Christine Skurbe v. Peter S. Piro, Jr., Monroe Township Board of Education, Middlesex County, 7/17/26 (#253-26SEC)

253-26SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C67-25
Agency Dkt. No. 204-05-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Christine Skurbe,
Complainant,
v.
Peter S. Piro, Jr., Monroe Township Board of Education,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the May 26, 2026 decision of the School
Ethics Commission (SEC). The SEC found that respondent Peter S. Piro, Jr., a member of the Monroe Township
Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the School Ethics Act
(Act). The SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand for the violation. The SEC’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 SEC’s underlying finding of violation.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC for respondent’s
actions. Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have violated the Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 17, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	July 17, 2026
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.

Before the School Ethics Commission
Docket No.: C67-25
Final Decision
Summary Disposition
Christine Skurbe,
Complainant
v.
Peter S. Piro, Jr.,
Monroe Township Board of Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on July 11, 2025, by Christine Skurbe (Complainant), alleging
that Peter S. Piro, Jr. (Respondent), a member of the Monroe Township Board of Education
(Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. More specifically, the
Complaint alleged that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)
and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) of the Code of Ethics for School
Board Members (Code). Respondent filed a Written Statement on August 29, 2025.
The parties were notified by correspondence dated January 20, 2026, that the above-
captioned matter would be discussed by the Commission at its meeting on January 27, 2026, in
order to make a determination regarding probable cause. Following its discussion on January 27,
2026, the Commission adopted a decision at its meeting on February 24, 2026, finding that
Count 1 was untimely filed; there are sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint
and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to believe that the remaining
allegations, namely N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) in Count 2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 3
were violated as set forth in the Complaint; but insufficient facts and circumstances to lead a
reasonable person to believe that the remaining violations alleged in the Complaint were
violated. Additionally, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(a)(1)(ii), the Commission voted to
decide the above-captioned matter by summary decision and directed Respondent to file a
statement setting forth the reasons (Statement of Reasons) he should not be found in violation of
the Act. Respondent was also advised that if he disputes any of the facts determined by the
Commission to be both material and undisputed, he should set forth the facts with which he
disagrees, and why they are material to the case. Finally, Respondent was further advised that the
Commission may then make a determination of a violation on a summary basis. Respondent filed
a Statement of Reasons on March 30, 2026.
Thereafter, at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter and, at its meeting on May 26, 2026, adopted a decision finding that Respondent violated

2
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) in Count 2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 3 and recommending a
penalty of a reprimand for Respondent’s violations of the Act.
II. 	Summary of the Pleadings
A. 	The Complaint
By way of background, Complainant provides that Respondent is employed by the
Monroe Township Police Department (police department). According to Complainant, “upon
information and belief,” Respondent “used his official position as a [Board] member to advocate
for the presence of” local police officers “on or near school property for the purpose of ticketing
student drivers who were allegedly parking in unauthorized areas.” Complainant notes the Board
did not vote to approve the police presence, nor was the impact on the students discussed.
Complainant notes that Respondent’s advocacy for his employer and his failure to recuse himself
from such matters is a breach of the public’s trust and abuse of his authority as a Board member.
With the above in mind, in Count 2, (January 24, 2025), Complainant asserts Respondent
filed his Personal/Relative Financial Disclosure Statement (Disclosure Statement/FDS) in 2025,
but 	failed 	to 	disclose 	that 	he 	was 	employed 	by 	the 	police 	department 	as 	a 	“Building
Security/Motor Pool Coordinator,” when budget worksheets indicate he earned more than
$2,000, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1).
In Count 3 (February 19, 2025), Complainant contends that the District hires Township
police officers as “added security” at school sponsored events. In addition, Respondent is a
member of the Finance Committee. According to Complainant, the February 19, 2025, agenda
contained a “bill list,” which had already been approved by the Finance Committee and included
two separate line items in the amount of $1,188 and $1,956 for payment to the Township for
“Special Police Services.” Complainant further contends Respondent voted to approve these
items, rather than recuse himself in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
B. 	Written Statement
As to Count 2, Respondent admits that he is an employee of the Township police
department, and despite filing his FDS and their approval by the Business Administrator (BA),
Respondent “acknowledges that he now understands that he should have listed this position” on
his forms. Respondent notes failure to include this employment was “human error and the result
of bad information.”
Regarding the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 3, Respondent argues
that the District was obligated to pay the charges for the security, based on an agreement
between the District and the Township. Therefore, Respondent asserts “there was no reason for
Respondent to abstain from voting on paying the District’s legitimate obligation under this long-
standing agreement.”

