At its regularly scheduled meeting on July 23, 2024, the School Ethics Commission discussed nine ethics complaints pursuant to the SEC’s new/amended regulations (C01-24; C07-24; C08-24; C09-24; C10-24; C11-24; C15-24; C16-24, C17-24, C28-24, C38-24, C43-24, and C44-24 (Consolidated); and C20-24); adopted three decisions concerning previously discussed ethics complaints (C96-21; C78-23; C91-23); adopted 12 decisions for those board of education members who failed to complete annual training by Dec. 31, 2023 (T01-24 through T04-24; T06-24; T08-24 through T13-24; and T16-24); and additionally considered making eight advisory opinions public (A01-24 through A07-24, and A09-24).
Of the three decisions adopted by the SEC, two were posted on the SEC’s website (C96-21 and C91-23); therefore, C78-23 is not yet fully resolved. Once again, none of the eight advisory opinions that the SEC considered making public are posted on the SEC’s website, which is either because the SEC did not have the required number of members present to make the opinions public (six), or because the SEC did not have a sufficient number of affirmative votes to make the advisory opinions public (also six).
This article is limited to a discussion of the final decision adopted by the SEC in connection with C96-21.
Final Decision
The SEC adopted one final decision at its July 23 meeting.
After a matter is transmitted by the SEC 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. Following receipt of the 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.
Although a multi-count complaint was initially filed, the only claims decided in C96-21, because all others were dismissed, were those enumerated in Count 2. In this remaining count of the complaint, the complainant contended that, due to his “relationship” with the Palestinian American Community Center, the respondent had a conflict of interest that precluded him from voting to approve, on various dates, the facilities usage requests submitted by the PACC to the board.
In terms of his relationship with the PACC, the administrative law judge noted that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and while the respondent was a board member, the PACC allowed the respondent to use its facilities for his board-related duties. The respondent moderated the 2021 Board of Education Candidate Forum at the PACC, and introduced himself as a “community member within the PACC”; the respondent distributed flyers to other members of the board about the forum that was being held at the PACC; the respondent volunteered for the PACC’s toy drive; and the respondent’s child attended an art class at the PACC. Notwithstanding this “relationship” with the PACC, the respondent voted to approve the PACC’s facilities usage request in August 2021; abstained from a vote in October 2021 based on advice of counsel; and then, following “further advice” from counsel, voted to approve the PACC’s request in November 2021.
Although the administrative law judge conceded that the respondent had a clear “relationship” with the PACC, the fact that he was not a “member” of the PACC when he voted to approve the PACC’s facilities usage requests was of more critical importance. In addition, and because there was insufficient evidence to support a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), the administrative law judge issued an initial decision dismissing the complaint.
In its review, and because the evidence failed to demonstrate that the respondent used or attempted to use his official position to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for himself or the PACC (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)); there was no evidence that the respondent took official action to effectuate policies or plans without consulting those affected by the plans (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)); there was no evidence demonstrating that the respondent made a personal promise to the PACC, that his votes on the facilities use requests were beyond the scope of his duties or had the potential to compromise the board (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)); and there was no evidence that the respondent voted to approve the PACC’s facilities use request “at the behest” or on behalf of the PACC (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)), the SEC adopted the initial decision dismissing the complaint.
Interestingly, and notwithstanding its determination, the SEC acknowledged that, due to the nature of his relationship and/or involvement with the PACC, the respondent had a “conflict of interest” and “should not have voted on any matter involving the PACC, including facilities use requests.” However, insufficient evidence to support a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) seems to have resulted in the dismissal of the conduct which, per the SEC, involved a clear conflict of interest.
A Future Article
In a future edition of School Board Notes, we will discuss the “Probable Cause” or “PC Review” decision, and the training decisions, adopted by the SEC at its July 23 meeting.
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.