At its meeting on Oct. 28, 2025, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed one matter in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed seven matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting 13 decisions; adopted three decisions for those school officials who failed to file their 2025 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements by April 30, 2025; considered two new advisory opinion requests; and considered making 19 advisory opinions public.
Of the 13 decisions considered for adoption, eight were posted on the Department of Education’s website; therefore, the remaining five matters – C103-24; C03-25; C04-25; C10-25; C11-25 – 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, and next week’s article will examine the “Final Decisions” adopted.
- “PC Review” Decisions
In C08-25, members of the board requested an advisory opinion, which the SEC provided. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) when she participated in matters “that were expressly deemed a conflict in the advisory opinion.”
Although the SEC emphasized that “when a school official requests an advisory opinion from the [SEC], the [SEC] expects the subject school official to adhere to the advice rendered,” the SEC was “constrained to dismiss the alleged violation.” The SEC explained that, for purposes of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), an advisory opinion is not a final decision related to the schools, which is required to establish a violation of this section of the School Ethics Act.
In C05-25, complainant argued that respondent violated multiple provisions of the Act: by voting “no” on the superintendent’s request to attend the Military Impact Schools Association (“MISA”) conference (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)); and by providing inaccurate information about the superintendent, even though respondent did not participate in the board’s vote that non-renewed the superintendent’s employment (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)). Complainant also referenced other conduct in her complaint, but the SEC dismissed those allegations as untimely.
The SEC ultimately dismissed the remainder of the allegations, concluding that the complainant did not meet the burden of factually establishing violations of the Act in accordance with the standards in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4. Of note, with respect to the “no” vote on the superintendent’s request to attend the MISA conference, the SEC explained that complainant did not show how respondent willfully made a decision contrary to the educational welfare of children (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b)) or undermined the superintendent in the proper performance of her duties (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)). The SEC also found that complainant did not demonstrate that any of the information presented by respondent during the meeting or related to the subject of the superintendent’s contract was inaccurate (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)).
According to complainant, the respondent/board president in C102-24 directed the business administrator to cancel the July 2024 board meeting for “personal reasons,” but publicly claimed that the cancellation was due to an anticipated lack of a quorum. Complainant alleged that respondent’s conduct violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because she misused her power and compromised the board by her private action; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because respondent lied to the public about the reason for the cancellation.
The SEC determined that there was no probable cause for the stated violations of the Act and dismissed the complaint. For the claims regarding N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC found that complainant did not demonstrate that respondent made any personal promises or took action beyond the scope of her duties when she cancelled the board meeting in her capacity as board president, or how the cancellation of the meeting compromised the board. Complainant also did not prove that respondent made any false or inaccurate statements to the public in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
In C22-24, the SEC initially issued a “probable cause notice” for alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), and transferred the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing. However, following discovery at the OAL, and based on the Deputy Attorney General’s recommendation, the SEC voted to withdraw the previously issued probable cause notice, and directed the OAL to return the file in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-3.3(a), as no allegations remained. Upon the return of the file, the SEC voted to dismiss the matter.
B. Next Week’s Article
In next week’s article, the “Final Decisions” adopted by the SEC at its Oct. 28, 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.
