In decision C57-14, the SEC found that the complainant failed to meet his burden of proof by relevant, credible evidence that the respondent violated the Code of Ethics for School Board Members and dismissed the complaint. Complainant alleged that the board member violated the Code of Ethics by taking unauthorized photos of the complainant’s minor son as he emerged from a car at the bus stop, and by telling the crossing guard at the bus stop that he was with the board of education conducting a study regarding the transportation program. No photo of the complainant’s child or any other child was taken. Complainant did not demonstrate that the respondent took, displayed or circulated any photos of children related to the bus stop; there was no eyewitness account to corroborate the allegations.
The SEC noted that the voters in the school district decide which candidates will represent them on the school board. The complainant had advised the board president that an ethics complaint would be filed against the board member unless that board member resigned from the board of education. The SEC advised that the seats that duly elected school officials occupy must not be threatened by individuals or outside groups seeking to change the balance of power in their favor through intimidation or coercion. The SEC must not be used as a tool in partisan battles to accomplish political ends. Such conduct sets a poor example for the children of the school district and weakens the public’s trust and confidence in the electoral process. Karpiak v. Farruggia, Hopatcong Borough Board Of Education, Sussex County, C57-14, SEC 2016: January 26
In decision C29-15, the SEC determined that a board member did not violate the School Ethics Act when she participated in and voted on the tentative 2015-2016 annual school budget which included a line item for the school district’s Career and Technical Services’ automotive technology program. In January 2013, the bumper of the board member’s personal vehicle was repaired by the students in the program. The board member used auto parts from the program, was charged for them, and produced an invoice. The SEC determined that the complainant failed to demonstrate that the board member garnered any greater benefit for herself than any other resident of the community who chose to use the services of the program, nor did he show that the board member was precluded from availing herself of the services of the program simply because she sat on the board.
The SEC similarly determined that the complainant’s assertion that the board member’s objectivity and independent judgment were impaired in March 2015 because she had her car repaired over two years prior was unreasonable and strained credibility. There was simply no evidence to support the complainant’s allegation that a bargain was struck between the program coordinators and the board member to enable the board member to receive a benefit in the form of car repairs in 2013 in exchange for her vote on the 2015-2016 budget.
The SEC found no probable cause to credit the allegations that the board member violated various sections of the School Ethics Act and dismissed the complaint.
The SEC found the complaint to be frivolous and imposed a fine of $500. The SEC found that the complainant’s allegations were false and damaging to the board member’s reputation and to those district personnel whom the complainant intimated were part of a quid pro quo arrangement for free services. By failing to diligently investigate the factual background, the complainant commenced, used or continued in bad faith, solely for the purpose of harassment, delay or malicious injury.
The decision emphasized that the SEC tribunal is not a forum where parties seek recourse for political feuds or as a way to thwart the electoral process or redirect its natural path. The SEC cannot allow itself to become an instrument for the community to launch baseless claims against school officials. Gaitens v. Bathelus, Elizabeth Board of Education, Union County, C29-15, SEC 2016: January 26
In decision C30-15 the SEC determined that a board president did not violate the Code of Ethics for School Board Members by reading a statement at the board meeting regarding the failed vote to renew the superintendent’s contract. The statement to the public explained that five votes were required for renewal, two board members could not vote because of conflicts, and the renewal fell short by one vote as there were only four affirmative votes.
The SEC determined that the board president did nothing to compromise the board or act beyond the scope of her authority. The statement was benign, factual and instructive. The board president did not blame anyone for the vote; she simply stated factually why the contract renewal did not pass and what the future would hold; the statement only contained the facts regarding the vote for superintendent.
The SEC found nothing in the statement to support the complainants’ allegation that the board president made a personal promise or took any private action that may have compromised the board. The statement was made in an open public forum in the presence of the media; anyone who disagreed with her position could have voiced opposition in public that evening in the same venue.
The SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Noonan, et al. v. Greenwood, Mount. Ephraim Borough Board Of Education, Camden County, C30-15, SEC 2016: January 26
The SEC determined that a board member did not violate the School Ethics Act when
he voted to approve legal fees for Board counsel as to whether the his ability to participate in Board activity was limited due to his sister’s role as an on-call substitute teacher in the District. The Respondent as Board President did exactly what he was authorized to do under the circumstances. He sought legal counsel to clarify his ability to conduct Board business in light of the potential conflict posed by his sister’s position as an on-call substitute teacher in the District. He did not seek counsel on a personal matter or a personal law suit, but rather on an ethical question that would impact the Board as a whole. Board counsel is available to the Board to provide legal advice and research for just such situations. The SEC did not find that the Respondent acted inappropriately. Capone v. Aiken, Hamilton Township Board of Education, Atlantic County, C28-15, SEC 2016: February 23.
SEC determined that the Complainant failed to allege facts sufficient to maintain a claim that the Respondent violated the Code of Ethics for School Board Members and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Respondent had advised the Superintendent of schools that the Complainant accosted and threatened her and that the Complainant ultimately pled guilty to disorderly conduct in Municipal Court. The SEC has found that a Board member’s action cannot be both board action and private action. The underlying assault was a private matter and as such, the Respondent acted as a private citizen when she alerted the Woodstown Superintendent.
Board officials do not forfeit their rights as members of the public in personal matters that have nothing to do with the boards on which they sit. Respondent’s actions could not compromise the Gloucester City Board as the private action she took in a personal matter did not call into question any issue, deliberation, or vote taken by the Gloucester City Board. Mealey v. Borger, Gloucester City Board of Education, Camden County, C32-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Advisory Opinions In A25-15, the SEC responded to a request regarding several board of education members who had relatives who either were full-time employees and members of the local NJEA affiliate union in either their own district or another. The SEC advised that the board members should review recently issued public advisory opinions A11-15, A16-15 and A19-15, which addressed these topics. The SEC further advised that board members with relatives employed in-district, who are members of an NJEA affiliated union, are considered to have a conflict under the School Ethics Act. The conflict extends to all matters involving the union and all aspects of the collective negotiations process, including voting on the collective bargaining agreement. The conflict further extends into the personnel area as to the relative and the relative’s supervisors, and other superiors in the chain of command ending with and including the superintendent. No participation in personnel matters regarding these individuals is permitted, including, but not limited to discussion, evaluation and voting.
Board members who have immediate family members (spouse, child, parent, sibling) in their household, who are employees in another school district and members of a similar statewide union with which the board is negotiating, are also deemed conflicted under the School Ethics Act. The conflict extends to all matters involving the union and all aspects of the collective negotiations process, including voting on the collective bargaining agreement. School administrators who are conflicted in this manner may provide technical information to the board of education when no one else in the school district can do so.
Board members who have out-of-household relatives who are union members employed by a different board of education, have a different analysis to perform. Employment with union membership in another school district is not automatically a conflict for out-of-household relatives.. If the relative has a heightened union role (officer, bargaining team member, union building representative) the board member is conflicted, with the conflict extending to all matters involving the union and all aspects of the collective negotiations process, including voting on the collective bargaining agreement. School administrators who are conflicted in this manner may provide technical information to the board of education when no one else in the school district can do so.
