Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Thomas Cassio, Pio Pennisi, Doug Chapman, and William Seesselberg v. Debbie Boyle, Board of Education of the Borough of South Plainfield, Middlesex County, 11/02/2023, (#331-23SEC)

331-23SEC
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Thomas Cassio,
Pio 	Pennisi, 	Doug 	Chapman, 	and 	William
Seesselberg,
Complainants,
v.
Debbie 	Boyle, 	South 	Plainfield 	Board 	of
Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Complainants alleged, inter alia, that respondent, a member of the South Plainfield Board of
Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), 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(f), 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 when she, inter alia, sent an email that was critical of the
Superintendent to the Board as well as the Superintendent and her assistant, and directly
contacted high school band and chorus teachers to request that the marching band and chorus
perform at an event on behalf of an organization for which respondent serves as secretary. 	The
School 	Ethics 	Commission 	(SEC) 	determined 	that 	the 	respondent’s 	actions 	violated
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) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. 	The SEC recommended a penalty of
censure for these violations.
The case was forwarded to the Commissioner for a final determination of the appropriate
penalty 	in 	this 	matter. 	Upon 	review, 	the 	Commissioner 	concurred 	with 	the 	penalty
recommendation of the SEC for respondent’s actions. 	Accordingly, the respondent shall be
censured as a school official found to have violated the School Ethics Act.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of
the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

SEC Dkt. No. C86-21
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 03124-22
Agency Dkt. No. 260-9/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Thomas Cassio,
Pio Pennisi, Doug Chapman, and
William Seesselberg,
Complainants,
v.
Debbie Boyle, South Plainfield Board of
Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the September 26, 2023
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent Debbie Boyle, a member of the South Plainfield Board of Education (Board),
violated 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) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The Commission
recommended a penalty of censure for the violation. The Commission’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 Commission’s underlying finding
of violation.
331-23SEC

2
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the
Commission for respondent’s actions in bypassing the chain of the command and criticizing and
questioning district administrators.
Accordingly, the respondent is hereby censured as a school official found to have
violated 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.
November 2, 2023
November 3, 2023

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-03124-22
SEC Docket No.: C86-21
Final Decision
Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Thomas Cassio, Pio Pennisi, Doug Chapman,
and William Seesselberg,
Complainants
v.
Debbie Boyle,
South Plainfield Board of Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on November 24,
2021,1 by Jim Giannakis, Keith Both, Thomas Cassio, Pio Pennisi, Doug Chapman, and William
Seesselberg (collectively referred to as Complainants) alleging that Debbie 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. The Complaint avers that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(c) (Counts 1-2), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) (Counts 1-2), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)
(Counts 1-2), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) (Count 2), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) (Counts 1-2), and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) (Counts 1-2) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code).
At its meeting on March 22, 2022, and after reviewing Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss) and Complainants’ response thereto, the Commission
voted to grant the Motion to Dismiss as to the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) in Count 1; deny the Motion to Dismiss as
to the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1; and
to deny the Motion to Dismiss as to Count 2 (in its entirety). Based on its findings, the
Commission also voted to direct Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer), and to
transmit the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) following receipt of the Answer.
On 	April 	7, 	2022, 	Respondent 	filed 	an 	Answer 	as 	directed. 	The 	Commission
subsequently transmitted the matter to the OAL for a plenary hearing where Complainants would
carry the burden to prove the remaining violations of the Code as set forth in the Complaint.
1 On November 24, 2021, Complainants filed a deficient Complaint; however, on December 12, 2021,
Complainants cured all defects and filed an Amended Complaint that was deemed compliant with the
requirements detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.3.