3
C. 	Statement of Reasons
Regarding Count 2, Respondent contends he was “unaware of any potential problems
with his financial information” until his receipt of this Complaint. Respondent maintains he “was
under the inaccurate impression that because he was filing a Disclosure Statement with a
statewide Commission, he was only required to report any income he had from the State of New
Jersey.” Respondent further maintains he “was not trying to hide his employment, especially
since his status as a municipal employee is well known in Monroe.” Respondent notes that, after
he “became aware of the omission when he received this Complaint, he offered to file a new
Disclosure Statement, however, he was advised by counsel that the Commission does not accept
revised Financial Disclosure Statements once one is filed.” Consequently, Respondent indicated
that he filed his 2026 Disclosure Statement and reported all income properly.
As to Count 3, Respondent maintains the list of bills “included more than 600 line items
totaling in excess of eighteen million dollars.” Respondent argues the allegation is based solely
on his employment as a civilian employee of the police department. Respondent indicates that
the Complaint alleges that the bill list included “two payments to the Township of Monroe for
security services rendered at school basketball games,” specifically “2/20/25 TOWNSHIP OF
MONROE 	– 	Special 	Police 	Services 	HS 	Basketball 	Games 	$1,188.00” 	and 	“2/20/25
TOWNSHIP 	OF 	MONROE 	– 	Special 	Police 	Services 	Basketball 	Games 	$1,956.00.”
Respondent 	further 	argues 	“Complainant 	fails 	to 	allege facts 	sufficient 	to 	establish 	that
[Respondent’s] approval of the Bill List, to the Township of Monroe, rather than a direct
payment to the Monroe Police Department, including the referenced line items, constitutes a
conflict of interest under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).” Moreover, Respondent maintains Complainant
has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that Respondent, “a member of his immediate
family, or any business organization in which he has an interest, including the Monroe Township
Police Department, had a direct or indirect financial involvement that might reasonably be
expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment,” “[n]or are there any allegations
of personal involvement giving rise to a benefit to [Respondent] or his immediate family.”
Respondent contends, “If the Commission were to find such transactions [] create a conflict, it
would effectively mean that [Respondent] would be conflicted from approving all transactions
issued by the Township of Monroe, regardless of which department ultimately provided the
service.” Additionally, Respondent argues that the relationship between the police department
and the District is “longstanding and governed by a preexisting Memorandum of Agreement”
since 1988, and Respondent “had no involvement in the creation, negotiation, or approval of the
agreement, and he exercises no control over when police security services are requested or which
personnel are assigned.”
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 has been a Board member in Monroe Township since May 2024.
Complaint at page 1; Written Statement at page 2.

4
2. 	Respondent is employed by the Monroe Township Police Department (police
department) in the transportation department handling the police department’s
motor vehicle fleet. Written Statement at page 1.
3. 	As a Board member, Respondent is required to annually file a Disclosure
Statement. Complaint at pages 2-3; Written Statement at pages 5-6.
4. 	Respondent submitted his 2025 Disclosure Statement on or about January 24,
2025. Complaint, Exhibit 1 (2025 FDS).
5. 	Respondent’s 2025 Disclosure Statement listed NJ State Pension as his sole
source of income. Complaint, Exhibit 1 (2025 FDS).
6. 	Respondent’s 2025 Disclosure Statement did not disclose that he received income
from the police department. Complaint, Exhibit 1 (2025 FDS).
7. 	Respondent earned in excess of $2,000.00 from the police department in the
preceding 	calendar 	year. 	Complaint, 	Exhibit 	5 	(Monroe 	Township 	Budget
Worksheet).
8. 	On February 19, 2025, the monthly bill list appeared on the agenda under the
Business Administrator’s recommendations. Complaint at page 3; Complaint,
Exhibit 4 (Agenda).
9. 	The bill list for the February 19, 2025, Board meeting included two line items for
payment to the Township of Monroe in the amounts of $1,188.00 and $1,1957.00
for “Special Police Services.” Complaint at page 3; Complaint, Exhibit 6 (Bill List
Excerpt); Statement of Reasons, Exhibit B (Bill List).
10. 	The February 19, 2025, Bill List included more than 600 items, totaling in excess
of $18,000,000.00. Statement of Reasons at page 3; Statement of Reasons, Exhibit
(Bill List).
11. 	The line items for the Bill List on February 19, 2025, appeared as: “C:05483
2/20/25 TOWNSHIP OF MONROE – Special Police Services HS Basketball
Games $1,188.00” and “C:05662 2/20/25 TOWNSHIP OF MONROE – Special
Police Services Basketball Games $1,956.00.” Complaint, Exhibit 6 (Bill List
Excerpt); Statement of Reasons, Exhibit B (Bill List).
12. 	Respondent voted to approve the Bill List on February 19, 2025. Complaint at
page 3; Complaint, Exhibit 3 (Minutes); Statement of Reasons at pages 3-4.
13. 	The District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the police
department, beginning in 1988, and most recently amended in 2023 and signed by
the parties in December 2024. Statement of Reasons, Exhibit C.
IV. 	Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1), which states that
financial disclosure statements must include:

5
(1) 	Each source of income, earned or unearned, exceeding $2,000
received by the school official or a member of his immediate family during the
preceding calendar year. Individual client fees, customer receipts or commissions
on transactions received through a business organization need not be separately
reported as sources of income. 	If a publicly traded security or interest derived
from a financial institution is the source of income, the security or interest derived
from a financial institution need not be reported unless the school official or
member of his immediate family has an interest in the business organization or
financial institution.
Complainant also argues that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and this
provision of the Act states:
c. 	No school official shall act in his official capacity in any matter
where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which
he has an interest, 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 or a
member of his immediate family has a personal involvement that is or creates
some benefit to the school official or member of his immediate family;
Count 2
Section III, Question 1 of the FDS form asks, “In the preceding calendar year, did you or
a member of your immediate family receive income, earned or unearned, in excess of
$2,000.00?”
The Commission finds that Respondent inaccurately completed his 2025 Disclosure
Statements when he did not report his employment with the police department on his FDS.
Despite earning more than $2,000.00 in his employment, Respondent did not include this source
of income. While Respondent contends he “was under the inaccurate impression that because he
was filing a Disclosure Statement with a statewide Commission, he was only required to report
any income he had from the State of New Jersey,” the Commission notes that the question is
clear that any source of income over $2,000.00 needs to be included. Accordingly, Respondent’s
failure to include income on his FDS violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1).
Count 3
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) prohibits a school official from acting in his official capacity in a
matter where he, a member of her immediate family, has a direct or indirect financial
involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of
judgment, and from acting in his official capacity in a matter where he or a member of his
immediate family has a personal involvement that is or creates some benefit to him or a member
of his immediate family.

6
The Commission finds that Respondent had a direct or indirect financial interest in the
police department, as it is his employer and a source of his income, and therefore, acting in his
official capacity in matters involving the police department, such as voting on payment to his
employer, might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.
Regardless of whether the resolution was large, specifically 600 line items, totaling in excess of
$18,000,000, Respondent nevertheless has a responsibility to be aware of what he is approving
and ensure that he does not have a conflict of interest. The Commission does not find
Respondent’s argument – that Respondent’s approval of the Bill List did not constitute a conflict
of interest because the payments were to the Township rather than directly to the police
department – to be persuasive. While Respondent works at the police department, his employer
is the Township. Accordingly, a bill to the Township for police services would undoubtedly
constitute a conflict of interest. Further, whether a MOA exists to provide police services to the
schools is irrelevant as to whether Respondent has a conflict with respect to the police
department. Respondent took official action and voted on a matter in which he had a conflict of
interest as Respondent has a financial involvement with his employer. Simply put, voting on a
matter in which Respondent was conflicted financially violates the Act. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
V. 	Recommended Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) and 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 a reprimand is the most appropriate penalty. The
Commission 	finds 	that Respondent’s 	employment 	was 	required 	to 	be on 	his 	FDS, 	and
Respondent should not have voted on a matter involving his employment; however, as
Respondent was a newer board member and as he did not have control over the request to use
police services at the basketball games, the Commission finds a reprimand to be warranted in this
matter.
VI. 	Decision
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner
impose a penalty of reprimand for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(c).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
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

7
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 Office 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: May 26, 2026

8
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C67-25
Whereas, at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the School Ethics Commission (Commission)
considered 	the 	Complaint, 	Written 	Statement, 	and 	Statement 	of 	Reasons 	submitted 	by
Respondent, in this matter; and
Whereas, at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission discussed finding a violation
of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); and
Whereas, at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of reprimand for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c);
and
Whereas, at its meeting on May 26, 2026, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
April 28, 2026; 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 May 26, 2026.
_____________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission