Matthew J. McDevitt v. Scott Lavine, Pennsauken Board of Education, Camden County, 3/30/2023, (#97-23SEC)

97-23SEC
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Matthew J. McDevitt,
Complainant,
v.
Scott Lavine, Board of Education of the
Township of Pennsauken, Camden County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Complainant alleged that respondent, a member of the Pennsauken Board of Education,
violated a section of the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq, when he voted to approve
a new employment contract for the District’s Superintendent of Schools, despite the fact that
respondent’s wife is employed as a teacher in Pennsauken schools. The School Ethics
Commission (SEC) determined that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members for voting to approve the contract, which constituted action
in a matter in which respondent had a personal involvement that created a benefit to the
respondent. The SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand.
The case was forwarded to the Commissioner for final determination of the appropriate penalty
in this matter. Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the penalty recommendation of
the SEC. Accordingly, the respondent shall be reprimanded as a school official found to have
violated the School Ethics Act.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of
the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

SEC Dkt. No. C80-22
Agency Dkt. No. 40-2/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Matthew J. McDevitt,
Complainant,
v.
Scott Lavine, Board of Education of the
Township of Pennsauken, Camden County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the February 21, 2023,
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent Scott Lavine, a member of the Pennsauken Board of Education, violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). The Commission recommended a penalty of reprimand for the violation.
The Commission’s decision was forwarded to the Commissioner for final determination on the
recommended penalty pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c). Respondent neither filed exceptions
to the recommended penalty nor instituted an appeal, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1 et seq., of
the Commission’s underlying finding of violation.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the
Commission for respondent’s participation in a vote to approve a new employment contract for
the district’s superintendent while respondent’s wife was employed by the district, which
97-23SEC

2
constituted action in a matter in which respondent had a personal involvement that created a
benefit to respondent.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have
violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
March 30, 2023
March 31, 2023

Before the School Ethics Commission
Docket No.: C80-22
Final Decision
Summary Disposition
Matthew J. McDevitt,
Complainant
v.
Scott Lavine,
Pennsauken Board of Education, Camden County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on August 16, 2022,
by Matthew J. McDevitt (Complainant), alleging that Scott Lavine (Respondent), a member of
the Pennsauken Board of Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-21 et seq.1 More specifically, the Complaint avers that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(c) of the Act.
On August 26, 2022, the Complaint was served on Respondent via electronic mail,
notifying him that ethics charges had been filed against him with the Commission, and advising
that he had twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading.2 On September 19, 2022, Respondent
filed an Answer to Complaint (Answer).
At its meeting on November 22, 2022, and after reviewing the parties’ pleadings on
October 17, 2022, the Commission adopted a decision finding probable cause for the alleged
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and to decide the above-captioned matter by summary
decision pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(c)(1). The Commission also directed Respondent to
file a statement, within twenty (20) days, setting forth the reasons he should not be found in
violation of the Act. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(c)(1). Respondent was advised that if he disputes any
of the facts determined by the Commission to be both material and undisputed, he should set
1 By correspondence dated August 17, 2022, Complainant was notified that the Complaint was deficient,
and required amendment before the School Ethics Commission (Commission) could accept his filing. On
August 24, 2022, Complainant cured all defects and filed an Amended Complaint (Complaint) that was
deemed compliant with the requirements detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.3.
2 In order to conduct business during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Commission
implemented an electronic filing system, which remains a permissible method by which the Commission
and parties can effectuate service of process. Consequently, service of process was effectuated by the
Commission through electronic transmission only.

