During its April 22 meeting, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) discussed five matters pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations, considered adopting five decisions (C42-23; C48-24; C51-24; C54-24; and C63-24), considered four new advisory opinion requests, and considered making seven advisory opinions public.
Of the five decisions considered for adoption, only two were posted on the state Department of Education’s website. The other three matters – C48-24; C51-24; and C54-24 – remain pending. The SEC also did not post any new public advisory opinions.
Final Decision
The named respondent in C42-23 was sworn-in as a board member in January 2020, and elected as board president in January 2023. In March 2023, the respondent filed a petition to run as a candidate in the Republican primary election for the General Assembly. At a board meeting the next month, and during the “board business” portion of the meeting, the respondent, in his capacity as board president stated, in relevant part: “… it’s primary season so please do your research on candidates. I just happen to be on the ballot for General Assembly and would appreciate any support and questions you may have about the process or anything … .” The respondent made this statement from the dais, behind his placard that identified him as board president, and did not include a disclaimer before, during, or after his statement to indicate that he was speaking in his capacity as a private citizen.
An administrative law judge granted the complainant’s motion for summary decision, finding that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and recommended a penalty of reprimand. In granting the complainant’s motion, the judge found that the respondent, during a portion of a board meeting when only board members were permitted to speak, made comments about and sought support for his candidacy in the upcoming General Assembly primary election, and did so without disclaiming that his statement was being made in his capacity as a private citizen, and not as member of the board and/or as board president. Because he used his position on the board to solicit support and/or votes for his personal political campaign, the judge determined that the respondent used the schools to acquire a personal benefit in violation ofN.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). In terms of a penalty, the judge recommended a reprimand because it was the respondent’s first violation of the School Ethics Act, and his conduct was not ongoing.
The SEC adopted the findings of facts, the legal conclusion that the respondent used the schools to acquire a personal benefit in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and the recommended penalty of reprimand for the reasons expressed by the administrative law judge.
Both Sides Admonished
On her social media page, the named respondent in C63-24 posted that, while attending a hearing for an ethics complaint that she filed against another board member, the named complainants – who are both district administrators – “showed up to support” the other person. Because she believed that the named complainants and the person that she filed an ethics complaint against “made up lies,” the respondent also said, “I never knew menopausal women could be so ridiculous.” Following the hearing, the respondent sent an email to the board president and the business administrator to advise them that the named complainants attended the hearing even though neither was subpoenaed; indicated that their absence from school should not be excused; questioned whether they used appropriate time off to attend the hearing, and inquired who was “running the school” while they were out of the building. Based on these facts, the complainants contended that the substance of the respondent’s social media post violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), and that the email she sent to the board president and business administrator violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)
Based on the facts presented, the SEC did not find probable cause for the claimed violations of the School Ethics Act. With regard to the social media post and the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), the SEC found that the complainants failed to identify any law, policy, regulation, or order that prohibits the respondent from disclosing a potential ethics matter, even if there is regulation concerning the SEC’s ability to discuss same. As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), the SEC determined that there was “an insufficient nexus between Respondent’s personal social media page and her membership on the [b]oard, such that a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that Respondent [was] speaking pursuant to her official duties.”
Regarding the email to the board president and business administrator and the asserted violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), the SEC found that the respondent did not give a direct order to school personnel or become directly involved in activities or functions that are the responsibility of school personnel. Instead, and because the board oversees the employment of the superintendent, the SEC reasoned that the “Respondent is allowed to inquire about the attendance records of a [s]uperintendent.”
Although the SEC declined to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions, it addressed what it regarded as the “hostile, negative environment that both parties have created.” More specifically, the SEC admonished both parties that the behavior they have demonstrated “has no place in the educational setting and overshadows [their] responsibilities as school officials to protect the public trust and to honor [their] obligations to serve the interests of the public and the [b]oard.” The SEC also reminded the parties that it is an administrative agency and should not be used as a “weapon.” In addition, “ethics complaints should only be filed when the parties believe an actual violation of the [School Ethics] Act has occurred, and not because of their mutual dislike of each other.”
SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for May 20, 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 and Labor Relations Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for specific legal advice.
