EDITOR’S NOTE: In the Sept. 9 edition of School Board Notes, in the article titled “Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Aug. 19, 2025” there was an incorrect hyperlink that re-directed to the wrong source. Below is a re-posting of the article, with the correct hyperlink attached.
At its meeting on Aug. 19, 2025, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed eight matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 10 decisions; considered four new advisory opinion requests; considered one request for reconsideration of a previously issued advisory opinion; and considered making nine advisory opinions public.
Of the 10 decisions considered for adoption, six were posted on the Department of Education’s website. The remaining four matters – C89-24; C90-24; C91-24; C93-24 – remain pending. The SEC did not post any new public advisory opinions.
This week’s article is limited to a review of the “PC Review” decisions adopted by the SEC. Next week’s article will examine the “Final Decisions” adopted.
- “PC Review” Decisions
In C94-24, Complainant claimed that Respondent, the business administrator, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and (b) because he “selectively disbarred several small sized, minority owned school bus companies,” including the bus company owned by Complainant, “from placing bids or quotes with [the district.].” Complainant also alleged that Respondent violated several sections of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members; however, because Respondent is an administrator, not a board member, the SEC dismissed all of those allegations.
As for the remaining allegations, the SEC found that there was no probable cause. The SEC explained that Complainant did not provide evidence that Respondent, or a member of his immediate family, has an interest in a business organization, or engaged in any business transaction, or professional activity which was in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a)). As for the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), the SEC determined that Complainant did not provide evidence that Respondent used, or attempted to use, his official position to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage, or employment for himself, members of his immediate family, or “others.”
The SEC also declined to find the Complaint frivolous or to impose sanctions.
In C92-24, Respondent, the board vice-president, sent an email from his personal email account to the union president’s personal email account, wherein he advocated for three board candidates (he was not on the ballot), listed various election/campaign related activities, and asked for volunteers. By sending this email, Complainant argued that Respondent violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) because he was attempting “to force employees to work on his behalf”; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e) because he “accepted favors and services from staff in order for him to vote on their behalf for future employment”; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f) because he received employee information from the union to help him with the election of his supported candidates.
The SEC did not find probable cause for the asserted violations of the School Ethics Act. In declining to find probable cause, the SEC stated that Complainant failed to demonstrate: that Respondent’s actions were in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties as a board member in the public interest (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a)); that Respondent solicited or accepted something of value (e.g., gift, favor, loan, etc.) from any of the candidates or staff based on an understanding that the thing of value was given for the purpose of influencing him in the discharge of his official duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e)); or that Respondent used his public office, or any information not generally available to the public, for the purpose of securing financial gain for himself (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f)).
The SEC also declined to find the Complaint frivolous or to impose sanctions.
In C88-24, Respondent participated in a voter forum that was open to all candidates running for the board. At the forum, the moderator asked Respondent why he thought there was so much hostility on the current board, and the Respondent replied:
I think that our three new members have been a detriment to the board…I think they have…done their best despite the, um, six of us to, um to damage the district…both in perception and in actuality…I think that…they’re fueled by, I don’t know, Facebook…to keep the vitriol going…as opposed to opening their minds and seeing that we are all people and we all want the best things for ourselves, for our community, and for our children.
Complainant argued that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (b), and (f) because he made the above statement, without a disclaimer, and distinguished the three new board members from the rest of the board; gave the impression that his two preferred candidates were endorsed by the rest of the board; and attempted to influence the residents to vote against the other candidates.
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the stated violations of the Act. For the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC determined that there are no facts to “support that Respondent made any personal promises to any candidates or took action beyond the scope of his duties such that, by its nature, had the potential to compromise the board when he expressed his personal opinion about certain board members.” The SEC also concluded that there was no proof that Respondent used or attempted to use his official position to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for himself or “others” when he made comments at a voter forum that was open to all candidates (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)). Finally, the SEC explained that Complainant did not show “how Respondent’s comments would constitute him taking action on behalf of, or at the request of, a special interest group or persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who adhere to a particular political party or cause” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)).
Notably, the SEC explained that because the conduct took place at “a voter forum hosted by a community organization, … a disclaimer is [not] necessary before every comment or statement a [b]oard member makes at said event. Attendees at a voter forum are aware that candidates will be making statements in their capacity as candidates and not in another capacity, which makes it different than a social media post that is posted without a disclaimer, and could be construed as being in the [b]oard member’s official capacity” (emphasis added).
The SEC also declined to find the Complaint frivolous or to impose sanctions.
B. Next Week’s Article
In next week’s article, the “Final Decisions” adopted by the SEC at its Aug. 19, 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.
