Roger Chu, Christine Sheridan Celia, Christopher Dilkus, Regan Kaiden, Mary Saverino, Kate Setzer, and Sarah Sherman v. Meghan Mikulski, Collingswood Board of Education, Camden County, 6/2/26 (#194-26SEC)

194-26SEC
OAL Dkt. No. EEC-16994-25
SEC Dkt. No. C79-24
Agency Dkt. No. 164-04-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Roger Chu, Christine Sheridan Celia, Christopher
Dilkus, Regan Kaiden, Mary Saverino, Kate Setzer
and Sarah Sherman,
Complainants,
v.
Megan Mikulski, Collingswood Board of Education,
Camden County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the April 28, 2026 decision of the School Ethics Commission
(SEC). The SEC recommended that respondent Megan Mikulski, a member of the Collingswood Board of
Education, be reprimanded pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into by the parties in resolution
of complainants’ allegations that respondent violated the School Ethics Act.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby reprimanded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 2, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 3, 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-16994-25
SEC Docket No.: C79-24
Final Decision (Settlement)
Roger Chu, Christine Sheridan Celia, Chrisopher Dilkus, Regan Kaiden,
Mary Saverino, Kate Setzer and Sarah Sherman,
Complainants
v.
Meghan Mikulski,
Collingswood Board of Education, Camden County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on October 15, 2024,1 by Roger Chu, Christine Sheridan
Celia, Christopher Dilkus, Regan Kaiden, Mary Saverino, Kate Seltzer, and Sarah Sherman
(Complainants), alleging that Meghan Mikulski (Respondent), a member of the Collingswood
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(e),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) and 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 November 14, 2024.
At its meeting on July 22, 2025, and after reviewing the Complaint and the Written
Statement, the Commission adopted a decision finding that there were sufficient facts and
circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to
believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) were
violated as set forth in the Complaint, but insufficient facts and circumstances to lead a
reasonable person to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) were
violated as alleged in the Complaint. Based on its decision, the Commission also voted to
transmit 	the 	matter 	to 	the 	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Law 	(OAL) 	for 	a 	hearing, 	where
Complainants would carry the burden to prove that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
At the OAL, the parties agreed to amicably resolve the matter and, on or about January
29, 2026, the parties filed a fully executed settlement agreement. The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) issued an Initial Decision (Settlement) on February 6, 2026, which concluded that the
1 On September 30, 2024, Complainants filed a Complaint. On October 15, 2024, Complainants filed an
Amended Complaint with the Commission.

2
settlement agreement was voluntary, consistent with the law, and fully dispositive of all issues in
controversy between the parties, and should therefore, be approved.
At its meeting on March 24, 2026, the Commission reviewed the Initial Decision
(Settlement), and at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission voted to adopt the Initial
Decision (Settlement) as its Final Decision. However, the Commission also voted not to take a
position on the enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement. Additionally, the
Commission recommended that the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) impose a
penalty of reprimand, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement.
II. 	Analysis
In their fully executed settlement agreement, the parties set forth the terms of their
settlement. More specifically, the parties agreed, in relevant part, that Respondent will issue a
public apology to the Superintendent at the next scheduled Board meeting following approval of
the settlement, the wording of which will be shared with and approved by the Superintendent;
upon issuance of the public apology, Respondent will be eligible for appointments to committee
assignments; Complainant Chu will make a public statement at the next scheduled Board
meeting following approval of the settlement that the ethics charge has been resolved and that
Respondent has accepted a reprimand from the Commission; the parties have amicably agreed to
the settlement as to all claims set forth in the Amended Complaint and before the OAL; and the
parties agree that the appropriate discipline for those violations is the single action of issuing an
Order of Reprimand against Respondent and Respondent will accept the reprimand from the
Commission as a resolution of the ethics charge. Initial Decision (Settlement) (attachment).
After reviewing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, the ALJ found that the
settlement is voluntary, consistent with the law, and fully disposes of all issues in controversy
between the parties. Initial Decision (Settlement) at 2. Having concluded that the parties’
settlement agreement met the requirements of N.J.A.C. 1:1-19.1 and should be approved, the
ALJ incorporated the terms of the settlement into the Initial Decision. Ibid.
III. 	Decision
Following its review, the Commission does not find a reason why it should not defer to
the parties’ mutual decision to amicably resolve their dispute. As such, the Commission adopts
the Initial Decision (Settlement) as its Final Decision, but does not take a position on the
enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement. Accordingly, consistent with the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner impose
a penalty of reprimand.
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.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: April 28, 2026

3
Resolution Adopting Final Decision (Settlement)
in Connection with C79-24
Whereas, at its meeting on July 22, 2025, the School Ethics Commission (Commission)
voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a
hearing; and
Whereas, while at the OAL, the parties submitted a duly executed settlement agreement
to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for review; and
Whereas, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision on February 6, 2026, concluding that the
settlement met the requirements of N.J.A.C. 1:1-19.1 and should be approved; and
Whereas, at its meeting on March 24, 2026, the Commission considered the Initial
Decision and discussed adopting the Initial Decision as its Final Decision, but not taking a
position on the enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement; and
Whereas, at its meeting on March 24, 2026, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of reprimand, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement; and
Whereas, at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
March 24, 2026; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Commission hereby adopts the within decision as its
Final Decision, and directs its staff to notify all parties to this action of its decision herein.
____________________________________
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that this Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at
its meeting on April 28, 2026.
________________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission