Last week’s article reviewed the four “PC Review” Decisions adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on Oct. 28, 2025. This week’s article is limited to an examination of the four “Final Decisions” adopted by the SEC.
A. “Final Decisions”
In C37-24, the parties resolved the matter through a settlement agreement (Agreement), which included, among other things: respondent’s acknowledgement that she contacted the superintendent on a private administrative matter using her “[b]oard member privileged access,” and that this action may reasonably appear to the public as preferential and beyond the appropriate boundaries of her role as a board member; and respondent’s confirmation that she “acted with the sincere belief [that] she was engaging with the [s]uperintendent as a parent…and was not attempting to improperly influence the outcome.”
The Agreement also stated that: respondent’s conduct “may be construed as a technical violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), but the parties agree that there is not enough evidence to support a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f);” and the Agreement “shall serve as a reprimand and that no other penalty or sanction shall be imposed.”
The SEC adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s initial decision approving the Agreement, noting that it “does not find a reason why it should not defer to the parties’ mutual decision to amicably resolve their dispute.”
In C76-23, the board’s insurance carrier appointed a law firm to defend respondent in connection with an ethics complaint. At a board meeting, respondent voted to approve the board’s “finance and facilities” resolution, which contained all of the board’s financial matters (more than 3,000 items) and “spanned more than 350 pages.” Because one of the items in the resolution was a payment to the law firm that was representing respondent, complainant alleged that respondent violated the School Ethics Act.
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, the legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and the recommended penalty of censure. The SEC explained that respondent “has a direct or indirect financial interest with votes on or about the law firm that provided her with free representation in the defense of an ethics charge,” and also “has a personal involvement with the law firm as it was providing her with legal representation, creating an attorney-client or personal relationship.” Notably, the SEC emphasized that even “if the resolution was large and [r]espondent did not realize the payment to the law firm was on the agenda, [she] nevertheless has a responsibility to be aware of what she is approving and ensure that she does not have a conflict of interest.” The SEC also noted that receipt of the agenda the Friday before a Tuesday board meeting was “ample time to review, at the very least, the finance and facilities resolution.”
Finally, the SEC determined that the penalty of censure was appropriate because respondent is an attorney with several years of experience as a board member, and, therefore, should have been aware that voting on a matter in which she had a direct or indirect financial interest is prohibited.
In C51-22, complainants alleged that respondent, the board president, violated the Act based on the following conduct: informing the public that the board was prepared to reduce instructional time by forty minutes per day, despite multiple directives from the superintendent not to share this information, as it could compromise the board’s position in negotiations (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)); making misrepresentations about her communications with board counsel and the resulting invoice (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)); and reading a statement at a board meeting implying that the superintendent had been committing “bullying, intimidation, and harassment” against her for some time (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)).
The ALJ granted complainants’ motion for summary decision, concluding that respondent violated all the stated sections of the Act, and recommended a penalty of censure. With respect to respondent’s public disclosure of information about the board’s plans for reducing instructional time, the ALJ stressed that respondent’s “blatant conduct was the precise kind of rogue, individual decision-making by a board member that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) contemplates and for which sanctions are made available.” The ALJ continued that respondent’s “unsanctioned, private action [] had the clear potential to undermine the [b]oard’s negotiating position with the teacher’s union.”
For the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), the ALJ explained that respondent made “sensitive [b]oard information public,” despite several warnings from the superintendent, and there was nothing in the record to suggest that the information was not actually confidential or had been made public in some other way. The ALJ also found that, although the “exact dimensions of the financial injury…cannot be ascertained,” it is indisputable that her disclosure “significantly undermined the [b]oard’s negotiating position relative to the unions without cause,” and, therefore, injured the district. The ALJ also determined that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because “she made inaccurate statements [about board counsel’s billing] that placed [b]oard counsel’s reputation in jeopardy.” Finally, in confirming a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), the ALJ stated that respondent’s public statement about the superintendent suggested that the superintendent “was using his position to target” respondent.
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s factual findings and legal conclusions that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i). The SEC also adopted the ALJ’s recommended penalty of censure and concluded that, because a majority of respondent’s actions took place in public, “the public should be aware of her sanction.”
In C35-21, although the district was not looking for a wrestling coach, respondent sent the resumes of two potential coaches he knew from a local junior wrestling league to the district’s athletic director, and warned that the district would continue to lose high quality wrestlers to private schools, like his child, if the district did not improve the wrestling program. Respondent also emailed the other board members and asked for their support in either removing the approval of the district’s current wrestling coach from the board’s agenda or in voting no on this coach’s appointment. Based on this conduct, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
The ALJ concluded that complainant did not establish any violations of the Act, but the SEC disagreed and found a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). The SEC explained that, even if the two potential coaches were not “personal friends” of respondent, they are “others” as required within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). Moreover, and based on the “totality of [r]espondent’s behavior,” it “demonstrates that he unquestionably used his position as [b]oard member to push for the removal of the current wrestling coach (when he was not otherwise being considered for removal) so that his fellow coaches – ‘others’ – could be hired instead.” This “overt involvement is beyond the role of a [b]oard member, was an attempt to use his position to secure employment for his fellow coaches … in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).”
As for the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the SEC determined that complainant did not establish that respondent’s “conduct created any benefit to him or his child.” Even if one of the potential coaches suggested by respondent was hired, “there is no definitive evidence beyond speculation that he passed along the resumes so that his child could return to the [d]istrict and join the wrestling team, and he would save on the cost of private school tuition.”
Based on respondent’s violation of the Act, the SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand.
B. SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for Nov.25, 2025.
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.