2
At the OAL, a hearing was held on February 13 and 14, 2023. Thereafter, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision on July 17, 2023. Respondent filed
exceptions to the Initial Decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and Complainants filed
a reply thereto.
At its meeting on August 22, 2023, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on September 26, 2023, the Commission voted to modify the
Initial Decision by adopting the Initial Decision’s conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1 and 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 	Count 	2, 	adopting 	the 	Initial 	Decision’s
conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count 2, but rejecting the
Initial Decision’s conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count 1 and/or
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) in Count 2. The Commission also voted to adopt the recommended
penalty of censure.
II. 	Initial Decision
A. Count 1
In Count 1, Complainants allege that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when she sent an email that was critical of the Superintendent to the
entire Board, the Superintendent and the Superintendent’s assistant.
According to the testimony of Diana Joffe, the South Plainfield Education Association
(SPEA) President, in 2021, the Superintendent abruptly changed the time of the high school
graduation from evening to morning, which upset teachers who would no longer be able to
participate in the ceremony. Id. at 10. Joffe was not on speaking terms with the Superintendent,
so she testified that she called Respondent and asked her to speak with the Superintendent about
her concerns. Ibid. According to her testimony, Joffe had been told that the Superintendent
changed the time of graduation because her daughter’s graduation was scheduled for the same
time. Ibid.
Thereafter, in response to the Superintendent’s “Friday packet” containing information
about graduation, Respondent sent an email on May 28, 2021, to the Superintendent, the
Superintendent’s administrative assistant, and all Board members, which stated:
Good morning[.] I'm reading the notes with regards to the high
school graduation and Diane Joffe is the current SPEA president
not the former. Her discussion was that she was not concerned
about the time change[;] she was concerned that the reason for the
time change was not based on the needs of the parents and the
students but rather[,] for your own personal needs which she
discussed and the fact that the rationale was disingenuous. The
parents which [sic] have publicly stated and the students we’re
[sic] upset because of the abrupt change in time and [sic] speaking

3
to a number of board members[,] no one was informed except at
the bottom of the Friday packet information under events [sic]
various events were taking place and Middle School graduation
was put in there and so was the high school graduation. This was
never discussed with the entire board[.] [T]his is [sic] the issues
that came forward by parents and students. In any event[,] if you
have issues with the current acting SPEA president [D.J.] please
reach out to her to have that discussion. Thank you.
[Id. at 3-4.]
With respect to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), the ALJ found that Respondent did not violate
the provision because she did not issue the Superintendent a direct order in the May 28, 2021,
email. Initial Decision at 16. However, the ALJ found that Respondent did violate N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(d) when she had a private conversation with the SPEA President without notifying
the Board or Superintendent, and instead, Respondent should have directed Joffe to speak
directly with the Board President or the Superintendent or Respondent should have contacted the
Superintendent and Board before sending the May 28, 2021, email. Id. at 18.2
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the ALJ determined that Respondent
acted beyond the scope of her duties by allowing herself to be the messenger for the SPEA
president. Id. at 19. The ALJ noted Respondent should have persuaded the SPEA President to
bring her issues directly to the Superintendent. Ibid.
B. Count 2
In Count 2, Complainants allege that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c),
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(f), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(i), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) when she directly contacted the high school band and chorus
teachers to request that the marching band and choir perform at an event for the Plainfield
Chapter of UNICO, an Italian American Service Organization, of which Respondent is the
secretary.
On September 16, 2021, Respondent sent an email to the band teacher asking if the
marching band would play at the UNICO’s annual Columbus Day program as they had in the
past. Initial Decision at 4. Respondent sent the email from her personal email address and signed
it using her title as secretary of UNICO’s Plainfield Chapter. Ibid. When she did not get a
response, Respondent emailed the high school principal on September 27, 2021, inquiring about
the marching band’s participation in the Columbus Day program, again using her personal email.
Ibid. The principal responded and indicated that he would speak with the marching band teacher
about the request. Id. at 4-5. The next day, the principal informed Respondent that the marching
2 While the Order at the conclusion of the Initial Decision dismisses N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count 1,
the ALJ indicated in the Legal Discussion section of the Initial Decision that Respondent did violate
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count 1. Although the Order and the Legal Discussion are contradictory, the
Commission considers the findings in the ALJ’s Legal Discussion to be the ALJ’s intention.

