Decisions Adopted by the School Ethics Commission on Sept. 24, 2024: Part II

At its regularly scheduled meeting on Sept. 24, 2024, the School Ethics Commission, among other actions, adopted six decisions concerning previously discussed ethics matters (C07-20; C03-24; C04-24 and C05-24 (Consolidated); C06-24; C07-24; and C14-24). In last week’s article, the decisions adopted in connection with C07-20, C04-24 and C05-24 (Consolidated), C06-24 were examined, and this week’s article is limited to the remaining decisions adopted by the SEC.

“PC 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 probable cause review decisions posted on the SEC’s website are those that dismiss the entirety of a filed complaint.

In C03-24, the complainant alleged that one of the named respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) because he “leveraged allegations of misconduct” concerning another board member (also a named respondent) to compel the board to appoint him as board vice president. Per the SEC, the complainant failed to explain what  “allegation of misconduct” was made by the one named board member against the other, and how that unspecified allegation then forced a majority of the board to appoint him as board vice president. Furthermore, the complainant did not “demonstrate (how that) Respondent attempted to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment (for himself), or … had a financial or personal involvement that created a benefit to him.”  The SEC also reiterated that board members can choose whom to appoint as officers, and “Complainant’s disagreement with the outcome (of that vote) does not mean that an ethics violation” was committed. Accordingly, the claims were not supported by probable cause.

The complainant next contended that all of the named respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e) because they “surrendered their independent judgment” when they either “leveraged allegations of misconduct,” or allowed those allegations to influence their decision-making when voting to appoint the board vice president. In its review, the SEC determined that because none of the claims in the complaint involved the receipt of a gift, favor, or thing of value for the purpose of influencing any of the named respondents in the discharge of their duties, probable cause did not exist.

Finally, the complainant asserted that all of the named respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because they failed to act in the best interests of all children when they engaged in the conduct set forth above. According to the SEC, and because the complaint did not specify what decision or deliberate action any of the respondents took that was contrary to the educational welfare of children, and did not provide any evidence that the respondents took action on behalf of a special interest group, there were insufficient facts and circumstances to support a finding of probable cause.

The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous and to impose sanctions for the complainant’s filing.

In C07-24, the complainant stated that the named respondent, the board vice president and chairperson of the Transportation Committee, has been involved in a “romantic relationship” with “an individual” for the past three years. Although the complainant claimed that the two live together, the respondent denied this assertion, and additionally countered that they are not “financially co-dependent.” Nonetheless, and according to the complainant, the respondent “played a role” in influencing the board’s transportation department to hire this individual as a transportation specialist. Immediately before the board voted on a motion to approve the employment of this individual, the respondent left the meeting. By engaging in these actions, the complainant contends that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 1.

The very next month, the board approved the employment of the “individual’s child” in the school district as a preschool teacher. By not disclosing this information to the board, and voting to approve her (the child’s) employment, the complainant asserts that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 2.

With regard to the stated violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), in Count 1 the SEC found that because the respondent did not vote on the individual’s employment, and was not present during the vote, the claims were not supported by probable cause. In addition, the complainant failed to demonstrate how the respondent used or attempted to use his official position to secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment for the individual. However, the SEC advised “that it would be prudent for Respondent not to be involved in the transportation committee given the individual’s employment as a transportation specialist.”

As for Count 2, the SEC found that the complainant failed to establish how the respondent’s vote on the individual’s child’s employment could secure an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment, and also reiterated that the respondent does not have a relationship with the individual’s child that would prevent him from participating in her hiring. According to the SEC, “[Simply being the adult child of his significant other does not establish a conflict for Respondent.”

Concerning the claimed violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 1 and Count 2, the SEC emphasized that the scope of this provision of the act is “limited” to the immediate family members of a school official. Because the individual (in Count 1) is not married, in a civil union, or in a domestic partnership with the respondent, and they do not live together, have joint assets, or are financially co-dependent, and the individual’s child (in Count 2) is not dependent on the individual or the respondent (and lives on her own), neither is regarded as the respondent’s immediate family member.  Therefore, the SEC declined to find probable cause for these charges.

In C14-24, the complainant contended that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because, in an effort “to push through a change in policy before” reorganization and the swearing in of new members, she “proposed and promulgated a policy change” after falsely representing that board counsel had reviewed and approved the change. However, at a subsequent board meeting, the board president informed the other members of the board and the public that, despite the respondent’s representation, board counsel had not reviewed and approved the policy change. The respondent also admitted “on record that she did not get approval from the [b]oard’s attorney as she had originally represented but had conferred with various other counsel.” 

Although the SEC acknowledged that the respondent’s conduct may have violated a provision of the act other than N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), it declined to find probable cause for the claimed violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because the complainant failed to provide “a copy of a final decision from any court of law or other administrative agency demonstrating or specifically finding that Respondent” acted unlawfully or unethically when she engaged in any of the acts/conduct set forth in the complaint.

The SEC also did not find the complaint to be frivolous, and did not impose sanctions for the complainant’s filing.

SEC’s Next Meeting

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