 1, the board was asked to vote on a resolution (4147A) that “contained proposed modifications to eight separate [b]oard policies.” The named Complainants asked for a motion to sever because they did not want to vote “no” on the entirety of the resolution when they only had concerns with one policy. Despite Complainants’ repeated request, Respondent J refused to recognize their motion to sever. Months later, and in an attempt to “remedy what had occurred,” Respondent J agreed to make a motion to rescind the prior board action. However, when Respondent J asked Complainant M if, following an anticipated motion to rescind, there would be enough votes to pass the Resolution, she replied she was unsure. As a result, Respondent J did not make the motion to rescind. After the meeting ended, Respondent J approached Complainant M, turned off her microphone, then “became very animated and began waving his arms in front of her and getting physically close to her.”  Complainants alleged this action violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).

In Count 3,  Complainants contended that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because they adopted a resolution (4215) requiring that all suspensions be approved by the superintendent but, according to Complainants, they failed to consult with those affected by the resolution before adopting it.

Following a hearing, the ALJ found that Respondents did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1 and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) in Count 3, and dismissed the matter.

The SEC adopted the initial decision’s findings of fact, the legal conclusion that Respondents did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1 and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) in Count 3, and the dismissal of the matter.  With regard to Count 1, the SEC found that, “Whether a board member makes a motion or refuses to make a motion is his or her own prerogative, … even if [they] previously advised that [they] intended to do so.” As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), the SEC found that there was, contrary to Complainants’ argument, sufficient evidence in the record that school administrators were consulted prior to the board’s drafting and approval of Resolution 4215.

B. Next Week’s Article

In next week’s article, the “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the SEC at its March 25, 2025, meeting will be analyzed.

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 and Labor Relations Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for specific legal advice.