Mervin Rose v. Ronnie McDowell, 11/29/2021, (#304-21SEC)

SEC Dkt. No. C78-20
Agency Dkt. No. 186-8/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Mervin Rose,
Complainant,
v.
Ronnie McDowell,
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(c) of the School Ethics Act when
he made a motion and voted to approve a request to use district facilities from an entity with which he
had a financial involvement. 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.
304-21SEC
November 29, 2021
December 1, 2021

Before the School Ethics Commission
Docket No.: C78-20
Final Decision
Summary Disposition
Mervin Rose,
Complainant
v.
Ronnie McDowell,
Township of Union Board of Education, Union County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
This matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on November 23, 2020, by Mervin
Rose (Complainant), alleging that Ronnie McDowell (Respondent), a member of the Township
of Union Board of Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21
et seq. More specifically, the Complaint avers that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
On November 23, 2020, the Complaint was served on Respondent, via electronic mail,
notifying 	him 	that 	charges 	were 	filed 	against 	him 	with 	the School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission), and advising that he had twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading.1 On
December 10, 2020, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to
Dismiss), and Complainant filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss on December 14, 2020.
At its meeting on March 23, 2021, the Commission adopted a decision denying
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Based on its decision, the Commission directed
Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer) and, on April 12, 2021, Respondent filed
an Answer as directed.
Thereafter, and at its meeting on May 25, 2021, the Commission voted to find 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, within twenty (20) days, a statement 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 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
1 Due to the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, service of process was effectuated by the
Commission through electronic transmission only.

2
submission of his statement, the Commission may make a determination of a violation on a
summary basis.
Despite the directive in the Commission’s May 25, 2021, Probable Cause Notice and
Notice of Summary Decision, as well as follow-up/reminder correspondence dated June 16, 2021,
and July 1, 2021, Respondent failed to submit a written statement to the Commission for
consideration.2, 3
Consequently, at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the Commission reviewed the record in
this matter and, at its special meeting on August 30, 2021, the Commission voted to find that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and to recommend a penalty of reprimand for
Respondent’s violation of the Act.
II. 	Summary of the Record
Respondent has served as a member of the Board “since January 3, 2019,” and served a
previous term “from 2015 to 2017.” Complaint at ¶ 1-2, page 1. Respondent has filed
Personal/Relative 	and 	Financial 	Disclosure 	Statements 	(Disclosure 	Statements) 	with 	the
Commission for each year he has served as a member of the Board. Complaint at ¶ 3, page 1. In
response to Question #2 on the “Financial Disclosure Statements” section of his Disclosure
Statements,4 Respondent has consistently disclosed “First Baptist Church of Vauxhall” as a
“source.” Complaint at ¶ 4, page 1; Exhibit A. Complainant submits that the basis for
Respondent’s disclosure of “First Baptist Church of Vauxhall” as a “source” is because he
(Respondent) is “a well-known deacon at [First Baptist Church of Vauxhall (First Baptist)] and
thereby serves as an ordained minister and subordinate officer of that church.” Complaint at page
3. Despite his relationship to First Baptist Church of Vauxhall, at the Board’s meeting on
September 15, 2020, Respondent “moved and then voted to approve a request” from First Baptist
Church of Vauxhall to use the Township of Union School District’s (District) facilities.
Complaint at ¶6, page 1.
Because Respondent is a “well-known deacon at First Baptist [Church of Vauxhall],” and
annually receives “feels/honorariums or gifts/reimbursements or prepaid expenses having an
aggregate amount exceeding $250[.00],” Complainant argues that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(c) when he moved and then voted to approve its (First Baptist Church of Vauxhall’s)
request to use the District’s facilities. According to Complainant, “[t]here exists a relationship
2 At the Commission’s meeting on July 27, 2021, Respondent appeared by telephone and offered public
comments in defense of his alleged violation of the Act. More detailed information regarding the
substance of Respondent’s public comments can be found in the public minutes from the Commission’s
meeting on July 27, 2021.
3 The Commission notes that, despite the offering of public comments at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the
Commission’s review of this matter on summary disposition was limited to the written record.
4 	Question 	#2 	states, 	“List 	the 	name 	and 	address 	of 	each 	source 	of fees/honorariums 	or
gifts/reimbursements or prepaid expenses having an aggregate amount exceeding $250 from any single
source, excluding relatives, received by you or an immediate family member. Be sure to list any
reimbursement received from the district or charter school for such things as conference attendance,
tuition/dues reimbursement, personal appearances, speeches, or writing.”