2
forth the facts with which he disagrees, and why they are material to the case. Finally,
Respondent was advised that following expiration of the time period for submission of his
statement, the Commission may make a determination of a violation on a summary basis.
Ultimately, and on December 12, 2022, Respondent submitted a Position Statement/Statement of
Reasons (Statement of Reasons) as directed.
Consequently, at a special meeting on January 31, 2023, the Commission reviewed the
record in this matter and, at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 21, 2023, adopted a
decision finding that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and recommending a penalty
of reprimand for Respondent’s violation of the Act.
II. 	Summary of the Pleadings
In the Complaint, Complainant submits that, based on the substance of Respondent’s
2021 and 2022 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements, his (Respondent’s)
spouse is employed in the Pennsauken Public Schools District (District) as a teacher. Complaint
at 1. Despite his spouse’s employment in the District, and at a Board meeting on June 16, 2022,
Respondent voted to approve a new contract for the superintendent. Id. Because Respondent
“voted to award a contract to the person that is his spouse’s ultimate superior,” Complainant
argues that Respondent acted in his official capacity in a matter where he or a member of his
immediate family (his spouse) had a personal involvement that created a direct benefit to himself
and his spouse in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). Id. at 2.
In his Answer, which included a signed Certification, Respondent admitted that he
“inadvertently” voted to approve the superintendent’s contract during the Board meeting on June
14, 2022, “notwithstanding that his [spouse] is currently a teacher in the [D]istrict.” Answer at 1.
However, Respondent denies that the vote created a direct benefit to himself and/or his spouse.
Id. According to Respondent, because the vote to approve the contract was unanimous, his “vote
had no impact on the ultimate outcome of the approval of the employment contract.” Id.
Respondent noted that he abstained on another agenda item “which included his [spouse] among
those [D]istrict employees who were being transferred for the 2022-2023 school year, evidencing
that his vote on the superintendent’s employment contract (which was otherwise unanimously
approved) was unintentional and inadvertent.” Id. at 1-2. Further, Respondent noted his action
was “entirely due to oversight and error,” and further admitted that he should have abstained, but
“mistakenly failed to do so.” Id. at 2. Respondent offered, “In an effort to correct any
misconception or claim that [Respondent] was purposefully and/or unethically voting on the
superintendent’s employment contract, the … Board … will be once again vot[ing] upon the
very same employment contract at its upcoming October 2022 meeting, and [Respondent] will
abstain from voting on that agenda item.” Id. Therefore, Respondent requested that the
Commission 	“impose 	no 	penalty, 	since 	[Respondent’s] 	vote 	on 	the 	[s]uperintendent’s
employment contract amounts to a de minimus violation of the Act, was unintentional, had no
impact on the outcome of the vote, no longer presents a live controversy, and is moot as the
Board will vote again on the same contract … during the October 2022 [B]oard meeting and
[Respondent] will abstain from that vote.” Id.

3
In his Statement of Reasons, Respondent notes that “Agenda Item No. 3” related to the
superintendent’s contract and “was one of a block of forty-eight (48) agenda items” that were to
be voted upon at the June 14, 2022, Board meeting. Statement of Reasons at 1. Respondent
further maintains he “deliberately abstained from voting on Agenda Item No. 11,” which
involved his spouse; however, he “accidentally failed to abstain from voting on Agenda Item No.
3,” due to “sheer inadvertence and/or momentary inattention.” Id. at 2. Respondent contends that
although his “inadvertence is no excuse … it was solely and purely due to his oversight and error
that he failed to recuse himself … .” Id. Respondent reasserts that his vote was not the deciding
vote, which Respondent notes was unanimous; however, Respondent notes, the superintendent’s
contract that was voted upon at the June 14, 2022, meeting was “subsequently rescinded because
of procedural deficiency” and was resubmitted for a vote at the Board meeting on October 18,
2022, from which Respondent abstained. Id.
Respondent requests that the Commission consider that since becoming a Board member
in 2018, Respondent “has never before had an ethics complaint filed against him.” Id.
Respondent “deeply regrets” his mistake, and apologizes for his oversight, and reiterates that his
conduct “was not intentional in any way nor in an effort to escape his ethical responsibility as a
Board member, but rather due to oversight and error.” Id. at 2-3. Respondent further requests the
Commission find that he did not violate the Act, but if a violation is found, Respondent implores
“the Commission to consider the lowest level of sanction for his inadvertent failure to abstain.”
Id. at 3.
III. 	Findings of Fact
Based on its thorough and independent review of the record, the Commission finds the
following facts to be undisputed:
1. 	Respondent is a member of the Board and has served in this capacity since 2018.
Complaint at page 1; Answer at 1; Certification of Respondent at 1; and Statement of Reasons at
1-2.
2. 	Respondent’s spouse is employed as a teaching staff member in the District.
Complaint at page 1; Answer at 1; Certification of Respondent at 1-2; Statement of Reasons at 2.
3. 	The Board had a meeting on June 16, 2022. Complaint at page 1; Answer at 1;
Certification of Respondent at 1; and Statement of Reasons at 1.
4. 	At the Board meeting on June 16, 2022, Respondent voted in the affirmative for
Agenda Item No. 3, which included “a block of forty-eight agenda items,” including a new
employment contract for the superintendent. Complaint at page 1; Answer at 1; Certification of
Respondent at 1-2; and Statement of Reasons at 1.
5. 	At the Board meeting on June 16, 2022, Respondent abstained from voting on
Agenda Item No. 11, which included a personnel matter related to his spouse, among other
District staff. Answer at 1-2; Certification of Respondent at 1-2; Statement of Reasons at 1-2.

