In the Matter Of Deborah Anderson, High Point Regional Board of Education, Sussex County, 11/29/2021, (#303-21SEC)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Deborah Anderson,
High Point Regional Board of Education,
Sussex County.
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the decision of the School Ethics Commission (SEC) have been
reviewed. The SEC found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) of the School Ethics Act
when she voted on a matter involving the district’s superintendent while respondent’s child was an
employee of the district over whom the superintendent had supervisory authority. The SEC’s
decision was forwarded pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29 for the Commissioner’s final determination
on the recommended penalty of a reprimand. Respondent has neither filed exceptions to the
recommended penalty nor instituted an appeal of the SEC’s underlying finding of violation pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1 et seq. Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended
by the SEC. Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded for violating 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.
303-21SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C45-19
OAL Dkt. Nos. EEC02887-20, EEC01680-21
Agency Dkt. No. 187-8/21
November 29, 2021
December 1, 2021

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-01680-21
OAL Docket No.: EEC-02887-20 (On Remand)
SEC Docket No.: C45-19
Final Decision
In the Matter of Deborah Anderson,
High Point Regional Board of Education, Sussex County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
This matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School Ethics Commission
(Commission) on June 17, 2019, by John Mannion (Complainant), alleging that Deborah
Anderson (Respondent), a member of the High Point Regional Board of Education (Board)
violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. Initial Decision (On Remand) at
2. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) “by
voting on matters concerning the [S]uperintendent while the High Point Regional School District
(District) employed her child.” Id.
At its meeting on December 17, 2019, and after reviewing Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss) and Complainant’s response thereto, the
Commission adopted a decision finding that the Complaint was timely filed, denying the Motion
to Dismiss in its entirety, and directing Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer). On
January 7, 2020, Respondent filed her Answer as directed, and the above-captioned matter was
docketed so that the Commission could make a probable cause determination.
Thereafter, and at its meeting on February 25, 2020, the Commission adopted a decision
finding probable cause for the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). Id. Based on its
finding of probable cause, the Commission also voted to transmit the within matter to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL) for a plenary hearing and, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(b), the
attorney for the Commission (Petitioner) was charged with prosecuting the allegations in the
Complaint which the Commission found probable cause to credit. Id. at 2-3.
At the OAL, the matter was assigned to the Honorable Nanci G. Stokes, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ Stokes). After the parties were unable to resolve the matter, Respondent filed a
Motion for Summary Decision, and Petitioner filed an Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Decision, as well as a Cross-Motion for Summary Decision. Id. at 3. Following
Respondent’s filing of an Opposition to Petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Decision, ALJ
Stokes closed the record. Id.
On November 10, 2020, ALJ Stokes issued an Initial Decision detailing her findings of
fact and legal conclusions. Id. In her decision, ALJ Stokes concluded that Respondent violated

2
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and that reprimand was the appropriate penalty. Id. However, at its
meeting on January 26, 2021, and after discussing and reviewing the full record, including ALJ
Stokes’ Initial Decision and the filed Exceptions (and related response), the Commission adopted
a decision remanding the matter to the OAL. Id. In remanding the matter to the OAL, the
Commission did not require the holding of a hearing, additional fact-finding, and/or the
reopening of the record for the submission of supplemental materials, but rather that ALJ Stokes
remove specific facts which were deemed irrelevant to the proceedings, to wit:
Because ALJ Stokes determined that Commissioner Roberts’ actions are
not relevant to and are not the subject of this proceeding, and because the basis for
the aforementioned “facts” emanates from exhibits which were not admitted as
evidence, 	the 	inclusion 	of 	Commissioner 	Roberts’ 	membership 	on 	the
Middletown Township Board of Education, his child’s employment, his unproven
voting history on matters related to the Superintendent, and the statement that “the
Commission has taken no action against [Commissioner] Roberts for these
actions” is inappropriate and must be stricken from the Initial Decision. In this
way, the Commission finds that it is arbitrary and capricious to find unverified
and unproven conduct as “facts” when Commissioner Roberts was not a named
party in this matter or otherwise afforded appropriate due process to formally
respond to or answer such accusations following the filing of a complaint against
him, and when ALJ Stokes concluded that this information was “not relevant to
whether 	[Respondent] 	violated 	the Act” and 	was 	“not 	the subject 	of 	this
proceeding.”
Id.
On remand, ALJ Stokes conducted “a telephone conference and directed the parties to
provide written submissions addressing the Commission’s remand.” Id. On May 14, 2021, the
parties’ provided their written legal arguments as directed; Respondent’s counsel provided a
certification attaching records that were not previously submitted with her motion for summary
decision; and the record closed on June 4, 2021. Id. at 4.
On June 25, 2021, ALJ Stokes issued an Initial Decision (On Remand), with same
detailing findings of fact, and conclusions of law. The Commission acknowledged receipt of ALJ
Stokes’ Initial Decision (On Remand) on the date it was issued (June 25, 2021); therefore, the
forty-five (45) day statutory period for the Commission to issue a Final Decision was August 9,
2021. Prior to August 9, 2021, the Commission requested a forty-five (45) day extension of time
to issue its decision so as to allow the Commission, which only meets monthly, the opportunity
to receive and review the full record, including the parties’ Exceptions. Pursuant to N.J.S.A.
52:14B-10(c) and N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.8, and for good cause shown, the Commission was granted an
extension until September 23, 2021.
Consequently, at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the Commission considered the full record
in the above-captioned matter. Thereafter, at its special meeting on August 30, 2021, the
Commission voted to adopt ALJ Stokes’ findings of fact; to adopt the legal conclusion that

