In the final part of our four-part series detailing the action taken by the School Ethics Commission at its meeting Nov. 26, 2024, we will examine the five matters dismissed by the SEC, and the six decisions adopted for those school officials who failed to file their 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements (2024 Disclosure Statements) by April 30, 2024.
Final Decision
In C122-22, the complainant, a board candidate at the time of filing, sent an email to the full board following a meeting about the new physical education and health standards. The respondent, a board member, posted a portion of the complainant’s email on her Facebook page and noted that a candidate in the upcoming election sent it to her, but did not disclose the person’s name. The administrative law judge granted the respondent’s motion for summary decision, finding that her actions did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) or (g) of the act, and dismissed the complaint.
The SEC affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because her posting of the email, “while perhaps inappropriate,” did not make a personal promise or compromise the board. The SEC also determined that “the email, which was sent from a board candidate to all board members, was not a confidential board matter,” and, therefore, sharing the email on Facebook did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
Probable Cause Decisions
As set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.7(a), “Probable cause shall be found when the facts and circumstances presented in the complaint and written statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the [School Ethics Act] has been violated.” Applying this standard, the SEC found that the facts and circumstances in C21-24, C24-24, C32-24, and C34-24 were insufficient to support a finding of probable cause and, therefore, the matters were dismissed.
In C21-24, the complainant, the superintendent, alleged that the respondent, a board member, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), and (e) when she forwarded an internal district email, authored by the complainant, regarding the Oct. 9, 2023, events in the Middle East to the “Jewish Community to get support” because the respondent was “disappointed and disgusted” with the complainant’s portrayal of the events (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), and (i) when she sent a newspaper article related to the complainant’s fiancé to the business administrator and asked for an emergency board meeting to discuss it (Count 2); and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), and (i) when she questioned the complainant about the fee structure of a shared services agreement at a superintendent’s forum, and submitted questions to the business administrator regarding the complainant’s negotiation of the agreement (Count 3).
With respect to Count 1, the SEC noted that because the complainant sent the email to all district staff and board members, there should have been no expectation that the email was confidential. Although acknowledging that the respondent escalated the situation, the SEC determined that she did not take “board action” to effectuate policies or plans, did not give a direct order to school personnel, and did not involve herself in activities that are the function of school personnel. The SEC also concluded that the respondent’s actions did not have the potential to compromise the board because the email was not sent on behalf of the board, and did not reflect the board as a whole. Lastly, even if the respondent’s actions publicly demonstrated that she did not agree with the complainant, the email did not undermine or oppose the complainant in the proper performance of her duties.
In its review of Count 2, the SEC explained that the respondent is not prohibited from discussing a public news article or requesting a meeting. Regarding Count 3, the questions asked by the respondent at the superintendent’s forum, although not asked in the most appropriate place, were not unrelated to her duties. Additionally, the purpose of the respondent’s email to the business administrator was to seek clarification about the agreement, and not to direct personnel, to become involved in the administration of the schools, or to undermine school personnel.
In C24-24, the respondents are nine board members. In Count 1, the complainant asserted that several respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) based on the following relationships: a board member is the grandmother of another board member; a board member’s daughter is a council member; and a board member is the confidential aide to the mayor. In Count 2, the complainant argued that the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) by soliciting money from staff members, and a board member further violated this section by also accepting monetary donations from the mayor. In Count 3, the complainant claimed that the board officers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(h) because they were aware of the superintendent’s abuse of power but took no action.
With respect to Count 1, the SEC noted that “… without more, a conflict does not exist simply because two board members are related or one works for the mayor.” Additionally, the complainant did not provide a “final decision from a court of law or other administrative agency” finding that the respondents engaged in any illegal or unethical misconduct. In dismissing Count 2, the SEC explained that “Respondent did not personally solicit any funds, but rather was the beneficiary of a fundraiser organized by [the mayor], and such fundraiser was not based on or affiliated with [the respondent’s] status as a board member.” Therefore, this individual respondent did not take action beyond the scope of her duties that could compromise the board. Finally, the SEC dismissed Count 3 because the complaint did not allege that the respondents acted on a personnel matter without the superintendent’s recommendation.
In C32-24, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Counts 1-4 by: making a motion to add a second executive session to discuss the budget (Count 1); holding an executive session without disclosing the matters to be discussed (Count 2); not accurately disclosing the matters to be discussed in executive session (Count 3); and failing to follow the Open Public Meetings Act when he attended a township meeting as a board member with all the other members of the board (creating a quorum), and spoke as a board member (Count 4).
The SEC dismissed Counts 1-4 because the complainant did not provide a copy of a “final decision from a court of law or other administrative agency” finding that the respondent engaged in any illegal or unethical misconduct. The SEC also noted that it does not have jurisdiction over potential violations of OPMA.
In C34-24, the complainant and the respondent are board members in District A, which sends students to District B. The complainant is also District A’s representative on District B’s board (the receiving board). The complainant claimed that the respondent: violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) when she reposted the complainant’s social media comments, which caused a social media campaign calling the complainant a racist (Count 1); violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because she made a personal promise, during a board meeting, to remove the complainant as the representative on District B’s board (Count 2); and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), and (g) because the respondent supported another board member who constantly violated the Act and is now taking action on that board member’s behalf to remove the complainant as the representative on District B’s board (Count 3).
The SEC dismissed Count 1 (and the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Count 3) because the complainant did not provide a “final decision from [a] court of law or other administrative agency” finding that Respondents engaged in any illegal or unethical misconduct. In response to Count 2, the SEC confirmed that Respondent is allowed to speak at a board meeting regarding the board matter of who should represent District A on District B’s board and, by doing so, Respondent did not make a personal promise or act beyond the scope of her duties in a manner that potentially compromised the board. In its review of Count 3, the SEC determined that Respondent’s concerns about Complainant serving as the District B representative fall within her duties as a board member, and there are no facts demonstrating that Respondent disclosed confidential information or provided inaccurate information outside of her opinion.
2024 Disclosure Statements
The SEC additionally adopted six decisions for those limited number of returning school officials who, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26, and N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.1, failed to file their 2024 Disclosure Statements by April 30, 2024. In three of the adopted decisions – D01-24, D04-24, and D06-24 – the SEC recommended a penalty of censure as those school officials only filed their 2024 Disclosure Statements after the SEC issued orders to show cause for their non-compliance.
In the other three decisions – D02-24, D03-24, and D05-24 – the SEC recommended a penalty of removal, but if the subject school officials file their 2024 Disclosure Statements before the acting commissioner of education adopts a final decision, the SEC recommended a penalty of suspension for 30 days.
In case you missed the previous installments of the article, you can see them below:
SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s final meeting of the year took place Dec. 17, 2024, and the pertinent action will be discussed in the near future.
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.