4
band would not be able to attend the event. Id. at 5. On September 30, 2021, Respondent sent a
text message to the chorus teacher asking for a call back regarding the chorus participating in the
Columbus Day event. Exhibit R-20. The chorus teacher responded by text and indicated that the
principal “says that the choir and band are not doing the Columbus Day ceremony.” Ibid.
Respondent clarified that she was asking about the chorus, while her previous request had been
for the band. Respondent asked, “what is the reasoning that you are not going to be able to
participate when you have done this all these years and enjoyed it.” Exhibit R-21. The chorus
teacher reiterated, “I spoke to [the principal] about performing and unfortunately we are not
going to be able to participate this year.” Ibid.
The ALJ found it is undisputed that Respondent directly contacted District staff via email
and text and, although she contacted them from her personal accounts, she used information
obtained as a Board member (e.g., email addresses that were not on the District’s website), to
contact the staff. Id. at 20-21. The ALJ found Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) when
she acted outside the scope of her duties in bypassing the Superintendent and in sending
invitations directly to District staff. Id. at 21.
The ALJ explained Respondent requested clarification from the chorus teacher regarding
why the chorus could not perform at the Columbus Day ceremony in a text message because
Respondent had a friendship with the chorus teacher and had her personal cell phone number. Id.
at 22. According to the ALJ, Respondent put the chorus teacher in a “difficult position,” and
therefore, found that Respondent’s request for an explanation from a teaching staff member was
an inappropriate attempt to administer the schools in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d). Ibid.
Regarding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the ALJ contended Respondent placed
the chorus teacher in an “awkward” position when Respondent questioned the principal’s
directive and asked the chorus teacher to explain that decision, and such action potentially
compromised the Board’s integrity and implied that Respondent was acting on behalf of the
Board. Id. at 23. Therefore, the ALJ found that Respondent’s actions in using a staff member’s
personal cell phone to request that students participate in an outside activity, on behalf of an
outside organization, without clearly identifying Respondent’s role violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e). Ibid.
The ALJ further contended that although Respondent’s process for requesting that
students participate in the events was flawed, she did not use the schools for her personal gain or
for the gain of her friends because the invitation was ultimately rejected and the students did not
participate; therefore, the ALJ found that Complainants did not meet their burden to prove that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Id. at 23-24.
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), the Superintendent testified that despite prior
practice, in 2017 she established new protocol requiring Board members to contact her before
contacting staff, and Respondent’s emails and texts to the high school principal and staff were in
direct opposition to that directive. Id. at 24. In addition, Respondent was a “Master Board
Member” and received training, and therefore, her testimony that she was unaware of the
protocol was not credible, thus the ALJ found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
Ibid.

5
Finally, as to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j), the ALJ noted it was undisputed that
Respondent was unhappy that the marching band and choir were not going to participate in the
events and that Respondent requested an explanation. Id. at 25. According to the ALJ,
Respondent’s actions are “tantamount to initiating an investigation prior to administrative
action” and Respondent initiated an inquiry prior to the referral to the Superintendent; therefore,
the ALJ found Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j). Ibid.
C. Penalty
With respect to the appropriate penalty, the ALJ opined that Respondent’s actions were
not de minimis, but rather, a blatant disregard for the chain of communication, and a serious lack
of judgment. Therefore, as Respondent is no longer on the Board, the ALJ concluded that a
penalty of censure should be imposed. Ibid.
III. 	Exceptions
Respondent’s Exceptions
In 	her 	exceptions, 	Respondent 	asserts 	the 	ALJ 	erred 	when 	she 	determined 	that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1 by sending
the May 28, 2021, email. Respondent argues she was relaying a message to the Superintendent
and the Board regarding the concerns she obtained from the SPEA President. The ALJ suggests
that Respondent could have contacted the Superintendent and the Board prior to sending the
email, which Respondent argues is exactly what she did. According to Respondent, by sending
the email, she “relayed the SPEA President’s concerns to both the Superintendent and the
remaining Board [m]embers,” and as such, did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d). Respondent
maintains that the ALJ’s finding that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) is also incorrect.
According to Respondent, regardless of the reason the SPEA President shared her concerns with
Respondent rather than another Board member, Respondent was obligated to share that
information with the Superintendent and the Board. Respondent further maintains Complainants
did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that Respondent made any promises to the SPEA
President, and relaying 	information received 	from a friend is not 	beyond the scope of
Respondent’s duties.
Regarding 	the 	allegations 	in 	Count 	2 	as 	they 	relate 	to 	Respondent’s 	direct
communications with the band and chorus teachers, Respondent argues the ALJ erred when she
stated that the high school staff emails are not on the District’s website and that Respondent used
information that was available to her as a Board member, not a member of the public.
Respondent 	further 	argues 	Complainants 	did 	not 	provide 	any 	evidence 	to 	support 	that
Respondent contacted the District staff in her capacity as a Board member and contrary to the
ALJ’s determination, staff email contacts can be located on the website; therefore, a violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) cannot be sustained. As to her inquiry to the staff about why the chorus
could not attend the event, Respondent contends she requested whether the band and chorus
could attend the event and only received a response back about the band, not the chorus; hence,
she followed up with an inquiry related to the chorus’ availability. Respondent further contends