3
Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(b); 	and 	to 	adopt 	the 	recommended 	penalty 	of
reprimand.1
II. 	Initial Decision (On Remand)
Based on her review of the documents submitted in support of, and in opposition to, the
parties’ respective motions for summary decision, ALJ Stokes found the following as fact:
 	Respondent has been a Board member since 2013 and has not received a prior
sanction from the Commission. Id. at 4.
 	On November 20, 2018, the Board had a meeting at which all six (6) members were
present. At this meeting, the Board “voted unanimously to approve a resolution
acknowledging that the [S]uperintendent … completed a merit goal required by his
employment contract with the [Board].” Id.
 	The Superintendent’s employment contract required a bonus of a set percentage of his
salary following completion of a merit goal. Id.
 	The Board did not discuss the resolution in closed or executive session, and
Respondent did not comment on the resolution during public session of the Board’s
meeting. Id.
 	Following approval from the executive county superintendent, the Superintendent
received payment for the merit goal achievement. Id.
 	On November 20, 2018, the date that the Board, including Respondent, voted
unanimously to approve a resolution acknowledging that the Superintendent had
completed a merit goal, Respondent’s child was employed in the District as a tenured
teacher. 	As 	such, 	at 	the 	time 	of 	Respondent’s 	vote, 	the 	Superintendent 	had
supervisory authority over Respondent’s child. Id.
 	Following the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent’s child was subject to a reduction-
in-force layoff and, as a result, her employment with the District ceased in June 2019.
Id.
 	Respondent was aware that she was unable to participate in the Superintendent’s
evaluation and contract approvals, but was “unaware” that she could not participate in
votes concerning the achievement of contractual merit goals and attendant bonuses
required by the Superintendent’s employment contract. Id. at 4-5.
1 Commissioner Dennis Roberts was not present in Executive Session on July 27, 2021, and/or August 30,
2021, when the above-captioned matter was discussed.

4
As for the remand specifically, ALJ Stokes further found the following additional facts:
 	On June 26, 2020, Respondent supplied records concerning one of the Commission’s
members, and his actions as a school board member. Id. at 5.
 	Respondent “urges that the actions of the Commission member are relevant to this
case, especially as to the penalty attributed to any violation [Respondent] committed.”
 	Despite Respondent’s arguments, ALJ Stokes “determined and still FIND[S] that the
conduct of another person is not relevant to whether Respondent’s actions constitute a
violation of the … Act.” Id.
 	In addition, “the Commission’s action or inaction concerning its member’s conduct is
neither before this tribunal nor is what action, if any, known.” Id.
 	Therefore, ALJ Stokes “FIND[S] that the Commission member’s actions, public or
not, are irrelevant to what penalty should apply to any violation [Respondent]
committed.” Id.
In the “Discussion and Conclusions of Law” section of her Initial Decision (On Remand),
and after detailing the standard that applies to a motion for summary decision, ALJ Stokes stated,
“In this case, there is no genuine issue as to the material facts, and the only issues presented are
whether” Respondent’s vote on November 20, 2018, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and, if so,
what sanction is appropriate. Id. at 5-6. According to ALJ Stokes, “no genuine issue exists that
[Respondent] served as a Board member in the same [D]istrict that employed her [child] as a
teacher from 2014 until 2019,” nor that on November 20, 2018, Respondent voted to approve the
Superintendent’s merit goal achievement. Id at 6. As these facts are “clear and undisputed,” ALJ
Stokes concludes, “that this case is ripe for summary decision.”
Regarding the Commission’s order of remand, ALJ Stokes notes, “an Agency head may
enter an order remanding a contested case to the OAL … .” Id. at 6. Moreover, “the order of
remand shall specifically state the reason and necessity for the remand and the issues or
arguments to be considered.” Id. In this case, the Commission “directs the striking of specific
findings of fact regarding the conduct of one of its members and states the reasons for doing so.”
Id. Although an ALJ “determines what evidence to consider and its relevance under N.J.A.C.
1:1-14.6(i) and other UAPR provisions,” ALJ Stokes finds that because the “actions of the
Commission member are not relevant to either [Respondent’s] alleged violation or any resulting
penalty,” any records provided by Respondent regarding the Commission member, and any
specific reference to them, is “unwarranted.” Id.
In her motion for summary decision, Respondent argues that she should not be found in
violation of the Act because “the law required her action as a board member”; “her vote was
simply a ministerial act”; her participation in the vote approving the resolution “had no impact
on the result as only four affirmative votes of the six members present [were] needed to pass the
resolution”; and when an improper vote does not change the outcome, “the error is harmless.”
Id. at 12.

