The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting on Nov. 25, 2025:  discussed six matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; adopted and mailed an order to show cause for a board member who failed to timely complete mandated training; considered adopting eight decisions; considered two new advisory opinion requests; and considered making 20 advisory opinions public.

Of the eight decisions considered for adoption, four were posted on the Department of Education’s website. Therefore, the remaining four matters – C18-24; C16-25; C17-25; and C18-25, C19-25, and C21-25 (Consolidated) – remain pending. The SEC also posted 20 new public advisory opinions.

This week’s article is limited to a review of the “Final Decision” and the three probable cause or “PC Review” decisions adopted by the SEC, and next week’s article will examine the 20 advisory opinions that the SEC voted to make public.

A.        “Final Decision”

After a former administrator filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the board and the superintendent, the named respondent in C82-22 forwarded e-mail messages and confidential/privileged board-related documentation and information from her board e-mail account to her personal e-mail account, printed the documents, and then “caused” the “packet” of information to be shared with the former administrator. By disclosing confidential/privileged information to a former administrator in order to assist him with the prosecution of his lawsuit against the board and the superintendent, complainants contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (g), and (i).

The SEC agreed with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that respondent’s disclosure of information that she only had access to because of her position on the board was unrelated to her duties of policy making, planning, and appraisal in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), and that her disclosure of confidential/privileged information to an individual who filed a lawsuit against the board and the superintendent had the potential to compromise the board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e); to needlessly injure the superintendent and/or the board in its defense of the litigation in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g); and constituted deliberate action to undermine the superintendent in the performance of her duties in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).

For the respondent’s violations of the School Ethics Act (the Act), the SEC modified the ALJ’s recommended penalty of reprimand in favor of a censure. The SEC also noted that if the respondent was still on the board, it would have recommended a much higher penalty, because the respondent’s actions were completely inappropriate, were in direct contravention of her duties to the board, violated the public trust, and the respondent had been previously censured (C86-21). 

B.        Decisions on Probable Cause

In C14-25, respondent M.S. (the Board President) sent an email from his board e-mail account to every member of the board, except for complainant, expressing his “dislike with” complainant “due to them exercising their rights as a private citizen” and for “sharing information regarding two-district employees who … launched campaigns” against complainant “for expressing views shared by themselves and other [Township] residents.” Following respondent M.S.’s request for a response from his fellow board members, four board members replied with their “wishes or voiced their personal opinion,” one refused to take part in the matter, and two board members did not reply.

Based on these facts, complainant contended that respondent M.S. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because he sent an email to a quorum of the board and requested a response in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), and also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because he “took official action and sent the email to collect votes or opinions from [b]oard members to plan an attack against a fellow [b]oard member” (Count 1); respondent A.A., respondent S.C., and respondent L.S. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because they separately replied to respondent M.S.’s e-mail in violation of OPMA (Count 2, Count 4, and Count 5); and respondent K.C. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because she too replied to respondent M.S.’s e-mail in violation of OPMA, and also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because she did not consult with complainant, who would be affected by her decision.

The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainant did not provide the factual evidence necessary to establish a violation of the Act.

In C15-25, complainant previously filed an ethics complaint against the named respondent. As part of respondent’s “Written Statement” in that matter – which was the formal response that she filed with the SEC– respondent submitted a certification from the “newly hired” superintendent which supported her (respondent’s) arguments. By unilaterally requesting and obtaining a certification from the “newly hired” superintendent without the full board’s knowledge or approval, and by relying upon that certification to defend herself against the ethics complaint filed by complainant, complainant argues that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because she used her position as “one of” the superintendent’s “bosses” to secure an unwarranted privilege “in the form of preemptive evidence to be used in her defense against allegations that she took private action to compromise the [b]oard”; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) because she used her position as a board member to direct the superintendent to prepare a certification to benefit her defense of an ethics complaint; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because her action was “related only to her personal desire to unburden herself from an allegation that she violated” the Act;  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because she directed the superintendent to make a certification without first seeking the board’s approval, and such action had the potential to compromise the board; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because she used the superintendent to acquire a benefit, e.g., the certification, for herself; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) because “rather than supporting” the superintendent “in the proper performance of her duties,” respondent used the “new” superintendent for “an improper purpose for the sole purpose of benefitting respondent.”

The SEC declined to find probable cause to believe the claimed violations of the Act. Generally speaking, the SEC found that complainant failed to show what board action respondent took and/or how she used her position as a board member to acquire a benefit for herself when she asked for and received a certification from the superintendent.

In C23-25, C43-25, and C44-25 (Consolidated), after serving as board counsel for more than 30 years, the law firm of S & P was replaced by CLG on Jan. 1, 2024.  In November 2024, respondent R.C. and respondent D.D. held an “unscheduled, impromptu meeting” with the business administrator (BA) without the knowledge of the superintendent, the then board president, or any other board member. At this meeting, respondent R.C. requested that the legal services proposal previously submitted by the law firm of S & P (in November 2023) be added to the board’s December agenda because “a majority of the [b]oard ha[d] never seen or reviewed the proposal.” Prior to the December meeting, the then Board President, upon learning of the “unauthorized” addition to the agenda, stated that respondent R.C. and respondent D.D. “acted outside of the proper procedures” and attempted to “unilaterally introduce a proposal for legal services, bypassing the established [b]oard processes for agenda-setting and procurement.” In March 2025, and following reorganization and the appointment of new officers, the law firm of S & P replaced CLG as board counsel.

Based on these facts, complainant argued that respondent R.C. (C23-25) violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) “when he bypassed the policy of the [b]oard and scheduled a meeting with the [business administrator (BA)], without informing the [s]uperintendent or the [b]oard, to request that the [request for proposals (RFP)] from [the law firm of S & P] be read at the next [b]oard meeting”; respondents R.C. and D.D. (C43-25) violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (i) when they acted outside of the established process, had a private meeting with the BA, and unilaterally introduced a legal services proposal from the law firm of S & P to the agenda for a board meeting; and respondent E.C. (C44-25), who became Board President following reorganization in 2025, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (d), and (f) when she did not get feedback from the superintendent or the BA regarding the RFP for law firms, and voted for the law firm of S & P to be appointed as board counsel despite her personal friendship with one of the shareholders.

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act. In declining to find probable cause, the SEC noted:  generally, the allegations “appear to be a matter of [b]oard policy and [b]oard governance, over which the [SEC] does not have jurisdiction”; complainants separately and collectively failed to produce the necessary factual evidence to establish any violation(s) of the Act; and the board, notwithstanding the “impromptu” meeting with the BA, considered and voted, after considering the legal services proposal previously submitted by the law firm of S & P, whether to replace its board counsel.

C.        Next Week’s Article

In next week’s article, the 20 advisory opinions that the SEC voted to make public at its Nov. 25, 2025, meeting will be examined.

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.