3
that 	directly 	affects 	the 	Respondent, 	creating 	a 	direct 	financial 	involvement 	that 	might
reasonably be expected to impair … Respondent’s objectivity by a reasonable member of the
public.”
In his Motion to Dismiss, Respondent admitted that the following from the Complaint are
“true statements.”
 	“1. [Respondent] is a … member of the … Board … since January 3, 2019.”
 	“2. Respondent also served on the Board from 2015 to 2017 and was [P]resident of
the Board in 2017.”
 	“3. Respondent filed and certified [Disclosure Statements] in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
2019, and 2020 with the Commission.”
 	“5. Respondent is a deacon at First Baptist [Church of Vauxhall].”
Motion to Dismiss at page 1.
However, Respondent denies that, as a Deacon at First Baptist Church of Vauxhall, he
receives any financial remuneration whatsoever. Motion to Dismiss at page 1-2. Instead, it is
because of his volunteer work/service as an “unpaid Treasurer/bookkeeper and van driver” that
First 	Baptist 	Church 	of 	Vauxhall 	gives 	Respondent 	“a 	once-a-year 	honorarium/gift 	of
$2,000.[00].” Motion to Dismiss at page 2. Respondent denies that the once-a-year honorarium
creates a direct or indirect financial involvement between he and First Baptist Church of
Vauxhall; maintains the honorarium is a token of appreciation; denies that his receipt of such a
“small” honorarium/gift could reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence
of judgment; and denies that First Baptist Church of Vauxhall is a “business organization.”
Motion to Dismiss at page 2.
Although Respondent admitted that “it may have been more prudent … to err on the side
of caution and not make the motion or vote” to approve the First Baptist Church of Vauxhall’s
request to use the District’s facilities, Respondent maintains that his Board action did not violate
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). Motion to Dismiss at page 3.
In his response to the Motion to Dismiss, Complainant reaffirmed the factual assertions in
his Complaint, as well as the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). See generally, Response
to the Motion to Dismiss. Complainant also advised the Commission that, in a voicemail message
to him from Respondent, he (Respondent) purportedly acknowledged the legitimacy of the
Complaint because he stated to Complainant, “I do see your point.” Response to the Motion to
Dismiss at page 2; Exhibit D.
In his Answer, which was submitted following the Commission’s denial of his Motion to
Dismiss, Respondent stated, “The error [he] made was not allowing for another Board member to
make the motion” to approve the request to use the District’s facilities. Answer at page 1.
Regardless of whether he made the motion, Respondent notes, “In any case the motion would
have been made and approved, which was indicated by its unanimous approval.” Answer at page
1-2. It is Respondent’s belief that Complainant filed the within matter “to create fodder for a
negative ad campaign in the upcoming 2021 Board of Education election, in which …

