Decisions Adopted by School Ethics Commission on March 25, Part II

Last week’s article discussed the actions taken by the School Ethics Commission (SEC) at its meeting on March 25, 2025, and reviewed the two “final decisions” adopted by the SEC. This week’s article is limited to an examination of the three “PC Review” decisions adopted by the SEC.

‘PC Review’ Decisions

C45-24 was filed by a husband (Complainant R) and wife (Complainant J). Although Complainant R is a board member, Complainant J is not. According to the complainants, the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because she “sent a series of text messages to [Complainant R] attacking [Complainant J] directly for her posts supporting professional school boards on her private Facebook page.” In addition, she has spread lies about Complainant J; accused complainants of “placing a negative sign about a [b]oard member in front of a house”; and, despite public pleas for such conduct to stop, continues to relentlessly attack Complainant J.  By engaging in this conduct, complainants maintain that the respondent is attempting to “undermine and attack a private citizen . . . with a clear goal of removing [Complainant R] from office and/or to control his vote,” and is using her “power to bully private citizens.”

The SEC did not find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act. Instead, the SEC determined that the evidence submitted by the complainants did not demonstrate that the respondent engaged in any of the conduct set forth in the complaint; even if it did, there was no evidence that the respondent did so in her capacity as a school official; and there was no evidence that any action undertaken by the respondent was on behalf of any group or an attempt by the respondent to use her position as a board member to acquire a benefit for herself or anyone else.

Although it did not find probable case for the stated violations of the Act, it declined to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions.

In C49-24 and C50-24 (Consolidated), Count 1 asserted that, at a board meeting on December 13, 2022, Respondent Rowell violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because, after an initial failed vote, she “conspired to circumvent the law by invoking” the Doctrine of Necessity so she could vote to approve the employment of her brother-in-law in the district. In addition, on May 14, 2024, she voted to approve his re-employment in the district. Count 2 contended that the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because they “told” board counsel to draft a resolution to terminate the assistant superintendent, despite the assistant superintendent having received good performance evaluations, and the superintendent not recommending the termination.

Count 3 argued that the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because they failed to follow board policy and the law regarding the non-renewal of employees by not issuing Rice notices to them. Count 4 claimed the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because Respondent R allowed Respondent G to attend the May 14, 2024, board meeting virtually and to violate the confidentiality provisions required in executive session. Finally, Count 5 alleged that the  respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because in December of 2023, they tried to settle a lawsuit which would have awarded money and a job to a friend and then, on May 14, 2024, settled a lawsuit involving the same friend.

Based on the facts as pled, the SEC did not find probable cause for the claims in the complaint. After dismissing the December 13, 2022, claim in Count 1 as time-barred, all others were dismissed due to the complainant’s failure to provide sufficient factual evidence.  The SEC also did not find the complaint frivolous or impose sanctions.

In C52-24, the complainant advised that the respondent has a “relative” who is employed at one of the district’s high schools, and was told by board leadership and “alternate counsel” that he needed to recuse from all discussions and votes concerning the hiring of a principal at that high school.  Despite this fact, the respondent tried to attend the interviews for the position, and did attend, and refused to leave, a Policy and Personnel Committee meeting at which the candidate for the principal position was discussed. In addition, the respondent was identified as “intimidating throughout [the] hiring process,” and as advocating for a candidate not recommended by the Advisory Committee or superintendent.

Based on these facts, the complainant contended that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) (Count 1) when, despite his relative’s employment in the district, he attended a Policy and Personnel Committee meeting and the candidate for a high school principal position was discussed.  In addition, the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 2) because he intimidated the staff who were on the hiring committee; made promises to the candidate that the Advisory Committee did not choose that they would be approved by the board, and indicated that the board would not honor the recommendation of the Advisory Committee; and breeched confidentiality when he had conversations with staff who were not on the hiring committee.

In declining to find probable cause, the SEC first noted that the individual identified as the respondent’s relative – the adult son of his cousin – was not a relative, but rather an “other” within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, this familial relationship did create the presumption of a conflict. Nonetheless, and for all of the claimed violations of the Act in the complaint, the complainant failed to provide factual evidence sufficient to support a violation(s).

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions.

SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for April 22, 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.