5
After referencing the legislative intent/purpose of the Act; affirming the Commission’s
role as the “guardian of the public interest”; citing to decisions that reinforce the public policy
that school officials must avoid “even the appearance of impropriety” (e.g., Wyzsykowski v.
Rizas, 132 N.J. 509 (1993); Friends Retirement Concepts v. Bd. Of Educ. Borough of Somerville,
356 N.J. Super 203, 214 (Law Div. 2002) (Friends)); emphasizing that, per Friends, 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’”; noting that “[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”;
affirming that “[a] conflicting interest arises when the public official has an interest not shared in
common with the other members of the public”; and citing to the Commission’s advisory
opinions which specifically address the limitations on a Board member’s conduct/activity when
they have a family member or relative employed by the Board on which s/he serves (e.g.,
Advisory 	Opinion 	A24-17 	(A24-17); 	Advisory 	Opinion 	A07-18 	(A07-18)), 	ALJ 	Stokes
concluded:
… [Respondent’s] arguments [for summary decision are] unpersuasive.
The legislative findings and declarations, the seminal decision in Friends, and the
advisory opinions make plain that [Respondent] should have recused herself. …
A24-17, 	issued 	more 	than 	a 	year 	before 	the 	vote, 	clearly 	mandates 	that
[Respondent] be uninvolved in any matter regarding the [S]uperintendent while
her [child] was an employee in the [D]istrict. [Respondent’s] vote created the
potential conflict the Friends’ Court warned against and could reasonably be
interpreted to show that it had the likely capacity to tempt [Respondent] from her
sworn public duty. In other words, that she exerted an undue influence over the
individual responsible for securing her [child’s] employment. Notably, the board
member needs not to secure unwarranted benefits for their relative to violate the
Act. Thus, her [child’s] subsequent layoff is not relevant to whether the violation
occurred. Also, while harmless errors may prevent the invalidation of a [B]oard’s
action, this does not address whether the board member violated the Act’s
prohibitions against conflicts of interest.
Id. at 12-13.
Consequently, and given her findings of fact and discussion of the applicable law, ALJ
Stokes concluded that Respondent’s “vote created a justifiable impression among the public that
[Respondent] used her official position as a board member to secure an unwarranted privilege or
advantage for her [child] in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). Id. at 13.
As for the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s violation, although the Commission
urges censure for Respondent’s violation, ALJ Stokes finds that the cases cited by the
Commission, namely I/M/O Michael Kilmurray, Docket No. C12-94 (February 24, 1998)
(Kilmurray), and I/M/O James Famularo, Docket No. C23-96 (February 24, 1998) (Famularo),
are “distinguishable from the violation committed by [Respondent].” Id. at 14. Unlike the
Respondents in Kilmurray and Famularo, Respondent’s vote was a single violation of the Act;

