The School Ethics Commission took the following action at its meeting on Oct. 22, 2024: discussed two ethics complaints pursuant to the SEC’s previous regulations; discussed seven matters in accordance with the SEC’s new/amended regulations; considered adopting eight decisions (C49-21; C92-21; C32-22; C12-24; C13-24; C18-24; C19-24; and C23-24); adopted an unspecified number of orders to show cause for those school officials who failed to complete and submit their 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements by April 30, 2024; considered one new advisory opinion request (A14-24); and also considered making 11 advisory opinions public.

Of the eight decisions considered for adoption by the SEC, only three were posted on the SEC’s website; therefore, the other five matters (C49-21; C92-21; C12-24; C18-24; and C19-24) remain pending. In addition, none of the 11 advisory opinions that the SEC considered making public have been posted on the SEC’s website.

Initial Decision

In C32-22, the named respondent, who was also a real estate agent, contacted the complainant’s mother, who was also a real estate agent with whom the respondent had a “cordial and professional relationship,” to gain “insight” as to why she signed a petition to remove the current superintendent. The complainant’s mother then “shared that ‘she heard concerns’ … (that) the Superintendent restricted and violated the Family and Medical Leave Act … (regarding an employee), and then followed up the phone call with a text informing Respondent that the person she was referring to … was her daughter…” The respondent then indicated she could not comment about any one person’s employment, but “offered general information about the leave process.”

An administrative law judge issued an initial decision finding that the respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), as there was “no plausible argument that can be made that the conversation between (the complainant’s mother) and (the respondent) could be construed as ‘board action’ to effectuate or develop specific board policies or plans, or that her conversation . . . compromised or had the ability to compromise the board despite (the complainant’s) argument to the contrary.”

Thereafter, the SEC adopted the administrative law judge’s findings of fact and legal conclusions. Regarding the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), the SEC agreed that “Respondent did not take official action to effectuate policies and plans without consulting those affected by those policies and plans,” and that she only contacted the complainant’s mother due to their relationship as professional acquaintances. 

As for the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC agreed that the respondent’s telephone call to the complainant’s mother, as well as her subsequent text message response when she ended the conversation when it began to involve a specific personnel matter, was not action beyond the scope of her duty that had the potential to compromise the board.

The SEC ultimately upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to dismiss the matter.

“PC Review” Decisions

The SEC also adopted two “PC review” decisions, or “probable cause review” decisions. As set forth in the SEC’s amended regulations, “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.” N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.7(a). The only “PC review” decisions posted on the SEC’s website are those that dismiss the entirety of a filed complaint.

In C13-24, the complainant argued that Respondent B violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), (e), (f), and (g) because, at a public board meeting, he “intimidated, harassed and berated” a new board member (the complainant), by reading “a confidential board correspondence that Complainant sent to Respondent B regarding the attendance of another board member”; reading “a private post that Complainant … posted on the (New Jersey School Boards Association) chat, seeking advice from ‘fellow NJ school board members’”; possessing property “stolen” from the complainant; and, at the end  of the board meeting, telling the complainant, “let’s take this outside,” which the complainant viewed as a threat of violence (Count 1); Respondent D violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (g) because, at the same public board meeting, Respondent D also “intimidated, harassed and berated” the complainant by calling her a “liar” after the public board meeting, but when the members of the public were still present (Count 2); and that both Respondent B and Respondent D violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), and (f) because they denied her request to seek legal advice from board counsel (Count 3).

The SEC did not find probable cause for the allegations in Counts 1-3. Regarding the complainant’s email discussing the attendance of another board member (Count 1), the SEC noted that “the email’s purpose was to raise a concern that would need to be addressed at a board meeting, and as such is not a confidential email.” As for the complainant’s post in a public chat, the SEC stated, “by its nature, (it) cannot be (regarded as) confidential.” Finally, Respondent B’s purported possession of the complainant’s “stolen” property (a campaign sign) was beyond the SEC’s jurisdiction to adjudicate and, therefore, could not form the basis for a violation of the act.

With regard to Respondent D’s comment that the complainant was a “liar” (Count 2), while the SEC noted that all board members should exercise appropriate decorum, “calling a fellow board member a ‘liar’ immediately after the close of a board meeting did not” compromise the board, and there were insufficient facts demonstrating that Respondent D made this comment on behalf of a special interest group, and or that he disclosed confidential or inaccurate information in making this comment.

Finally, and as for Respondent B and Respondent D’s denial of the complainant’s request for legal counsel, while the complainant may disagree with the decision, they are specifically tasked “with the authority of deciding when board counsel may be contacted.” As a result, the decision, without more, “does not mean that Respondents” violated  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), and/or (f).

Without probable cause, C13-24 was dismissed by the SEC. The SEC also denied the respondents’ request to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions.

In C23-24, the complainant stated that before the respondent was sworn-in as a board member but after he was elected, he personally met with and was “wined and dined” by a law firm while attending a conference. After he was sworn-in, the complainant argues that the respondent, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), persistently attempted to “facilitate the hiring process for (the firm),” and also tried to use his official position as a board trustee to provide the firm with an unwarranted advantage in the board’s selection of its board counsel. The complainant further contended that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because “his personal meetings with (the firm) and public acknowledgements of this fact indicate a ‘personal promise and/or private action’ that compromised” the board.

The SEC did not find probable cause for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Regarding the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), the SEC stated, “Without more, Respondent’s introduction to the law firm before he was sworn into the board does not establish that he has a conflict with respect to the law firm … .” In addition, to the extent the complainant suggested there was a quid pro quo, “it would have occurred prior to Respondent’s membership on the board, and the (SEC) does not have jurisdiction over the actions of board members-elect until they are officially sworn in as board members.”

As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the SEC emphasized that “Respondent’s contact with the firm at the Conference occurred before he was sworn in as a board member, and the (SEC) does not have jurisdiction over individuals until they are school officials.” Although acknowledging that the respondent’s behavior “may have been inappropriate,” it fell “outside the scope of the Act as it occurred before he was a board member.”

In the absence of probable cause, and based principally upon when the respondent’s conduct occurred, the SEC dismissed the complaint.

SEC’s Next Meeting

The SEC’s next meeting is scheduled for 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.