6
that the testimonies from the staff did not indicate that they “felt any pressure to comply with the
request” nor that Respondent was issuing an order. According to Respondent, Complainants did
not provide any evidence to demonstrate that Respondent obtained the chorus teacher’s phone
number in her role as a Board member, and therefore, a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)
should be dismissed. As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), Respondent asserts the record
does not reflect that she made any personal promises that would compromise the Board.
Respondent notes her requests were made as a private citizen, on behalf of an outside
organization, and none of the testimony supports the fact that Respondent was communicating
with the staff as a Board member. According to Respondent, the ALJ determined Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) because the Superintendent had established protocol regarding
submitting requests to the Superintendent to contact District staff back in 2017; however,
Respondent maintains Complainants did not submit any evidence of such a “written protocol.”
Finally, as to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j), Respondent reaffirms the ALJ erred when
she determined Respondent’s inquiry as to why the chorus and band could not participate at the
event was “tantamount to conducting an inquiry or investigation.” Respondent argues the ALJ
maintained that Respondent was acting in her capacity as a member of UNICO when she made
the request of the band/chorus as evidenced by the emails sent from her personal account.
Therefore, if the requests were made in her private capacity, Respondent contends it would only
stand to reason that any inquiries as to why the chorus could not perform were also made in the
same capacity, not as a Board member.
With the above in mind, Respondent asserts the Initial Decision should be rejected and
the Commission should find that she was not in violation of any provisions of the Code.
Complainants’ Reply to Respondent’s Exceptions
In their reply, Complainants note Respondent’s exceptions “mainly rely on the arguments
expressed in her original brief,” which is not an acceptable submission, and which have also
been previously considered by the ALJ before the Initial Decision was issued. Therefore,
because Respondent did not raise any new arguments and because, according to Complainants,
the ALJ’s decision is accurate and previously outlined and considered Respondent’s arguments
and reasoning, there “is nothing else for the Commission to consider,” and the Initial Decision
should be adopted.
IV. Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission agrees
with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1 and 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 Count
2, and also agrees with the ALJ that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count
2. However, the Commission disagrees with the ALJ and finds that Respondent did not violate
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count 1 and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) in Count 2. Nonetheless, the
Commission agrees with the ALJ’s recommended penalty of censure.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), board members must not administer the schools, but
instead see that they are well run. The Commission finds that Respondent’s May 28, 2021, email

7
neither gave a direct order to the Superintendent, nor was it an attempt to become directly
involved 	in 	the 	day-to-day 	administration 	of 	the 	District. 	The 	Commission 	agrees 	with
Respondent and notes that Respondent’s May 28, 2021, email was not a directive, but rather was
consistent with Respondent’s responsibility to refer a complaint to the chief school administrator.
As such, the Commission finds that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count
1.
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 or take any action that
may compromise the board. The Commission concurs that Respondent acted beyond the scope of
her duties as a Board member when she took it upon herself to make accusations against the
Superintendent that she was acting disingenuous and changed the time of graduation for personal
reasons. Respondent’s actions in undermining the Superintendent on an email that included the
Superintendent’s administrative assistant and the entire Board, by its nature, has the potential to
compromise the Board. As such, the Commission finds Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) in Count 1.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), board members must 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.” The Commission finds that in Count 2, while it
disagrees with Respondent’s actions in contacting the band and chorus teachers to request that
they participate at an event, rather than going through the proper channels, such action does not
constitute official action to effectuate policies and plans. Although Respondent circumvented the
process, her actions did not involve the implementation of policies or plans, and as such does not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c).
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), board members must carry out their responsibility not to
administer the schools, but see that they are well run. When Respondent sent a text message to
the chorus teacher questioning her as to why the chorus could not perform at the Columbus Day
event, Respondent inserted herself into activities that are the responsibility of school personnel
and well beyond the role of a secretary of an outside organization. Respondent claims she was
making the request as a UNICO secretary, but if such a claim were true, she would have had to
follow the proper protocol and make the request and direct any inquiries to the principal or
Superintendent as any member of the public would have to do. Instead, she questioned the
principal’s decision to his subordinate and was only presented with that opportunity because of
her role as a Board member. As such, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s
request for an explanation from a teaching staff member was an inappropriate attempt to
administer the schools in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).
According 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 or take any action
that may compromise the board. When Respondent solicited the band and chorus teachers
directly by email and/or text message to participate in the Columbus Day event, and then
questioned the chorus teacher by text message as to why the principal would not allow the chorus
to participate, she took action that could compromise the Board. Respondent was using
information that she had as a Board member to contact the band and chorus teachers, instead of

