Last week’s article reviewed half of the 20 advisory opinions that the SEC voted to make public at its meeting on Nov. 25, 2025. This week’s article examines the remaining 10 advisory opinions.
A. Public Advisory Opinions
Advisory Opinion A12-25
A board member has a child who was unilaterally placed at a private out-of-district school and, in their capacity as a parent, met with (and will need to continue to meet with) the Director of Special Services (Director). The board member requested guidance on whether they need to change their advocacy efforts or interaction(s) with the Director.
The SEC advised that the advocacy efforts of a parent/board member are permissible so long as they do not impair their objectivity or independence of judgment and/or provide an unwarranted advantage, privilege or employment to themselves, a member of their immediate family or an “other”; the board member must recuse “from all discussions and votes related to out-of-district placements and any other special education services for their child, as well as for other children and families within the [d]istrict”; and, given their communications with the Director, they “should not participate in any discussions or votes related to the employment” of the Director.
Advisory Opinion A13-25
Board counsel advised that a board member hired a district teacher, but not their child’s classroom teacher, to tutor their child, and inquired whether the board member’s hiring of a district teacher violated the Act, and whether the board member must recuse themselves from matters involving the district teacher.
The SEC advised that advisory opinions are limited to addressing prospective activity or conduct and, therefore, it could not determine whether prior conduct violated the Act. In addition, the board member must recuse themself from all matters related to the district teacher’s employment, including negotiations, while the teacher is employed as a tutor.
Advisory Opinion A14-25.
Three board members advised that they are “either explicitly or substantively implicated in a [civil] complaint” that was filed by the superintendent, and inquired whether, because of the complaint, they are precluded from participating in matters related to the superintendent, and whether the board could invoke the doctrine of necessity “if a quorum [was] not available due to required recusals.”
The SEC advised it cannot offer an opinion on whether the board members had a conflict regarding the superintendent because the complaint is pending (abeyance). As to the invocation of the doctrine of necessity, if the board needs to vote on a matter related to the superintendent’s employment and a quorum of the board has conflicts, then the doctrine can be invoked.
Advisory Opinion A15-25
A board member is employed as the director for the city, and is appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. A district employee is an elected councilman, and several others have immediate family members or relatives who are elected councilmen (and the board member already recuses from these matters). The board member sought guidance on whether he may participate in matters related to the superintendent.
The SEC advised that the board member should not participate in any matters related to the district employee/councilman; the district employees with immediate family members/relatives who are councilmen; or the superintendent.
Advisory Opinion A16-25
A board member is engaged to the district’s business administrator (BA). Board counsel sought guidance as to whether the board member can vote on the district’s annual budget, and whether this analysis would change once they are married.
The SEC advised that the board member should not participate in any discussions or votes (now and after they are married) related to: budgetary matters including, but not limited to, the district’s annual budget; the BA’s employment; those individuals who the BA supervises; and those individuals who supervise the BA (most likely just the superintendent).
Advisory Opinion A17-25
Board members A and B “received a number of signatures from district administrators that reside in the town in this upcoming election and in past years.” The requester inquired whether board members A and/or B may vote on matters involving these administrators, the administrators’ family members, and/or matters involving the departments, programs, and employees that the administrators oversee.
The SEC advised that board member A and B may vote on all matters.
Advisory Opinion A18-25
A board member has a “history of direct litigation with” the superintendent and a “long-running public campaign of criticism” regarding the superintendent. The requestor inquired whether the board member can participate in matters related to the superintendent’s employment.
The SEC advised that, in these situations, the facts “must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the public might reasonably perceive that a prior animus has the potential to prejudice or interfere with a board member’s independence of judgment.” Here, because of the long-standing negative history between the parties, the board member should not participate in any matters related to the superintendent’s employment.
Advisory Opinion A19-25
An employee resigned from the district, citing “perceived adverse actions by the superintendent” and frequently attended board meetings to criticize the superintendent during the public comment period. The former employee was appointed to the board approximately three years after resigning. The requestor inquired whether the former employee/board member can participate in matters related to the superintendent.
The SEC advised that the board member’s “vocal opposition” to the superintendent “does not mean that [the board member] cannot exercise independence of judgment or otherwise be objective in matters related to the [s]uperintendent,” especially in light of the “sufficient” lapse of time from the board member’s employment in the district (three years).
Advisory Opinion A21-25
In the district, non-profit organizations and for-profit businesses (collectively referred to as entities) conduct fundraising activities to benefit the district, the schools, and teachers. Several board members sought guidance regarding the extent to which they can volunteer for and/or work with these entities.
The SEC advised that, because the entities do not appear to be “under the control of, overseen by, or otherwise managed by” the board or district, the board members may: volunteer at and attend fundraising events organized by the entities; make personal financial or in-kind contributions to these entities, as long as “they do not provide a donation as an attempt to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for themselves, members of their immediate family, or ‘others.’”; and patronize events where proceeds are donated to the district, provided they do not use their positions as board members to obtain financial benefits (e.g., free or reduced-price products).
Advisory Opinion A22-25
On a nine-member board, five of the six non-conflicted members agreed to amend the superintendent’s contract, but, following this decision, several may have been contacted by the mayor and/or their staff, directing them to vote against the proposed contract. Based on the outside influence and political pressure, board counsel inquired whether the board members could vote on the proposed contract.
The SEC advised that contact by the mayor and/or their staff, without more, did not create a conflict because “it cannot be assumed” that the board members “have or will surrender their independent judgment to the [m]ayor or anyone on his/her staff.”
B. SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC held its final meeting of the calendar year on Dec. 15, 2025, and its first meeting of the new year is on Jan. 27, 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.
