The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting on May 26, 2026: discussed 13 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 10 decisions; considered three new advisory opinion requests; and considered making four advisory opinions public.
Of the 10 decisions considered for adoption, seven were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining three matters – C116-25; C128-25; C138-25 – remain pending. The SEC also posted four advisory opinions.
This article will review the four advisory opinions that the SEC made public, and next week’s article will analyze the seven decisions adopted by the SEC.
A. Public Advisory Opinions
A09-26: A board member owns a private business, out of the district, which offers full-day kindergarten services, and these services “are substantially similar to the full-day kindergarten program under consideration by the [board].” Per the requestor, the board is scheduled to vote on a budget that, for the very first time, will include implementation of full-day kindergarten. Based on this information, the requestor inquires whether the board member must recuse from the board’s vote on the budget, and whether they must recuse from subsequent staffing and program decisions that may influence the success and competitiveness of the district’s full-day kindergarten program.
The SEC advised that the board member is not prohibited from voting on the board’s budget simply because they own a private business, in a neighboring town, that offers full-day kindergarten services, as “mere ownership in the business does not diminish or limit the board member’s ability to vote on the budget.”
As to the second inquiry, the SEC advised that the board member is not prohibited from participating in general staffing and program decisions related to the district’s implementation of full-day kindergarten; however, if a person employed by the board member’s private business applies for a position in the district, the board member should not participate in any discussions related to that employee or participate in any votes related to same.
A10-26: A board member advised as follows: the “[s]uperintendent has recently been placed on administrative leave with pay pending an active [b]oard investigation/forensic investigation into alleged misconduct”; the board president “has a documented professional history with the [s]uperintendent that extends across multiple districts”; and “[d]uring the current decision making to place the [superintendent] on leave and to pay for an investigation,” the board president has ”[p]ublicly and privately expressed personal loyalty to the [s]uperintendent over the course of 2016 to present,” “[u]rged the [b]oard not to place the [s]uperintendent on administrative leave,” and has provided or facilitated “recommendation calls on [the [s]uperintendent’s] behalf.” Although the board president initially agreed to recuse from the investigation and to allow the board vice president to handle the matter, the board president “backtracked” on that decision, and “resumed a leadership role as the primary point of contact without consulting with the [b]oard.”
Based on the facts, the requestor inquired: (1) whether a board member’s expressed personal loyalty and advocacy on behalf of a superintendent constitute a conflict of interest; (2) whether a longstanding professional relationship across multiple districts, combined with current actions supporting the superintendent, create an appearance of impropriety or compromised objectivity; (3) whether it is appropriate for a board member who initially recused from an investigation due to potential bias to later reassume a leadership role in that same investigation without consulting with the board; (4) whether, during an active investigation, a board member violates the Act by attempting to influence the board’s decision-making and/or providing recommendations for the subject of the board’s investigation; (5) whether a favorable bias can be considered equivalent to a negative bias in determining whether recusal is necessary; and (6) whether the board president should recuse from (a) the investigation process; (b) any personnel discussions related to the superintendent; or (c) the superintendent’s annual evaluation.
According to the SEC, inquiries (1) through (5) do not inquire whether certain prospective conduct would violate a specific provision of the School Ethics Act (Act) and, therefore, cannot be answered in an advisory opinion. With regard to inquiry (6), the SEC advised that the board president is not prohibited from participating in the investigation process, participating in any personnel decisions related to the superintendent or participating in the superintendent’s annual evaluation. Per the SEC, a board member’s “support for the [s]uperintendent does not mean, without additional facts and information, … that [they] cannot exercise independence of judgment or otherwise be objective in matters related to the [s]uperintendent and/or the [s]uperintendent’s employment.” The SEC additionally advised that, “just as a board member has the right to express contrary views to that of the board and/or the administration, it is their same right to show support for the board and/or administration.” In this way, “Support and/or lack thereof, without more, does not create a per se conflict.”
A11-26: A board member indicated that the board is in the process of hiring a solicitor, and their brother-in-law (their spouse’s brother) provides consulting services to one of the attorneys/law firms under consideration by the board for appointment. The board member also indicated that: the consulting services provided by their brother-in-law to the potential solicitor is unrelated to the board; their brother-in-law does not have an ownership interest in the law firm; and their brother-in-law’s compensation “is not tied in any way to whether the solicitor is appointed to the [b]oard.”
After acknowledging that the board member’s brother-in-law is a relative within the meaning of the Act, the SEC advised that the board member would not be prohibited from participating in the discussion and/or vote(s) related to the appointment of the board’s solicitor, as the board member’s brother-in-law is not an employee of the law firm, would not be involved in matters related to the board, and there is no financial entanglement. However, the SEC cautioned that if the board chose the law firm that the board member’s brother-in-law provides consulting services for, and their brother-in-law did consult on a matter that comes before the board, then they would have to recuse from all discussions and votes related to same.
A12-26: Board counsel advised that a board member’s spouse is employed as a custodial/maintenance worker, but has been on a leave of absence since the board member was first elected to the board, and is retiring from employment as of April 30, 2026. Although the subject board member was appointed to the Finance Committee in January 2026, board counsel inquires whether the board member is prohibited from serving on the Finance Committee due to their spouse’s in-district employment.
Based on the specific facts and circumstances presented, the SEC advised that the board member is not prohibited from continuing to serve on the board’s Finance Committee, especially since the board member’s spouse is now retired. Nonetheless, should a matter concerning the board member’s spouse’s employment and/or retirement benefits come before the Finance Committee, the board member would then need to recuse the discussion and/or the vote related to same.
B. Next Week’s Article
Next week’s article will analyze the seven decisions adopted by the SEC at its meeting on May 26, 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.
