Pio Pennisi, Thomas Cassio, Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Divon Pender, John Farinella, and William Seesselberg v. Deborah Boyle, South Plainfield Board of Education, Middlesex County, 1/16/26 (#17-26SEC)

17-26SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C82-22
OAL DKt. No. EEC 09539-22
Agency Dkt. No. 407-11/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Pio Pennisi, Thomas Cassio, Jim Giannakis, Keith
Both, Divon Pender, John Farinella, and William
Seesselberg,
Complainants,
v.
Deborah 	Boyle, 	South 	Plainfield 	Board 	of
Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the November 25, 2025
decision of the School Ethics Commission (SEC). The SEC found that respondent Deborah Boyle,
a member of the South Plainfield Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) of the School Ethics
Act (Act). The SEC recommended a penalty of censure 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.

2
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC for
respondent’s actions. Accordingly, respondent is hereby censured as a school official found to
have violated the Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 16, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 20, 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
OAL Docket No.: EEC 09539-22
SEC Docket No.: C82-22
Final Decision
Pio Pennisi, Thomas Cassio, Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Divon Pender, John Farinella,
and William Seesselberg,
Complainants
v.
Deborah Boyle,
South Plainfield Board of Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
This matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School Ethics Commission
(Commission) on August 23, 2022, by Pio Pennisi, Thomas Cassio, Jim Giannakis, Keith Both,
Divon 	Pender, 	John 	Farinella, 	William 	Seesselberg, 	and 	Noreen 	Tansey 	Lishak1
(Complainants), alleging that Deborah Boyle (Respondent), a member of the South Plainfield
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:12-24.1(c),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members (Code) stemming from allegations that Respondent shared
confidential Board documents with an individual, Robert C. Diehl (Diehl), who had filed a
lawsuit against the Board and Superintendent for age discrimination.
On September 16, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint. At a special
meeting on October 17, 2022, the Commission adopted a letter decision transmitting the matter
to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
At the OAL, following several days of hearings, Complainants served subpoenas on
Diehl and his attorney, Robert A. Diehl (Attorney Diehl), seeking testimony. Diehl and Attorney
Diehl filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted
by Order dated December 28, 2023. On January 5, 2024, Complainants filed a request for
interlocutory review with the Commission, and at a special meeting on February 13, 2024, the
Commission adopted a decision modifying the ALJ’s Order and finding that the motion to quash
the subpoena for Attorney Diehl was granted, but the motion to quash the subpoena for Diehl
1 Superintendent Noreen Tansey Lishak was listed as a Complainant on the Complaint in this matter, but
it appears her name was inadvertently omitted from the transmittal of the file to the Office of
Administrative Law.

2
was denied. Thereafter, another day of hearing was held, in which Diehl testified, and the record
closed on July 22, 2025.2
On August 29, 2025, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision finding that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(i), and recommending a penalty of reprimand. The parties did not file exceptions to the
Initial Decision.
At its meeting on October 28, 2025, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on November 25, 2025, the Commission voted to adopt the
Initial Decision’s factual findings, and the legal conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i),
but voted to modify the recommended penalty to a censure.
II. 	Initial Decision
Based on documentary evidence and witness testimony, the ALJ issued the following
findings of fact:
• 	Diehl was an administrator (vice principal) serving as the Interim High School Principal
when he applied for the permanent position.
• 	After being denied the principal’s position, Diehl brought an age discrimination action
against the Board and the Superintendent.
• 	On June 23, 2022, Attorney Diehl sent a letter to the Board’s insurance counsel, which
indicated that Respondent “hand delivered” a package to Diehl’s home.
• 	In response to questioning from Board counsel regarding the 20-pages of documents that
Attorney Diehl advised Respondent hand delivered to Diehl, Respondent stated, “Please
be advised that I have never hand delivered documents to Mr. Bob Diehl.”
• 	Attorney Diehl clarified that his letter did not “make any representation that [Respondent]
personally handed any such documents to my client, to the extent that your letter
suggested that I made such representation.” Attorney Diehl noted that the documents
“appeared at his [client’s] home without postage in the handwritten envelope.”
• 	On July 7, 2022, Attorney Diehl sent a similar letter of clarification to another attorney
for the District.
• 	Complainants alleged these documents were privileged and 	contained confidential
attorney-client communications, and by delivering these documents to Diehl, Respondent
willingly disseminated confidential and privileged information without the approval of
the Board.
• 	Respondent acknowledged in her testimony that one of the documents contained in the
package received by Diehl contained her handwriting, and that the packet of documents is
the same documents that she transferred from her Board email and printed from her home
2 After the submission of closing statements and supplemental briefing, the ALJ remanded the matter to
the Commission on April 11, 2025, on a procedural issue. The Commission issued a resolution on June
17, 2025, clarifying the matter, and returning the matter to the OAL.

3
computer. However, Respondent testified that she created the legal file after a lawsuit
was filed against the Board and Superintendent regarding an incident on a school bus,
and Board counsel requested the documents in response to discovery. Therefore, she left
them at the Business Administrator’s (BA) seat at a Board meeting, and then “never saw
them again.”
• 	The Superintendent testified that Respondent indicated she forwarded the documents
from her Board email address to her personal email address, printed them, and gave them
to her personal attorney, but she did not recall Respondent saying anything about giving
the documents to the BA.
• 	The BA recalled Respondent saying that she sent the documents to her personal email so
that she could print them out and give them to her personal attorney. The BA was not
aware whether Respondent actually gave her attorney the documents, but testified that
Respondent did not say that she gave the documents to him.
• 	The assistant to the BA testified that she also recalled Respondent stating that she
provided the documents to her attorney, but did not state that she provided them to the
BA.
• 	Respondent’s attorney testified that he could not recall having received the documents,
and he could not locate them in the file system that he typically uses.
• 	Diehl testified that he believed the documents were from Respondent because she shared
with him that she supported his age discrimination case, and when he opened the
package, he saw Respondent’s name on it. Respondent further testified that he had no
firsthand knowledge of how the documents ended up outside his home.
Initial Decision at 4-12.
As to witness credibility, the ALJ found that the “[w]itnesses for the Board provided
clear testimony as to their view on how the package of confidential Board documents ended up
on the driveway of the former vice principal” who had a lawsuit against the Superintendent and
the Board, while Respondent’s testimony was “inconsistent,” and the inconsistencies “negatively
affect[ed] the believability of her testimony.” Id. at 12-13.
The ALJ noted that “[i]n addition to the evidence and testimony, the chain of custody of
the documentation demonstrates that [Respondent] was the source of the documents contained in
the package that arrived on Robert C. Diehl’s driveway.” Id. at 14. The ALJ further noted,
despite Respondent’s testimony that she did not hand deliver the documents, “she acknowledged
that she had transferred the documents contained in the package from her Board email account to
her personal email account, and printed them.” Ibid. The ALJ found that “under these facts, it has
been demonstrated that the package was not ‘handed’ to Robert C. Diehl; it was found on his
driveway.” Ibid. With the above in mind, the ALJ found that Respondent “caused confidential
and privileged communications between the Board and its attorney, as well as other confidential
records, including personnel records related to [the Superintendent’s] workplace complaint and
the findings of the investigation, to be disclosed to a third party without Board approval.” Ibid.
As to the alleged Code violations, the ALJ stated that Respondent “disclosed confidential
attorney-client communications of the Board and confidential personnel information related to

4
[the 	Superintendent] 	to 	an 	individual 	who 	was 	actively 	suing 	the 	Board 	and 	the
[S]uperintendent.” Id. at 17. The ALJ further stated the documents that Respondent disclosed
were provided to her in connection with her role as a Board member. Ibid. As such, the ALJ
concluded there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Respondent disclosed confidential
attorney-client communications of the Board and confidential personnel information, which were
unrelated to her duties as a Board member, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c). Ibid. The
ALJ further concluded that Respondent’s conduct in disclosing confidential information to an
individual who was in litigation with the Board had the potential to compromise the Board
because “the information could have been used to support the individual’s position in the lawsuit
to the detriment of the Board” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Id. at 18. The ALJ also
concluded that Respondent’s disclosure of confidential information violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(g). Id. at 19. Finally, the ALJ concluded that Respondent was “privy to the information due
to her position as a Board member, and by her actions she took affirmative steps to negatively
impact” the Superintendent and the Board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i). Ibid.
As to the appropriate sanction, the ALJ concluded that because Respondent is no longer
on the Board, a penalty of reprimand is warranted. Ibid.
III. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
the ALJ’s findings of fact and the legal conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), but
modifies the recommended penalty of reprimand to a censure.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) requires that board members must their confine board action to
“policy making, planning, and appraisal” and “frame policies and plans only after the board has
consulted those who will be affected by them.” Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), factual
evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) shall include evidence that Respondent took
official action to effectuate policies and plans without consulting those affected by such policies
and plans, or took action that was unrelated to the respondent’s duty to (1) develop the general
rules and principles that guide the management of the school district; (2) formulate the programs
and methods to effectuate the goals of the school district; or (3) ascertain the value or liability of
a policy. The Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s actions in sharing confidential
information that she only has access to due to her Board membership is action unrelated to her
duties of policy making, planning, and appraisal, and as such, is a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(c).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), a board member must recognize that authority rests
with the board and a board member shall not make any personal promises nor take any private
action that may compromise the board. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), factual
evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) shall include evidence that Respondent made
personal promises or took action beyond the scope of her duties such that, by its nature, had the
potential to compromise the board. The Commission finds that when Respondent disclosed
confidential information to an individual who had a lawsuit against the Board and the

5
Superintendent, her actions had the potential to compromise the Board as she was attempting to
assist the individual in his lawsuit, which could harm the Board’s position. Accordingly, the
Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s actions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) requires a board member to hold confidential all matters
pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the schools,
and also to provide accurate information. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), factual evidence of
a violation of the confidentiality provision of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) shall include evidence that
Respondent took action to make public, reveal or disclose information that was not public under
any laws, regulations or court orders of this State, or information that was otherwise confidential
in accordance with board policies, procedures or practices. 	It has been established that
Respondent 	disclosed 	confidential 	information, 	including 	attorney-client 	communications
between the Board and its attorney, as well as personnel records related to the Superintendent’s
workplace complaint and findings of the investigation. The Commission finds that such records
were confidential, and the disclosure could needlessly injure the Superintendent and/or school in
its lawsuit. Therefore, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(g).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) requires a board member to support and protect school personnel
in the proper performance of their duties. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), factual
evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) shall include evidence that Respondent took
deliberate action which resulted in undermining, opposing, compromising or harming school
personnel 	in 	the 	proper 	performance 	of 	their 	duties. 	The 	Commission 	finds 	that 	when
Respondent disclosed confidential information, including information about the Superintendent’s
workplace complaint, to an individual who has a lawsuit against the Superintendent and the
Board, she took deliberate action to undermine the Superintendent in the performance of her
duties. Thus, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(i).
As to the appropriate penalty, the Commission recommends a penalty of censure for
Respondent’s violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) because that is the maximum penalty it can impose on
Respondent, who is no longer on the Board. However, the Commission notes that if Respondent
were still on the Board, it would have recommended a much higher penalty, as Respondent’s
actions were completely inappropriate and in direct contravention of her duties to the Board.
Respondent not only disclosed confidential information, but she deliberately provided that
information to help a former employee in his lawsuit against the Board and Superintendent.
Board members are privy to confidential information, and it is fundamental that they can be
trusted to keep such information private. Respondent violated that trust, and did so to the
detriment of the Board, the very entity she should be protecting. Additionally, the Commission
notes that this is not Respondent’s first violation of the Act; she was previously censured for
violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) in Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Thomas Cassio, Pio Pennisi, Doug
Chapman and William Seesselberg v. Debbie Boyle, South Plainfield Board of Education,
Middlesex County, C86-21 (July 17, 2023). Accordingly, as Respondent is no longer on the
Board, the Commission is constrained to recommend a penalty of censure.

6
IV. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the Initial Decision’s
findings of fact and the legal conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), but modifies the
recommended penalty to a censure.
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 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 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: November 25, 2025

7
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C82-22
Whereas, at its special meeting on October 17, 2022, the School Ethics Commission
(Commission) voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a plenary hearing; and
Whereas, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision dated August
29, 2025; and
Whereas, the ALJ found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), and recommended a
penalty of reprimand; and
Whereas, the parties did not file exceptions to the Initial Decision; and
Whereas, at its meeting on October 28, 2025, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, and discussed adopting the ALJ’s findings of fact and the legal conclusions that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)
and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), but modifying the recommended penalty to a censure; and
Whereas, at its meeting on November 25, 2025, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
October 28, 2025; 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 meeting on November 25, 2025.
________________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission