Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Sept. 23, 2025

The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting on Sept. 23, 2025:  discussed two matters in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed 10 matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; adopted and mailed orders to show cause for those school officials who failed to complete and submit their 2025 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements by April 30, 2025 (seemingly five school officials); considered adopting eight decisions; considered four new advisory opinion requests; and considered making 17 advisory opinions public.

Of the eight decisions considered for adoption, six were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining two matters – C97-24 and C101-24 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.

A.        “Final Decisions”

In C15-24, the child of the named respondent, the interim superintendent, was employed in the district and supervised by a member of the district’s administrator and supervisors association (ASA). Despite his child’s employment in the district, respondent served in “an advisory capacity” to the board’s negotiations team; participated in a committee meeting where the terms of the tentative memorandum of agreement between the board and the ASA were discussed; and, in an e-mail to the board, indicated that he drafted the memorandum of agreement between the board and the ASA, and was working on the salary guides that had not yet been created.  As part of the agreement approved by the board, respondent’s child’s supervisor received a pay increase and a stipend of $4,000.00. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), the latter of which was dismissed for lack of probable cause.

Citing its precedent, namely Advisory Opinion A22-16, Advisory Opinion A24-17, and Advisory Opinion A13-20, the SEC adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) by participating in labor negotiations with the union of the administrator who supervised his child’s employment. However, the SEC modified the ALJ’s recommended penalty of reprimand to censure because it has issued a “plethora” of guidance on the issue.

In C85-24, complainant contended that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4) because her 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements (2024 Disclosure Statements) did not disclose the business that she owns with her spouse, and did not list the business as one in which she has an “interest.” In response to the ethics complaint, respondent admitted that she and her spouse own a business and that she “should have listed [it] on her” 2024 Disclosure Statements but, due to “human error,” failed to do so. 

Deciding the matter on a “summary basis,” which means without the need to transmit the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for an evidentiary hearing because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, the SEC found that respondent violated:  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b) because she inaccurately completed her 2024 Disclosure Statements; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) because she knew or should have known that her 2024 Disclosure Statements were inaccurate; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4) because she did not include a business organization in which both she and her spouse had an “interest” on her filing.  However, the SEC did not find that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) because there was no evidence that respondent and/or her spouse received any income from the business organization in the preceding calendar year.

In terms of the appropriate penalty, the SEC found that a reprimand was “most appropriate.”

B.        Decisions on Probable Cause

According to the complainant in C89-24, after a member of the public filed a request to remove a book from the school’s library, the district librarian “promoted” the book and then contacted a national library association and/or other “special interest groups” that oppose book banning to solicit their support. As a result of these efforts, respondents, “succumbed to [the] pressure … and decided to keep [the book] in the school library.” Complainant additionally claims that respondents permitted the district librarian to host/maintain a social media page that disparaged parents and commended the work of the “special interest groups”. While at a board meeting, respondents publicly acknowledged the role that the “special interest groups” played in saving the book, and they voted against the removal of the book from the library. The respondents admitted that “a book review committee leaked information to the special interest group.” Finally, complainant submits that certain respondents signed a pledge with a special interest group to “never agree to remove a book from the school library,” and another respondent was endorsed by a different special interest group in exchange for agreeing to never remove a book from the library. 

Based on these facts, complainant alleged that respondents violated  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) (Count 1); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 2); and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 3). 

The SEC found that the complaint was timely filed; there was no probable cause for the claimed violations of the School Ethics Act; the complaint was not frivolous; and sanctions should not be imposed. In declining to find probable cause, the SEC noted that mere membership in a special interest group does not mean, without more, that any action taken by a board member is necessarily on behalf of, or at the request of, the special interest group to which they may belong. 

As part of his electioneering for a seat on the board, the complainant in C95-24 delivered campaign flyers to residents in the community. In direct response to complainant’s campaign flyer, respondent, the Board President, prepared a “President’s Statement” which was read at a public board meeting by the Board Vice President. Per complainant, this statement, which the superintendent confirmed was prepared in response to complainant’s electioneering activity, contained inaccurate information.

According to complainant, respondent “abused her position” as a board member and as board president when she prepared the “President’s Statement” and had it read at a public board meeting so that she could “respond” to her political opponent’s (complainant’s) campaign. Because she “abused her position” to leverage her own campaign for her own benefit and gain, and because the substance of her statement was not accurate, complainant submits that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) (Count 1); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) (Count 2); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) (Count 3); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) (Count 4); and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 5). 

The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainant failed to provide the factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a) for each of the asserted violations of the Act.

In C96-24, complainant states that a board member (not respondent) posted a screenshot of an email that the board received to the “Marlboro NJ Community Page” on Facebook. When a member of the public asked whether the board member was “allowed” to post the screenshot of the email, respondent then posted a confidential e-mail from board counsel, and it contained a caption which stated, ““Huh? You really do just make up the rules as you go. Should I start screaming LIAR LIAR?”  By posting this email, presumably from her official board e-mail account, complainant argues that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).

The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act; found the complaint not frivolous; and declined to impose sanctions. Even though it declined to find probable cause, the SEC noted that, despite the inclusion of a disclaimer, there was a sufficient nexus between respondent’s social media page and her role/membership on the board. In addition, and although sharing e-mails from the board attorney could violate the Act, given that the excerpt shared by respondent only contained “generic legal advice,” the SEC determined that the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) could not be substantiated.

In C99-24, complainant concedes that some of the conduct pled in her complaint occurred outside the 180-day period of limitations, but maintains it was timely filed because of when she learned about the full scope of respondent’s conduct.

In terms of the operative facts, complainant states respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e); and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because:  during a private text exchange with the superintendent, he “encouraged” her (the superintendent) to take action against the board; when respondent was board president, he received notice of the superintendent’s “intention to file a legal complaint” against the board and several board members, including respondent; before the superintendent formally filed her lawsuit, respondent began facilitating the buyout of the superintendent’s employment contract; a few days later, the superintendent formally filed a lawsuit against several board members, but, due to his private “collusion” with the superintendent, respondent was not named as a party; and respondent did not recuse himself from the final vote “of the settlement involving the [s]uperintendent.”

Despite complainant’s argument, the SEC found that, with the exception of whether respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) when he participated in the vote on the superintendent’s settlement, all other allegations were dismissed as untimely.  As to remaining allegations, the SEC declined to find probable cause because complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to support a violation of the Act. The SEC also found the complaint not frivolous and, as a result, did not impose sanctions.

C.        SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for Oct. 28, 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.