James Lynch v. Michael Skowronski, East Greenwich Township Board of Education, Gloucester County, 12/15/2020, (#284-20SEC)

1
284-20SEC
SEC Dkt No. C09-19 (SEC decision: https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/ethics/2020/docs/C09-19.pdf)
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 10213-19
Agency Dkt. No. 4-6/20A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
James J. Lynch,
Complainant,
v.
Michael Skowronski, East Greenwich
Township Board of Education,
Gloucester County,
Appellant.
This matter involves an appeal of the School Ethics Commission’s (Commission)
May 19, 2020 decision that appellant Michael Skowronski, a member of the East Greenwich
Township Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) of the Code of Ethics for
School Board Members (Code) when he sent an email to his fellow Board members that included
confidential information and, due to the use of the “reply all” function, copied a member of the
public on the email. Having carefully reviewed the Commission’s decision and the record in its
entirety, the Commissioner finds that the Commission’s decision is supported by sufficient,
credible evidence, and that appellant failed to establish that the decision is arbitrary, capricious,
or contrary to law. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1.1(a).
The complaint in this matter alleged that appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) when he emailed confidential information to a parent of

2
students in the district, who was also employed by the Board as a teacher. The parent had made
a complaint against Dr. James Lynch, who was the district’s superintendent. 	The Board
president emailed the parent and the members of the Board, expressing support for Dr. Lynch.
Appellant replied to the email, raising issues for his fellow Board members to consider related to
the handling of the parent’s complaint; appellant used the “reply all” function, such that the
parent also received the email.
The Commission dismissed the allegation that appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(a) and transmitted the remainder of the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Dr. Lynch failed to
prove that appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). 	In its May 19, 2020, decision, the
Commission adopted the ALJ’s factual findings but rejected his legal conclusions. 	The
Commission found that Appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and recommended a penalty
of reprimand.
In his appeal and exceptions, appellant argues that the Commission erroneously
concluded that the information in the email was confidential. 	According to appellant, neither
Dr. Lynch nor the Commission identified any authority making the disclosed information
confidential. Appellant contends that nothing in the email disclosed anything about the Board’s
discussion of the parent’s complaint during executive session, and, even if it had, that
information was no longer confidential because the Board had previously disclosed it to the
parent, thereby waiving any privilege. 	Furthermore, appellant argues that the email did not
contain any opinion, analysis, or even comment on the parent’s complaint. Appellant notes that
the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et seq., and its interpreting case law hold that
discussions and deliberations are open to the public unless an exception applies – there is no

3
blanket confidentiality. 	Additionally, appellant asserts that a Board member is entitled to
express an opinion disagreeing with the actions of the Board. Appellant disagrees that the email
constituted a personnel discussion about Dr. Lynch, and he reiterates that personnel discussions
are not under a blanket rule of confidentiality. Appellant also contends that the plain language of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) requires that the disclosure “needlessly injure individuals or the
schools” and that no such injury was proven.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Commission’s conclusion that the
appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). While appellant focuses his argument on the fact that
the information contained in the email did not derive from executive session, nothing in the
statute or regulation requires that the information derive from executive session in order to be
confidential.1 	The plain language of the regulation provides that a violation occurs when
“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” is disclosed. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(7).
In analyzing the confidentiality of the information contained in appellant’s email,
the Commissioner finds the case law surrounding the deliberative process privilege to be
instructive. 	The deliberative process privilege may be invoked to protect information or
documents from disclosure when “the information sought is part of the process leading to
formulation of an agency’s policy decision” and it has the “ability to reflect or to expose the
deliberative aspects of that process.” Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., 198 N.J. 274, 295
(2009). 	Appellant’s email bears all the hallmarks of deliberative material. 	First, it is pre-
1 The ALJ also incorrectly focused on the issue of closed session. 	Specifically, the ALJ found that appellant’s
statement that the Board should be nervous about safety, discrimination, and harassment complaints did not
reference any discussions by the Board in closed session, and thus concluded that the information was not
confidential. The ALJ did not consider other ways in which that information might be confidential.

4
decisional. 	See id. at 286. 	The Board had just received an email from a parent regarding a
complaint against Dr. Lynch and, other than the pleasantry of thanking the parent for her email,
the Board had not yet decided how to respond. 	Second, appellant’s email is deliberative in
nature. See id. at 295. Appellant argues that his email did not contain any opinion, analysis, or
comment other than identifying the parent’s complaints, but the Commissioner does not find this
argument to be persuasive. 	Appellant expressed concern that mishandling the complaint could
put the Board and its stakeholders at risk, recommended that the Board issue a Rice notice, and
opined on the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities. As the Commission correctly concluded, these
types of tentative thoughts, suggestions, and questions are part and parcel of the Board’s overall
deliberative process.
Furthermore, disclosure of such material needlessly injures the schools.2 	The
deliberative process privilege is intended to benefit the public by allowing for candor in internal
deliberations, which improves the decision-making process. 	Id. at 286. 	The exposure of the
Board’s decision-making process negatively impacts that process. This factor alone is sufficient
to demonstrate the requisite injury. Moreover, following her receipt of the email, the parent who
had filed the complaint was privy to appellant’s opinion that the Board had possible legal
exposure, information that could have influenced her actions moving forward – another needless
injury.
The Commissioner also concurs with the Commission that a reprimand is the
appropriate penalty. In Fleres v. Zhong, (SEC Dkt. No. C17-18, May 2, 2019), the Commission
2 The Commission’s decision indicates that N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(7) does not require proof of a specific level of
injury, but also concludes that the appellant’s disclosure needlessly injured Dr. Lynch. As a point of clarification,
the Commissioner notes that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) does require that the disclosure needlessly injure individuals
or the schools. See also Messner v. Gray, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 703, *6 (App. Div. Mar. 31, 2016).
However, as the Commissioner finds a needless injury to the schools, this statutory requirement has been satisfied.

5
censured a Board member who deliberately disclosed confidential information about a student.
Here, the disclosure was inadvertent, and there is no evidence that the parent did anything with
the information she received, nor did the disclosure result in any adverse consequences to
Dr. Lynch or the Board. Accordingly, a reprimand is appropriate.
Accordingly, appellant is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have
violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December15, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	December 15, 2020
3 This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).