Board members who are employed in another school district as school administrators and are members of the NJPSA, were referred to previously issued public advisory opinion A13-15. A board member, in this circumstance, may negotiate with the in-district local NJEA affiliate when there is absolutely no linkage, in either district, between the respective NJEA affiliates and the administrators’ union which represents the board member. Board members should consult with their school board attorney as to whether similar statewide union status may create a linkage as NJEA does represent supervisor units in certain school districts and likely has the same goals and objectives for its members as does NJPSA. A25-15, SEC 2016: January 26
In advisory opinion A26-15 the SEC responded to a request regarding a newly-appointed board of education member, a 28-year former employee in the school district who served as union president for 13 years. The SEC determined that the board member’s prior employment in the school district and prior service as union president was not a bar to her service on the board of education. However, it did create a conflict of interest for purposes of collective negotiations participation. The SEC considered it reasonable for members of the public to believe that, as a new board member, having so recently been an employee of the school district and union president, she would be unable at this time to separate her past union involvement from her new role on the board. In order to avoid a violation of the Act and to preserve the public trust, the SEC advised that the new board member must recuse herself from any union matters and must abstain from any union-related votes for the duration of her initial term of office. The SEC did not consider this conflict to be in perpetuity, but only for the new board member’s initial term on the board, as she becomes acclimated to her new role of serving the public. After her first term, there would no longer be the appearance that the board member’s independence of judgment and objectivity with regard to the union would be impaired. A26-15, SEC 2016: January 26
In A31-15, the SEC responded to a request for clarification regarding a perceived conflict between the exit interview prohibition of A15-10 and the limited participation in higher level administrative employee interviews of A04-12; each of which was analyzed under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (c) and (d) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, but with seemingly different results. The SEC advised that it does not support board members conducting interviews for positions below that of superintendent. However, the SEC’s jurisdiction does not extend to actions of the board of education, only to actions of individual board of education members. Accordingly, each individual board of education may determine if it wants to have an interview committee for high-level administrative positions, pursuant to A04-12. As set forth in A04-12, if a board forms an interview committee, no more than one or two board members may participate, the committee would be coordinated by a member of the administrative staff and the board members’ role would be limited. The board members may not conduct the interview, but may offer observations and assessments, with full knowledge that final recommendations are wholly within the purview of the superintendent. For boards of education choosing to have an interview committee, the committee should function with the approval of the superintendent. It is the superintendent’s authority to recommend hires to the board. An interview committee cannot supersede or usurp that authority. A31-15, SEC 2016: January 26
Decisions on Training Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training in a timely manner. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended to the Commissioner of Education that the trustee be censured for failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period. Any continued failure in the future to comply with the statutory requirement to complete training shall result in removal from her position on the board of trustees for a three-year period. In the Matter of Channell Trader, Camden’s Pride Charter School, Camden County, T01-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended that the trustee be removed from the board as a result of his failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period, Removal will be effective immediately after the issuance of the Commissioner of Education’s Decision affirming the penalty, for a period of one three-year term or the remaining term of the trustee’s office, whichever is longer. In the Matter of Tom Iacovone, Hope Community Charter School, Camden County, T02-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training in a timely manner. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended to the Commissioner of Education that the trustee be censured for failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period. Any continued failure in the future to comply with the statutory requirement to complete training shall result in removal from her position on the board of trustees for a three-year period. In the Matter of Elizabeth Morrison, Brown Learning Community Charter School, Hudson County, T03-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training in a timely manner. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended to the Commissioner of Education that the trustee be censured for failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period. Any continued failure in the future to comply with the statutory requirement to complete training shall result in removal from her position on the board of trustees for a three-year period. In the Matter of In the Matter of Cynthia Williams, Newark Prep Charter School, Essex County, T04-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended that the trustee be removed from the board as a result of his failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period, Removal will be effective immediately after the issuance of the Commissioner of Education’s Decision affirming the penalty, for a period of one three-year term or the remaining term of the trustee’s office, whichever is longerIn the Matter of Tinia Berger, Newark Prep Charter School, Essex County, T05-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training in a timely manner. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended to the Commissioner of Education that the trustee be censured for failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period. Any continued failure in the future to comply with the statutory requirement to complete training shall result in removal from her position on the board of trustees for a three-year period. In the Matter of Ann Petrocelli, Link Community Charter School, Essex County, T06-15, SEC 2016: February 23
Charter school trustee failed to complete Governance I training in a timely manner. Numerous notices of the training requirement were provided by the NJSBA, SEC, Executive County Superintendent and the DOE Office of Charter Schools. The SEC recommended to the Commissioner of Education that the trustee be censured for failure to complete the Governance I training program within the required time period for the 2014 training period. Any continued failure in the future to comply with the statutory requirement to complete training shall result in removal from her position on the board of trustees for a three-year period. In the Matter of Robyn Schneider, Ethical Community Charter School, Hudson County, T07-15, SEC 2016: February 23