The School Ethics Commission (SEC) took the following actions at its meeting on Sept. 22, 2026: discussed 13 matters pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 11 decisions as written; considered one new advisory opinion request; and considered making one advisory opinion public.

Of the 11 decisions considered for adoption, six were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining five matters – C98-25 and C99-25 (Consolidated); C15-26; C28-26; C31-26; and C33-26 – remain pending. The SEC also posted a new advisory opinion.

A.        Violations of the Act and a Settlement Agreement

In C93-22, the parties stipulated to the following facts: respondents jointly ran for the board in 2019 under the “Better [Town] BOE” moniker; the individual who owns the property at which their campaign was registered served as the campaign’s chairperson and treasurer; the campaign received contributions of over $14,000 from other campaign committees owned by their chairperson and treasurer; respondents jointly ran for reelection in 2022, and their campaign had the same chairperson and treasurer as previously; on August 15, 2022, and September 19, 2022, respondents voted to approve lease payments for the property owned by their chairperson and treasurer; respondents’ reelection campaign received over $17,000 from other campaign committees owned by their chairperson and treasurer.

Following motions for summary decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) when they voted to approve rental payments to the person who presently (and previously) served as their joint campaign’s chairperson and treasurer and who, through his own campaign committees, contributed over $14,000 to respondents’ election campaign, and over $17,000 to their reelection campaign. The ALJ recommended a penalty of censure because “the public perception of the votes herein are important” and “the votes to make rental payments to … [their joint campaign’s chairperson and treasurer] could easily be perceived by members of the public as improper and done to curry favor with … [this individual].”

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact; the legal conclusion that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); and the recommended penalty of censure. Despite respondents’ argument that this individual was not a direct contributor to their initial or reelection campaign, the SEC found that “direct” and “personal” contribution was “not the only criteria for a financial involvement.”  In this case, the individual was the chairperson and treasurer for their campaign committee, and the chairperson and treasurer of other campaign committees that contributed significantly to respondents’ campaign.

In C107-22, a complaint was filed against respondents contending that they violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (g), and (j). After the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the parties executed a settlement agreement which acknowledged that respondents “took individual action by forwarding information pertaining to [b]oard communications to those who may not be entitled to it in violation of the [Act],” and indicated that they would “provide a private apology to” complainant.

Upon review, the SEC did not “find a reason why it should not defer to the parties’ mutual decision to amicably resolve their dispute.”  Therefore, the SEC voted to adopt the initial decision (settlement) as the final decision, but did not take a position on the enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement.

B.        Dismissals

The complaint filed in C54-24 asserted that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) in Count 1, and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (i) in Count 2. Before the matter was transmitted to the OAL, the SEC dismissed the claimed violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (i) in Count 2 for lack of probable cause. In the remaining count of the complaint, complainant advised that at a board meeting on May 9, 2024, the superintendent provided the board with a letter from the Director of Special Services (Director) which requested a salary increase. During an Individualized Education Program meeting that respondent attended for her grandchild on May 23, 2024, and in a phone call with an unnamed “subordinate” thereafter, respondent purportedly shared confidential information from/about the Director’s letter in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).

Following the filing of a motion for summary decision, the ALJ found that complainant “has not produced or proffered any evidence that any confidential information was disclosed …”; “there is no evidence that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) was violated or that a hearing could demonstrate any such violation”; and complainant “does not have personal knowledge nor any witnesses or evidence to demonstrate” a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). Therefore, the ALJ granted summary decision in favor of respondent, and dismissed the complaint.

The SEC adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact; the legal conclusion that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g); and agreed that the matter should be dismissed.

In C36-25, complainant contended that the named respondent “published three Facebook posts” that violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e) and (g). In the first post (Count 1), respondent inquired, “As a resident of Alloway, I am wondering what other residents think about a 9-15% school tax increase?” This post had a disclaimer at the end stating, “The above statements are made in my capacity as a private citizen, and not in my capacity as a board member. These statements are also not representative of the [b]oard or its individual members and solely represent my own personal opinions.” In the second post (Count 2), respondent stated, “I am ASKING this FOR MYSELF NOT for the board. What if the taxes went up to 20% is that a number you will except?” (sic). In the third post (Count 3), respondent asked, “If taxes will need to be raised by 30% to keep the school open what is your opinion?”

In reviewing the respondent’s social media posts, the SEC noted that respondent used a disclaimer on two of the three posts – one indicating that she was asking for herself and not for the board (Count 2), and the second indicating that the statements were in her capacity as a private citizen, and not as a board member, and that the opinions were not representative of the board or its individual members (Count 1). Given the use of disclaimers, the SEC found that a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that she was speaking in her official capacity as a board member.