4
6. 	The superintendent supervises all staff employed in the District. Complaint at
page 2.
IV. 	Analysis and Conclusions of Law
The 	uncontroverted 	facts 	in 	this 	matter 	can 	be 	briefly 	summarized 	as 	follows:
Respondent is a Board member; Respondent’s spouse is employed in the District; while
Respondent’s spouse was employed in the District, he voted to approve a new employment
contract for the superintendent, the highest ranking supervisor in the District. By voting on a new
employment contract for the superintendent while his spouse was employed in the District,
Complainant argues that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) states, in relevant part:
No school official shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he … has a
direct or indirect financial involvement that might reasonably be expected to
impair his objectivity or independence of judgment. No school official shall act in
his official capacity in any matter where he … has a personal involvement that is
or creates some benefit to the school official … .
Also 	of 	relevance 	to 	the 	Commission’s 	analysis 	is 	the 	legislative 	findings 	and
declarations relative to the adoption of the Act, to wit:
…
a. 	In our representative form of government it is essential that the conduct of
members of local boards of education … hold the respect and confidence of
the people. These board members … must avoid conduct which is in violation
of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public
that such trust is being violated.
… .
In Advisory Opinion 24-17 (A24-17), the Commission issued clear and unequivocal
guidance regarding Board members “who have immediate family members or relatives who are
employed in … the District … .” More specifically, the Commission stated, “A Board member
with a relative who is employed in the District, cannot participate in any aspect of negotiations,
including the vote on 	the collective negotiations agreement following attainment of the
memorandum of the agreement. 	… .” (emphasis in original). Id. The Commission further
advised that, “a Board member who has a relative or immediate family member employed in
the District would also be prohibited from participating in any and all issues related to the
superintendent, 	including 	the 	search, 	contract 	approval, 	and 	evaluation 	of 	performance”
(emphasis in original). Id.
With the above in mind, the Commission finds that because Respondent voted, albeit
unintentionally and inadvertently, to approve a new employment contract for the superintendent
– the individual who has ultimate supervisory authority over Respondent’s spouse, and the
individual who is charged with making personnel recommendations for his spouse (including