6
did not directly involve her child; she did not attempt to influence other board members, or make
comments to other Board members; and did not take direct and specific action to reward
someone with whom she had a personal connection and prior business relationship. Id. As a
result, and because there is no evidence that Respondent attempted to influence the vote and did
not engage in “more direct action” as involved in Kilmurray and Famularo, and because she
(Respondent) “believed the merit goals were contractual and that the [S]uperintendent’s contract
legally required the [Board] to pass on a resolution upon obtaining those goals,” ALJ Stokes
concludes that reprimand is appropriate. Id. 	at 15. Of note, although ALJ Stokes only
recommended a reprimand, she states, “even in seemingly ministerial matters, the level of
conduct expected of public officials must be such as to be beyond reproach.” Id.
With the above in mind, ALJ Stokes orders that Complainant’s motion for summary
decision is granted as to Respondent’s violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b); Respondent’s motion
for summary decision is denied; and Respondent is reprimanded for having violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b). Id.
III. 	Exceptions
As of July 27, 2021, neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed Exceptions to the Initial
Decision (On Remand), or otherwise requested an extension to file same.
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
ALJ Stokes’ findings of fact, and adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), “No school official shall use or attempt to use his
official position to secure unwarranted privileges, advantages or employment for himself,
members of his immediate family or others … .” By voting to approve a resolution concerning
the attainment of the Superintendent’s merit goals while (a) her child was employed in the
District and (b) the Superintendent had supervisory authority over her (Respondent’s) child, facts
which are not in dispute, the Commission wholeheartedly agrees that Respondent violated this
provision of the Act.
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), ALJ Stokes appropriately analyzed and
considered the legislative intent/purpose of the Act; the Commission’s previous decisions; as
well as the Commission’s advisory opinions which directly address the limitations on a board
member’s activities when s/he has an immediate family member(s) or relative(s) who is
employed by the Board on which s/he serves. In this regard, the Commission cannot emphasize
or underscore enough the fact that, as detailed in A24-17 and A07-18, established in previous
decisions, and affirmed by ALJ Stokes, board members who have an immediate family
member(s) or 	relative(s) employed in the district must always abstain from involvement in,
without limitation, any and all matters pertaining to the Superintendent. This direction is clear,
definitive, and unambiguous, and “any and all matters” is not conditional, or otherwise subject to
exception or interpretation, even for what could be described as involvement in “ministerial”

7
acts. Any level of involvement in any matter(s) involving the Superintendent while an immediate
family member(s) or relative(s) is employed in the district will, among other things, always
create a justifiable impression among the public that a board member is using, or attempting to
use, 	his/her 	position 	to 	secure 	an 	unwarranted 	privilege, 	advantage, 	or 	employment 	for
him/herself, 	a member 	of 	his/her 	immediately 	family, 	or 	an 	“other.” Moreover, 	and 	in
recognition of the legislative intent of the Act, no degree of latitude can be afforded when a
board of education member who is the subject of a complaint engages in such conduct, no matter
how trivial or ministerial such conduct may appear to the school official. As such, ALJ Stokes’
determination is entirely appropriate, and in line with the Commission’s advisory opinions and
decisions.
V. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the legal conclusion that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) when she voted on a matter concerning an individual
with the ultimate supervisory authority over her child, and her child’s continued employment in
the District.
VI. 	Penalty
Based upon the conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), ALJ Stokes
recommended a penalty of reprimand. Following its careful, thorough, and independent review
of the record, the Commission adopts the recommended penalty of reprimand. In adopting ALJ
Stokes’ recommended penalty, the Commission was primarily persuaded by the fact that the only
finding of a violation stemmed from Respondent’s one-time vote to approve a resolution
concerning the Superintendent’s attainment of a merit goal. As such, and based on the facts and
circumstances presented here, the Commission does not believe that Respondent’s one-time vote
on what may be regarded as a “ministerial” matter is worthy of a penalty more harsh than a
reprimand, especially for a board member who has served for nearly a decade without an
adjudication by the Commission that she previously violated the Act.
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.

8
Parties seeking to appeal the Commission’s finding of 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 from which the appeal is taken. 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 into the appellant’s briefs on appeal.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: August 30, 2021

9
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C45-19
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	February 	25, 	2020, 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission) voted to find probable cause to credit the allegation that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a plenary hearing; and
Whereas, following transmittal, the Honorable Nanci G. Stokes, Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ Stokes) issued an Initial Decision dated November 10, 2020; and
Whereas, at its meeting on January 26, 2021, the Commission voted to approve a
decision remanding the above-captioned matter to the OAL; and
Whereas, following remand, ALJ Stokes issued an Initial Decision (On Remand) dated
June 25, 2021; and
Whereas, in her Initial Decision (On Remand), ALJ Stokes found that Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and recommended that Respondent receive a reprimand; and
Whereas, at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, and discussed adopting ALJ Stokes’ findings of fact; adopting the legal conclusion that
Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(b); 	and 	adopting 	the 	recommended 	penalty 	of
reprimand; and
Whereas, at its special meeting on August 30, 2021, the Commission reviewed and voted
to approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting
on July 27, 2021; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Commission hereby adopts the within decision.
____________________________________
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that this Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission
at its special meeting on August 30, 2021.
________________________________
Kathryn A. Whalen, Director
School Ethics Commission