With respect to the one post without a disclaimer (Count 3), the SEC advised that the lack of a disclaimer is not dispositive. Moreover, respondent’s “general public inquiry does not appear to invoke [r]espondent’s position on the [b]oard or appear, in any way, representative of the [b]oard as a whole.” Consequently, the SEC found that “there is not a sufficient nexus between the social media post and [r]espondent’s role on the [b]oard, and a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that [r]espondent was acting in her official capacity as a [b]oard member.”

Turning to the stated violations of the Act, the SEC declined to find probable cause, determining that: complainant has not established that respondent took any board action to effectuate policies or plans when she posted to social media in her private capacity (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)); the complaint lacks evidence that respondent gave a direct order to school personnel, or became directly involved in functions that are the responsibility of school personnel or the day-to-day administration of the schools (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)); complainant has not demonstrated that respondent made personal promises, or that her social media posts made in her private capacity had the potential to compromise the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and respondent’s inquiry to the public as to their thoughts if taxes increased, does not make public, reveal or disclose any confidential information, nor does the social media post that was made in her private capacity, provide inaccurate information (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)).

Of note, the SEC previously held this matter in abeyance because a matter directly related to the facts at issue, Nazarene v. Dehmer et al., was pending in federal court. In that matter, which was filed by Nazarene – the respondent here – after she was served with the ethics complaint but before the SEC held a probable cause review, Nazarene contended that the SEC’s “past interpretation and enforcement of the Act … forced her to choose between self-censorship and the risk of formal discipline, and … this chill on her speech violate[d] her First Amendment rights as an elected official to speak on matters of public concern.” Ultimately, Nazarene’s lawsuit was dismissed because she lacked standing, and failed to allege a credible and substantial threat of enforcement.

According to the complainant in C32-26, an incident involving a student occurred at the middle school on September 10, 2025, and “[m]ultiple police vehicles” responded. At a board meeting a few days later, the incident was mentioned during public comment by a community member with “the meeting minutes reflect[ing] that the discussion involved concerns about incidents affecting the school community and safety issues raised by members of the public.” Complainant argued that respondents, the Board President and Vice President, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because they permitted “discussion during the public meeting that could reasonably lead to identification of a student involved in a disciplinary matter.”

The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainant did not articulate the nature of the confidential information that respondents allegedly disclosed. The SEC also noted that respondents cannot be responsible for information disclosed by a third party, which necessarily includes statements by a community member during public comment.

The complainants in C34-26 and C35-26 (Consolidated) are employed by the district, and are the President and Vice President of the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO). Respondent, a board member, is also a member of the PTO. In March 2026, “a disagreement arose related to volunteer activities” within the PTO. Despite the matter being unrelated to district employment matters, respondent contacted the superintendent “regarding the situation and raised concerns” about complainants. By escalating a disagreement related to the PTO to the superintendent, and leveraging the access she has to the superintendent that “ordinary citizens” do not, complainants argue that respondent misused her official position in violation of  N.J.S.A. l8A:12-24(c) and (e).

In declining to find probable cause because complainants failed to plead sufficient factual evidence, the SEC emphasized that board members do not give up their rights as parents when they become board members, and can contact the superintendent in their capacities as parents.

C.        Public Advisory Opinion

In Advisory Opinion A16-26, the requestor is an administrator in a school district and, in this role, manages the district’s childcare center. The district receives Preschool Education Aid (PEA) funding, but there is another person – the supervisor – who manages all aspects of PEA funding and partnerships for the district. The administrator is “evaluating the acquisition and ownership of an independent private daycare/childcare center” located in a different county. The administrator inquired whether ownership of an independent/private daycare center in a county outside of their employing school district was a conflict of interest, and whether a conflict would arise if the independent/private daycare partners with other public school districts through PEA funding.

The SEC advised that because the independent/private daycare center potentially being acquired “does not appear to be a daycare center under the control of, overseen by, or otherwise managed by the [b]oard and/or the [d]istrict where” the administrator was employed, the Act did not “per se prohibit [the administrator’s] involvement in the daycare center generally, or in an ownership role, specifically.”  In addition, when interfacing with other public school districts as the owner of the independent/private daycare center, the SEC advised that the administrator must clarify they are doing so as the owner of the independent/private daycare center, and not in their capacity as an administrator in the district for which they are employed. The SEC also provided the administrator with guidelines for their district employment.

D.        SEC’s Next Meeting

On Oct. 27, 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.