5
continued employment and possible promotions) – while his spouse was employed in the
District, the Commission finds that Respondent acted in his official capacity in a matter where
“he … has a direct or indirect financial involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair
his objectivity or independence of judgment,” and in his “official capacity in any matter where
he … has a personal involvement that is or creates some benefit to the school official … .”
The Commission also notes that regardless of whether Respondent’s spouse may have
actually received a benefit from Respondent’s vote is irrelevant, because the “question will
always turn on ‘whether the circumstances could reasonably be interpreted to show that they had
the likely capacity to tempt the official to depart from his sworn public duty,’” and “[a]n actual
conflict of interest is not the decisive factor, nor is ‘whether the public servant succumbs to
temptation,’ but rather whether there is a potential for conflict.” I/M/O Deborah Anderson, High
Point Regional Board of Education, Sussex County, Docket No. C45-19, at page 5. In this case,
and as conceded by Respondent, there is no question that, due to the employment of his spouse
in the District, Respondent had a conflict of interest, actual and/or perceived, and should have
abstained from voting on the new employment contract for the superintendent.
Accordingly, 	and 	based 	on 	a 	complete 	and 	thorough 	review 	of 	the 	record, 	the
Commission finds, based on the undisputed evidence as set forth herein, that Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) when he voted to approve a new employment contract for the
superintendent while his spouse was employed in the District.
V. 	Recommended Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), the Commission is
authorized to recommend to the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) an appropriate
penalty, which may range from reprimand to removal. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c).
In its review, the Commission finds that reprimand is the most appropriate penalty. In
reaching this determination, the Commission finds that, based on the record, Respondent did not
act deliberately or intentionally, and that his vote was, based on his abstention in another matter,
“sheer inadvertence.” The Commission genuinely appreciates Respondent’s contrition for his
mistake, and his ready acknowledgment of wrongdoing. As the Commission has stated in other
decisions, this matter is “a reminder that he, like all other school officials, must be mindful of
how their Board action can implicate, and potentially, violate the Act. No one is beyond
reproach, and everyone is entitled to make a mistake.” Mervin Rose v. Ronnie McDowell,
Township of Union Board of Education, Union County, Docket No. C78-20, at 6. The
Commission urges Respondent, and all other 	school officials, to 	ensure vigilance when
reviewing all agenda items to ensure that they are abstaining from all matters as appropriate.
VI. 	Decision
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner of
Education impose a penalty of reprimand for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).

6
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
of Education for review of the Commission’s recommended penalty. The parties may either:
1) file exceptions to the recommended sanction; 2) file an appeal of the Commission’s finding of
a violation; or 3) file both exceptions to the recommended sanction together with an appeal of the
finding of a violation.
Parties taking exception to the recommended sanction of the Commission but not
disputing the Commission’s finding of a violation may file, within thirteen (13) days from the
date the Commission’s decision is forwarded to the Commissioner, written exceptions regarding
the recommended penalty to the Commissioner. The forwarding date shall be the mailing date to
the parties, as indicated below. Such exceptions must be forwarded to: Commissioner of
Education, c/o Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625,
marked 	“Attention: 	Comments 	on 	Ethics 	Commission 	Sanction,” 	as 	well 	as 	to
(ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov). A copy must also be sent to the Commission
(school.ethics@doe.nj.gov) and all other parties.
Parties seeking to appeal the Commission’s finding of a violation must file an appeal
pursuant to the standards set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:4:1 et seq. within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of the decision. The filing date shall be three (3) days after the date of mailing to the parties,
as shown below. In such cases, the Commissioner’s review of the Commission’s recommended
sanction will be deferred and incorporated into the Commissioner’s review of the finding of
violation on appeal. Where a notice of appeal has been filed on or before the due date for
exceptions to the Commission’s recommended sanction (thirteen (13) days from the date the
decision is mailed by the Commission), exceptions need not be filed by that date, but may be
incorporated in the appellant’s briefs on appeal.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: February 21, 2023

7
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C80-22
Whereas, at its special meeting on January 31, 2023, the School Ethics Commission
(Commission) considered the entirety of the record in this matter; and
Whereas, at its special meeting on January 31, 2023, the Commission discussed finding a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); and
Whereas, at its special meeting on January 31, 2023, the Commission discussed
recommending a penalty of reprimand for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); and
Whereas, at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 21, 2023, the Commission
reviewed 	and 	voted 	to 	approve 	the 	within 	decision 	as 	accurately 	memorializing 	its
actions/findings from its special meeting on January 31, 2023; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Commission hereby adopts the decision and
directs its staff to notify all parties to this action of its decision herein.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that the Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at
its meeting on February 21, 2023.
_____________________________
Kathryn A. Whalen, Esq.
Director, School Ethics Commission