Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on May 26, 2026 – Part II

In last week’s article, we reviewed the four advisory opinions that the School Ethics Commission made public at its meeting on May 26, 2026. In this week’s article, we will analyze the seven decisions adopted by the SEC.

A.        Summary Decision

In C67-25, the named respondent is employed by the Township Police Department (police department) as a “Building Security/Motor Pool Coordinator”; however, he failed to disclose this employment on his 2025 disclosure statements (Count 2). In addition, respondent voted to approve two separate payments ($1,188.00 and $1,956.00) to the Township for “Special Police Services” at a public board meeting (Count 3). All other claims were dismissed by the SEC at a previous meeting(s) because they were untimely and/or not supported by probable cause.

By way of summary decision, the SEC found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) (Count 2) because he did not disclose his employment with the police department (Township) on his FDS despite earning more than $2,000.00. The SEC additionally found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 3 when he voted to approve payments to his employer, despite having a direct or indirect financial interest in the police department/his employer.   

The SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand for these violations of the School Ethics Act.

B.        PC or Probable Cause Review Decisions

                        1.         Endorsement.

The named complainant inC113-25 submits that respondent used her “public school office and position as Board President” to influence a friend’s election to a board of education in a neighboring school district, when she authored an op-ed and used her (respondent’s) social media account to publicly endorse her “friend,” and also referred to  complainant – her friend’s opponent – as a liar and a person who misleads the public.

Although the SEC found that respondent’s social media comments were not offered in her official capacity, but that a reasonable member of the public could perceive respondent’s op-ed as being offered in her official capacity, the SEC declined to find probable cause because:

despite the lack of a disclaimer, respondent’s op-ed endorsement  does not offer a personal promise, nor does it appear to compromise her board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); complainant has not demonstrated how respondent’s Facebook comments on her personal social media platform would constitute a personal promise or compromise the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); the complaint lacks any evidence that respondent took action on behalf of a special interest or political group when she published the op-ed, nor does complainant demonstrate how respondent used the school or its resources to benefit a friend in submitting the article (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)); complainant has not established how respondent surrendered her independent judgment or used the schools to benefit a friend when she posted comments on her personal social media platform (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)); complainant has not demonstrated what information respondent published in the political endorsement article or posted on social media that was inaccurate or confidential and, even if inaccurate, how those statements would not otherwise be a reasonable mistake or personal opinion (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)).

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous, and to impose sanctions.

2.         Ad Hoc Committee Formation/Frivolous Complaint

According to the named complainant in C125-25, the named respondent (the Board President) unilaterally created an unauthorized ad hoc committee (the Hall of Fame Ad Hoc Committee) before the board authorized or otherwise approved its creation; released event materials without board approval; “allowed unauthorized public communication” about the ad hoc committee; and withheld financial information regarding the unilaterally created and unauthorized ad hoc committee.  For her actions, complainant argues that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d), (e); and (g).

The SEC preliminarily dismissed, in part, the allegations in Count 1 (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and (e)) as untimely because, according to the SEC, complainant “knew or should have known that the committee had been formed prior to the August 29th email confirmation from the [s]uperintendent.” Because complainant filed her complaint on November 17, 2025, claims for alleged violations of the Act which occurred 180-days prior thereto were time-barred.[CP1] 

For the remaining timely allegations, the SEC did not find probable cause. According to the SEC, complainant did not provide the requisite factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a) to support a violation(s) of the Act, especially since creation of a board committee is related to respondent’s duty as Board President, and is a board function. The SEC also did not find the complaint frivolous or impose sanctions.

Relatedly, complainant submits that the named respondent (the superintendent) in C126-25  was aware that the named respondent in C125-25 unilaterally created an ad hoc committee (the Hall of Fame Ad Hoc Committee) without fully informing the board (including complainant, a former board member), without a board motion, and without a board vote on whether to create the ad hoc committee as required by board policy. Despite this knowledge, respondent failed to stop the ad hoc committee’s “unauthorized activities”; allowed the ad hoc committee’s unauthorized activities to be presented publicly; failed to ensure “proper financial oversight” of the ad hoc committee; and  “allowed district resources and communication systems [i.e., email] to be used for an unauthorized program.” Based on respondent’s failures to stop, oversee, or otherwise monitor the unauthorized ad hoc committee, complainant argues that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

After emphasizing that the formation and governance of board committees falls under the jurisdiction of the board, and the superintendent does not administer the board, the SEC declined to find probable cause for the claims asserted against respondent because complainant did not proffer the necessary factual evidence to support a violation(s) of the Act.

The SEC also found the complaint frivolous because, at “its core,” the disagreement concerns “the way a [b]oard committee met or how it was organized.” According to the SEC, complainant, as a former board member, “is well aware that the [s]uperintendent does not have control over the formation or governance of [b]oard committees.” Consequently, not only was the complaint filed in bad faith, but complainant knew or should have known that the complaint was without any reasonable basis in law or equity, or that it could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. For complainant’s frivolous filing, the SEC imposed a fine of $100.00.

                        3.         Statements at a Board Meeting

In April 2025, the named complainant in C127-25 (a teacher and district employee) filed an ethics complaint against the district’s superintendent (SEC Docket No. C29-25). At a board meeting in October 2025, which was after the previously filed ethics complaint was filed but before it was dismissed, respondent made statements at a public board meeting that defamed and chastised complainant for filing the complaint (which he describes as “timely” and “legitimate”).  By making disparaging and denigrating statements about him, and disclosing the existence of the ethics complaint at a time when it was still pending, complainant contends that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (e), (i), and (j).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act because of insufficient factual evidence. 

While seated at the dais during a public board meeting, the named respondent/the Board President in C129-25 “made statements” which, according to complainant, contained “false information” about him. Generally, respondent’s statements indicated that complainant “infiltrated” a neighboring board of education; the neighboring board of education is now a “@hit show”; and complainant “had a big role in flipping” the neighboring board of education. By making these statements, complainant argues that respondent made decisions based on personal animus; did not consider the educational welfare of children; compromised the board; and did not support the interests of the public in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (i).

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act because complainant did not plead sufficient factual evidence to support a violation(s), and noted that respondent’s comments were about a member of the public, not school personnel.

4.         Business Transaction/Untimely Complaint

According to the complainant (the superintendent) in C132-25, the named respondent (the business administrator/board secretary) retained a board member to serve as his real estate agent in connection with the purchase of his home in August-September 2024. By entering into a contractual/business relationship with a board member, an individual who has oversight authority and voting power on all district matters affecting respondent and his role as the business administrator/board secretary, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), (c), and (d). Respondent countered that complainant was aware of his engagement of a board member in August 2024 when it was discussed at a board retreat and, therefore, the complaint was time barred.

Because complainant had “been aware” of the business arrangement between the board member and respondent since August 2024, the SEC found that complainant “could have exercised reasonable diligence at that time to investigate or attempt to verify the information instead of waiting close to a year to investigate or research the matter.” 

In the absence of extraordinary circumstances warranting the relaxation of the applicable period of limitations, the SEC found that the complaint, on its face, was not timely filed and, therefore, was administratively dismissed.

B.        SEC’s Next Meeting

On June 23, 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.