At its monthly meeting on Nov. 26, 2024, the School Ethics Commission took the following action: discussed two ethics complaints in accordance with the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed one complaint pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting nine decisions (C89-21; C122-22; C78-23; C11-24; C21-24; C22-24; C24-24; C32-24; and C34-24); considered adopting six decisions for those school officials who failed to complete and submit their 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements by April 30, 2024; did not consider any new advisory opinion requests; and considered making 11 advisory opinions public.

Of the nine decisions considered for adoption, eight were posted on the SEC’s website; therefore, the remaining matter, C22-24, remains pending. This article is limited to a discussion of those complaints for which the SEC found a violation(s) of the School Ethics Act.

Final Decision

By way of background, after a matter is transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, an administrative law judge adjudicates the remaining claims in the filed complaint. Following a hearing(s), or the filing of a dispositive motion(s), the administrative law judge issues an initial decision, and then returns the matter to the SEC. Upon receipt of an initial decision, the SEC can then affirm, modify, or reject as to the findings of fact, legal conclusions, and recommended penalty (if any), and its determination is memorialized in a “final decision.” At its Nov. 26 meeting, the SEC adopted one such decision.

After submitting a letter of resignation, a teaching staff member sent a text message to the named respondent in C89-21 (a board member) and to a district parent stating, “I just sent a copy of my exit form to all the board members … .” The respondent replied, “Received. … Are you ok to have it read publicly … Otherwise, the majority may bury it in executive session… .”

The next month, the respondent replied to the same text thread and said, “Did you ever receive a Rice notice? …  I could accuse the board president or secretary or (chief school administrator) of malfeasance if you did not receive the notice and they want to discuss you in Exec(utive) Session. (The board) may try to discuss you again Monday unless you demand it be public.” The following month, an administrator sent a letter to the board along with a copy of the at-issue text thread, expressing concern with the communication between the respondent and an employee.

Following a hearing, an administrative law judge determined that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), but did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) or (g), and recommended a penalty of reprimand for the respondent’s “misguided” actions.

On review, the SEC adopted the legal conclusions that the respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) or (g), but did violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). The SEC agreed that, in his text communications with a board employee, 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 (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)), and did not disclose any confidential information (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)).

However, because his text message indicated he could accuse a district administrator of “malfeasance,” the SEC found that the respondent’s statement constituted a personal promise beyond the scope of his board duties that had the potential to compromise the board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Per the SEC, “Respondent was, in essence, encouraging an individual to accuse the board of wrongdoing, or offering to make that accusation on her behalf.”

In terms of the appropriate penalty, the SEC agreed with the administrative law judge that a reprimand was appropriate because, although “Respondent’s communication … compromised the board, Respondent’s communication stemmed from his concern that Rice notices may not have been properly issued.”

Summary Disposition

The SEC can render a decision on a “summary basis” if, after finding that the facts and circumstances presented in a complaint and written statement would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Act has been violated, it finds that the material facts are not in dispute. (N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(a)(1)(ii)). Because the material facts in C78-23 are C11-24 were deemed to be undisputed, the SEC decided both by summary disposition.

C78-23

While the board was discussing “the matter of an employee’s actions and possible discipline” in executive session, the named respondent in C78-23, a board member with more than 15 years of service, “had the (business administrator) distribute copies of a letter that the employee wrote” to the board, but “instructed the BA not to give a copy to the superintendent.” In addition, and in the course of the personnel discussion, the respondent stated she had been “in contact” with the employee; had picked up the letter from the employee’s home; noted she was “representing the employee because they are friends”; questioned the accuracy of the superintendent’s version of the incident, and her motivation for potentially disciplining the employee; indicated that the employee “should not be treated this way”; and expressed support for the employee. According to the respondent, the employee was a “friend” and, because she was “bed sick,” she was unable to physically attend or otherwise defend herself in the matter.

Based on the foregoing facts, the SEC found that the respondent’s violated violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (g), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (f), and (j).

By personally retrieving and then delivering a letter from her friend to the board; directing the business administrator not to provide the superintendent with a copy; and representing and advocating for her friend before the board, the SEC determined that the respondent used her position to secure a privilege or advantage for the friend/employee in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b); impermissibly represented an employee in a disciplinary hearing and attempted to influence the board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g); took actions that were unrelated to her board duties in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c); became directly involved in the activities and functions that are the responsibility of school personnel in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d); took actions on behalf of her friend, and used the schools in order to acquire a benefit for her friend (the employee) in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f); and attempted to resolve a complaint or to conduct an investigation or inquiry related to a complaint prior to the referral to the superintendent in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).

Of interest, the SEC noted that if the friend’s illness had truly precluded anyone other than the named respondent from delivering the letter to the board, the respondent, according to the SEC, “should have given the letter to the superintendent and recused herself from the remainder of the discussion as she had become personally involved.”

Based on the respondent’s egregious actions and numerous ethical violations, combined with her failure to recognize any wrongdoing, her lack of remorse and the fact that she is a seasoned board member who went “far beyond her role” as a board member, the SEC determined that a 60-day suspension was warranted. The SEC also admonished the respondent for attempting to defend her actions by claiming that the board attorney did not tell her to leave the meeting when, in fact, she never sought the advice of counsel on the issue.

C11-24

In June 2023, and before he was a board member, the named respondent in C11-24 was appointed to serve as an unpaid volunteer football coach in the district. Despite being appointed to fill a board vacancy in August 2023, the respondent continued to serve as an unpaid volunteer football coach until the end of the football season. After the season ended, a board member asked the New Jersey School Boards Association for guidance as to whether the respondent could continue to simultaneously serve as an unpaid volunteer football coach and a board member. The NJSBA advised the inquiring board member that the respondent “must relinquish his role as an assistant coach if he intends to remain a board member.”  Following guidance from the NJSBA, the respondent decided not to continue as an unpaid volunteer football coach in the district.

By simultaneously serving as a board member and an unpaid volunteer football coach in the district, the SEC determined that the respondent undertook service, even though it was on a volunteer basis, that might reasonably be expected to prejudice his independence of judgment in the exercise of his official duties as a board member in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d). 

In rendering this decision, the SEC reiterated that it “does not consider there to be a general prohibition on board members volunteering in activities within the district they oversee” and that, instead,  it weighs “the degree of involvement a board member has with staff and students, and the degree to which the board member gave and received directions and orders from staff … .” In this case, and given the level of interaction and involvement that the respondent had with staff and students, the SEC found a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d).

In terms of an appropriate penalty, the SEC found that because the respondent had not yet completed ethics training as a new board member; guidance was not sought by the NJSBA until after the close of the football season; he served in the position for a minimal amount of time; and he agreed not to serve as an unpaid volunteer football coach in the future, the SEC invoked its authority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.11(a), and declined to issue a penalty.

Stay Tuned for Upcoming Articles

In future School Board Notes articles, the 11 advisory opinions made public; the five matters dismissed; and the six Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statement decisions adopted by the SEC at its Nov. 26 meeting will be analyzed.

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.