4
Respondent [is] running.” Answer at page 2. Respondent concluded by stating, “I am an honest
and forthright person who has faithfully served his family, his community, and his school district
in the hope of making each better. I am certainly not doing this for money!” Answer at page 2.
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 his most recent term of service began
on January 3, 2019. Complaint at ¶ 1, page 1; Motion to Dismiss at page 1.
2. 	As a member of a public board of education in the State of New Jersey,
Respondent is a school official within the meaning of the Act. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23.
3. 	As a school official, Respondent is required to complete and submit Disclosure
Statements to the Commission on an annual basis. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26.
4. 	In each of his filings with the Commission, Respondent disclosed that he received
“fees/honorariums or gifts/reimbursements or prepaid expenses having an aggregate amount
exceeding $250.[00]” from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall. Complaint at ¶ 4, page 1; Exhibit
A.
5. 	Respondent receives an annual honorarium from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall
in the amount of $2,000.00. Motion to Dismiss at page 2.
6. 	Respondent receives an annual honorarium from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall
in connection with volunteer services he provides as “unpaid Treasurer/bookkeeper and van
driver.” Motion to Dismiss at page 2.
7. 	Respondent is also a Deacon at First Baptist Church of Vauxhall, but does not
receive any financial remuneration for this work. Motion to Dismiss at page 1-2.
8. 	At the Board’s meeting on September 15, 2020, Respondent “moved and then
voted to approve a request” from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall to use the District’s facilities.
Complaint at ¶6, page 1; Motion to Dismiss at page 3.
IV. 	Analysis and Conclusions of Law
The facts in this matter are simple, and straightforward: Respondent is a Board member;
his Disclosure Statements, including his most recent filing, consistently indicate that he receives
an honorarium from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall of at least $250.00; Respondent actually
receives an annual honorarium of $2,000.00 from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall in connection
with volunteer services he performs; and at a Board meeting on September 15, 2020, Respondent
moved and then voted to approve First Baptist Church of Vauxhall’s request to use the District’s
facilities. All of these facts are undisputed.

5
The only issue is whether Respondent’s Board action, namely moving and then voting to
approve the use of facilities request submitted by First Baptist Church of Vauxhall to the Board,
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). Respondent denies that his receipt of an annual honorarium from
First Baptist Church of Vauxhall creates the necessary “direct or indirect financial involvement,”
and further denies that his receipt of such a “small” honorarium could reasonably be expected to
impair his objectivity or independence of judgment. Respondent also maintains that his “only
error” was making the motion to approve the facilities use request because, thereafter, it was
unanimously approved by the Board.
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.
… .
With the above in mind, the Commission finds that because Respondent regularly
receives an honorarium of $2,000.00 from First Baptist Church of Vauxhall, he unequivocally
has a direct or indirect financial involvement with any and all matters related to First Baptist
Church of Vauxhall. It is certainly reasonable for any member of the public to believe that
Respondent’s objectivity or independence of judgment would be impaired when reviewing any
matter(s) or request(s) from an entity that regularly pays him thousands of dollars. Although
Respondent may quantify $2,000.00 as “small,” the Commission finds this amount of money to
be significant. The fact that the Act requires school officials to disclose any source that provides
fees or honorariums greater than $250.00 only underscores the significant nature of a $2,000.00
annual honorarium.
In addition, the Commission disagrees that Respondent’s only “error” was making a
motion to approve the request to use the District’s facilities. Not only was it inappropriate, and
violative of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) for Respondent to have made the motion, it was also
inappropriate, and similarly violative of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), for Respondent to have approved
the request to use the District’s facilities. When a school official, such as Respondent, has a
direct or indirect financial involvement in an entity, the only course of action is to refrain from

6
involvement in any and all discussions and votes concerning that entity, regardless of the subject
matter. Failure to do so will, as here, result in a finding of a violation of the Act.
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 moved and then voted to approve the request of First
Baptist Church of Vauxhall to use the District’s facilities.
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 does not believe that Respondent acted deliberately
or intentionally, but rather under a false belief that his conduct was appropriate. The Commission
also appreciated that Respondent, at least in part, acknowledged that his conduct was not the
most prudent. Although Respondent ascribes a nefarious intent to the filing of the within matter,
and submits that it was filed to create fodder in connection with Respondent’s bid for re-election,
such beliefs are irrelevant, especially when, as here, a violation is substantiated.
To be clear, the Commission’s finding of a violation and a recommended penalty of
reprimand is not a determination that Respondent is somehow unfit or unqualified to serve as a
Board member. Instead, it 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.
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).
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

7
(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 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

8
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C78-20
Whereas, at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the School Ethics Commission (Commission)
considered the entirety of the record in this matter; and
Whereas, at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the Commission discussed finding a violation
of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); and
Whereas, at its meeting on July 27, 2021, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of reprimand for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); 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, 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 special meeting on August 30, 2021.
_____________________________
Kathryn A. Whalen, Director
School Ethics Commission