On Aug. 27, 2024, the School Ethics Commission took action at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting as follows: discussed one ethics complaint pursuant to its previous regulations (C07-20); discussed five matters pursuant to its new/amended regulations (C03-24; C04-24 and C05-24 (Consolidated); C06-24; C07-24; and C14-24); adopted 10 decisions concerning previously discussed ethics matters (C82-21; 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); did not consider any new advisory opinion requests; and also considered making eight advisory opinions public (A01-24 through A07-24, and A09-24).
Of the 10 decisions adopted by the SEC, four were posted on the SEC’s website and are publicly available; therefore, the remaining six matters are not yet fully resolved. As in the past several months, none of the eight advisory opinions that the SEC considered making public have yet been posted on the SEC’s website.
Dismissal
In C82-21, the complainant contended that the named respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Following the denial of the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and the issuance of a probable cause notice, the SEC transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law. After the parties completed discovery, the SEC voted to withdraw the previously issued probable cause notice, and to have the matter returned to the SEC. Thereafter, and because “no further allegations remained” following the withdrawal of the probable cause notice, the SEC dismissed C82-21.
Probable Cause Review Decisions
The SEC additionally adopted three “PC review” decisions, or probable cause review decisions, at its Aug. 27 meeting. Pursuant to the SEC’s amended regulation, “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 Count 1 of C08-24, the complainant argued that the named respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) because, by virtue of their statements/comments at a public board meeting, they “blatantly lied” and created a “false narrative, (and) misled the public” about the true/actual costs associated with holding a sixth grade promotion ceremony.
In its review, the SEC determined that the respondents’ individual/collective statements or questions at a board meeting regarding the cost of a promotion ceremony, and their active participation in a board discussion even if “the premise of [that] discussion was misleading,” do not constitute a decision contrary to the educational welfare of children or deliberate action that is violative of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b).
In Count 2 of C08-24, the complainant asserted that one of the named respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because, despite disclaiming her speech as being that of a community member, she made a public statement at a board meeting about the cost of the promotion ceremony, and the substance of her statement was predicated on knowledge that she acquired in her capacity as a board member.
As to this contention, the SEC concluded that any member of the public, given that the board was openly and publicly discussing concerns with the cost of the promotion ceremony, would have had the same information and understanding of the issue as the named respondent, so her knowledge could not solely be attributed to her role as a board member. In addition, the complainant failed to demonstrate how the respondent’s comment (“I don’t think (the facilities use fee) has been charged before”) had the potential to compromise the board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
Without sufficient factual evidence, the SEC declined to find probable cause. Further, and despite the respondent’s request, the SEC did not find that the complaint was frivolous, and denied the respondent’s request for the imposition of sanctions.
In Count 1 of C10-24, the complainant alleged, that the named respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because she and her running mates received “campaign contributions from the (New Jersey Education Association) NJEA through the local education association, and were formally endorsed by the local education association “in exchange for influencing her to vote positively on matters involving the (local education association) … and ultimately, the unlawful termination of the superintendent.”
The SEC reiterated, based on its precedent, that “the endorsement of a candidate by a local and/or statewide union does not create a per se future conflict unless a financial contribution is given and is intended to influence the board member in the discharge of his/her duties as a board member.” Moreover, “each case must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the political support was provided to the candidate with the intent to influence (them) …, and/or whether (they) … could receive some type of personal benefit or … provide (their) political supporters with an unwarranted privilege, advantage or employment.”
Based on its assessment, the SEC found that the complaint “lacks any factual basis” that would support a determination that the campaign contributions and/or endorsement were provided to induce the respondent to vote positively on matters related to the local education association, and equally “fails to allege that Respondent ever participated in a vote on those matters.” Although, the respondent participated in the termination of the superintendent, the complainant did not establish that the respondent had a conflict precluding her involvement. Acknowledging that board members who receive union endorsements may be conflicted from collective bargaining for a period of time, “such a conflict, without more, does not exist with regard to the superintendent’s employment.”
In Count 2 of C10-24, the complainant averred that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) because, on her blog/website, she made disparaging remarks about the district’s Child Study Team; posted an article unrelated to the board; serves as the board’s liaison to the district’s Special Education Advisory Group despite having a special education student/child in the district; and threatened to sue the school district if her child was ever placed out of district.
The SEC dismissed certain of the social media posts/comments as untimely. With regard to the remaining post, which was an article, the SEC determined that a reasonable person would not perceive the post as being offered in the respondent’s official capacity and pursuant to her official duties. Not only did the respondent explain that the article discussed her personal experience as a student, but the article (and the post) did not indicate it was written in her capacity as a board member; did not invoke her board status and did not have a correlation to the business of the board and its operations.
As for the respondent’s service as the liaison to SEPAG, the SEC first noted, citing Advisory Opinion A16-04, that dual membership on the board and SEPAG does not, in and of itself, violate the School Ethics Act. However, it could be a conflict if board members who serve on the SEPAG advocate against or “find themselves in opposition” to district personnel. See Advisory Opinion, A03-23. In this case, the facts and circumstances do not support a determination that “Respondent’s membership took on such an involved role as an advocate for individual student matters in the district, beyond her own children in her role as a parent.”
Regarding the respondent’s “threat” to file a prospective lawsuit, the SEC found that “such a comment in frustration as a parent in a private meeting with an administrator … does not have the potential to compromise the board, is not action on behalf of a special interest group, nor does it undermine or harm school personnel.”
Without the necessary probable cause, the matter was dismissed.
In C20-24, the complainants alleged that the named respondents, eight members of the board of education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because in violation of “the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act/Sunshine Law, N.J.S.A. 10:4-13(b)c,” they voted in closed/executive session to appoint a new board member; publicly announced her appointment; and stated that the appointee had begun “the process of completing the necessary paperwork” all before the board ever made a motion to appoint or otherwise publicly voted on the appointment of a new member.
After dismissing the stated violations of “the OPMA/Sunshine Law and/or any board policies” as beyond its authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate, the SEC advised that because the complainants failed to provide “a copy of a final decision … demonstrating or specifically finding that Respondents violated a specific law, rule, or regulation …. or that they brought about changes through illegal or unethical procedures, when they engaged in any of the acts/conduct set forth in the complaint,” a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) could not be supported. In the absence of probable cause, the matter was dismissed.
SEC’s Next Meeting
The SEC’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Sept. 24, 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.