Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Nov. 26, 2024 – Part II

Given the breadth of action taken by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting on Nov. 26, 2024, it will be discussed in a four-part series.

In the first part, which was published in last week’s issue of School Board Notes, the “penalty” decisions adopted by the SEC in connection with C89-21, C78-23, and C11-24 were examined. In this second part, we will review six of the 11 advisory opinions that the SEC made public (A01-24; A02-24; A03-24; A04-24; A05-24; and A06-24). In the third and fourth parts, we will discuss the remaining five advisory opinions made public by the SEC (A07-24; A09-24; A11-24; A13-24; and A14-24); the five matters that were dismissed by the SEC (C122-22; C21-24; C24-24; C32-24; C34-24); and the six decisions that were adopted by the SEC for those school officials who failed to file their 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements by April 30, 2024 (D01-24; D02-24; D03-24; D04-24; D05-24; and D06-24).

Public Advisory Opinions

A01-24: A board member is a professor in the graduate school of education at a university, where he has served as the director and coordinator of various programs. District teachers, supervisors and administrators have either been the board member’s students at the university and/or enrolled in the programs that he directed/coordinated. The board member also sat on the dissertation committee for the district’s superintendent. Advice was sought as to whether the board member has a conflict for matters involving the superintendent, and any employees who were the professor’s students, enrolled in his programs, or enrolled at the university.

The SEC indicated that the board member would violate the School Ethics Act by participating in matters related to any current or former student enrolled in the university’s programs for which the board member was “directly or indirectly involved, namely, but not limited to, the Graduate School of Education, the Certification programs and any dissertation committees … regardless of whether (the board member was) their instructor/advisor.” Therefore, and although not directly answered, it would appear the board member should recuse themselves from any matters involving the superintendent because of sitting on the superintendent’s dissertation committee.

The board member also asked if it would be permissible for the board member to provide professional development/workshops in the district. The SEC advised that, even if the board member provided the workshops for free, such conduct would be prohibited by the act.  

A02-24: An administrator previously served as a superintendent in District A and is now the superintendent of District B. While the administrator was the superintendent in District A, she recommended the termination of an employee, which the board approved. The terminated employee is now a board member in District B and actively petitioned to get the superintendent fired, which included putting up billboards. The board member has also filed various lawsuits and complaints against the superintendent, other board members and members of the superintendent’s administration. Advice was sought as to whether the board member could “formally” or “informally” evaluate the superintendent.

The SEC advised that, because of the “tenuous history” between the board member and the superintendent, the board member should not participate in any matters related to the superintendent’s employment, including the evaluation process. The SEC also clarified that, although “the matter of termination in, and of itself, is not enough to create a per se conflict,” here, “the totality of (the board member’s’) actions” (e.g., filing a lawsuit against the superintendent and petitioning to have her fired) were sufficient to create a conflict.  

A03-24: A board member is interested in serving as an elected member of the County Board of Commissioners. Advice was sought as to whether a seated board member would violate the act by running to be a member of the County Board of Commissioners for a three-year term.

The SEC advised that the board member’s inquiry was outside of the SEC’s jurisdiction, but also noted that the “dual office statute,” N.J.S.A. 19:3-5.2, may prohibit the board member from serving as an elected member of both the board and the County Board of Commissioners.

A04-24: A board member (Board Member A) has two nondependent adult children who serve as trustees of a nonprofit organization, the foundation. Before Board Member A became a board member, the board conveyed property to the foundation through a deed. One of board member A’s adult children also serves as legal counsel for the foundation, represented the foundation in the property transaction with the board, and signed the deed on the foundation’s behalf. Because the board believed that the foundation did not fulfill its terms of the deed, the board anticipated additional actions related to the issue. Advice was sought as to whether Board Member A could participate in discussions and/or votes regarding the foundation or the property transaction.

The SEC advised that Board Member A’s adult children are considered “relatives” under the Act and, therefore, “it would be a conflict of interest for Board Member A to vote on any matter involving the entity or public body on which his relatives contemporaneously serve as voting members.” In other words, Board Member A must recuse himself from all discussions and votes regarding the foundation and the property transaction. The SEC compared the situation to a school official’s vote on a matter involving their relative’s employer and emphasized that, even if Board Member A and/or his children do not “have an actual or even perceived personal or financial involvement (direct or indirect) in such matters, his involvement could violate the public trust.”     

A05-24: A local educational association endorsed a board member through a press release, and by sending “postcard mailers” to all New Jersey Education Association members in the district. The board member serves on the board’s Policy Committee. Advice was sought as to whether the board member can participate in discussions about policies that affect teaching staff members.

The SEC likened the LEA’s involvement in the board member’s campaign to A10-18, where the union’s distribution of printed materials to NJEA’s members was “unsolicited activity” that did not present a conflict for the endorsed board member. The SEC further advised that, here, the LEA’s involvement did not rise to the “position of prominence” that the union played in A13-02 (distributed newsletters encouraging votes; hosted a “Hot Dog Rally” where the board candidates addressed the public and distributed palm cards with the board candidates’ ballot numbers).

Accordingly, the board member may participate in discussions about: policies that affect the terms and conditions of the LEA members’ employment; policies that are of interest to LEA members (e.g., physical examinations for cause); and policies on which the LEA has a position.

A06-24: A board member has a nondependent adult child who is employed by the board (employee). The employee sent a “litigation hold” letter to the board attorney, the board, and members of the administration, alleging that the board attorney “engaged in ‘potentially tortious conduct’ against the employee” and also “engaged in a petty, long-standing feud with (employee) and his family.” Advice was sought as to whether the board member can participate in discussions and/or votes regarding the attorney’s contract with the board.

In light of the “animus between the employee and his/her family, including the board member, and board counsel,” the SEC advised that the board member should recuse themselves from any and all matters related to the board attorney’s employment.

Next Week’s Article

Over the course of the next few weeks, we will analyze the remaining advisory opinions made public by the SEC; the five matters dismissed by the SEC; and the 2024 Disclosure Statement decisions adopted by the SEC at its meeting on Nov. 26, 2024.

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.