8
directing her inquiries and/or requesting an explanation from proper authorities, as any other
member of the public would be required to do. Although Respondent claims that she sent the
email from her personal email account and as the secretary for UNICO, and therefore, was not
making the request as a Board member, but for Respondent’s position as a Board member, she
would never have been able to contact the teachers directly, and as such, was acting beyond the
scope of her duties. Respondent, a Board member, did not follow the chain of command that is
required of any member of the public when making a request of District personnel, and further
challenged the administration’s decision-making to a teaching staff member. In doing so, it
appears that Respondent circumvented the principal’s authority, placed the chorus teacher in the
impossible situation of being in the middle of a Board member and the teacher’s direct
supervisor, and presented the appearance that Board members are in disagreement with the
administration, which compromises the Board. Accordingly, Respondent’s direct communication
with the band and chorus teachers, as well as her text message communication with the chorus
teacher challenging the principal’s determination that the chorus was unavailable to participate in
a private event, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) prohibits Board members from surrendering their judgment to
special interest or partisan political groups or using the schools for personal gain or for the gain
of friends. The Commission finds that Respondent did not use the schools for personal gain or
for that of friends as members of the public are permitted to follow protocol and submit requests
for the band and chorus to participate in a community event. The concern with Respondent’s
behavior was the way in which she communicated with staff members directly (rather than
following the established process) and questioned the principal’s determination, and not that she
was seeking for the band and chorus to participate in the Columbus Day event. Accordingly, the
Commission finds Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
According to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), Board members must support and protect school
personnel in the proper performance of their duties. The Superintendent testified that a protocol
was implemented in 2017 whereby Board members were to contact the Superintendent rather
than staff members. Contrary to the protocol, Respondent directly contacted the band teacher,
chorus teacher, and the principal. Such action violates the Superintendent’s directive and does
not support school personnel in the proper performance of their duties, in violation of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(i). While Respondent argues that a written copy of the protocol was not included in
evidence, the Commission notes that the Superintendent provided testimony on the protocol. The
ALJ also found Respondent’s testimony that she was unaware of the protocol not credible. The
Commission finds no basis to disturb the credibility findings of the ALJ, who had the
opportunity to observe and assess Respondent during her testimony. Additionally, Respondent’s
actions in questioning a teacher as to why the principal would not permit the chorus to perform at
an event also fails to support and protect the school personnel in the proper performance of their
duties, and places the chorus teacher in an uncomfortable situation where a Board member is
challenging the teacher’s direct supervisor, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
Finally, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) requires Board members to refer all complaints to the
chief administrative officer and act on complaints at public meetings only after the failure of an
administrative solution. The Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s actions in
sending a text message to the choir teacher requesting an explanation as to why the principal had

9
decided that the choir was unavailable for the Columbus Day event was “tantamount” to an
investigation prior to referral of the matter to the Superintendent. If Respondent was unhappy
with the principal’s decision that the band and choir were unavailable to participate in the event,
she should have addressed her concerns with the Superintendent rather than questioning a
teacher about the principal’s reasoning for the decision. As such, Respondent’s direct inquiries to
a district staff member regarding Respondent’s disagreement with the principal’s decision
without referring the matter to the Superintendent violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
The Commission further agrees with the ALJ that a censure is the appropriate penalty for
such a violation. Respondent’s actions violated five provisions of the Code, which demonstrates
the severity of her actions. As stated by the ALJ, “the blatant disregard for the chain of
communication, and blurred lines of professional and personal relationships evidences a serious
lack of judgment.” Initial Decision at 26. Respondent was a Board member for 15 years, serving
as President and Vice President. She also served as President of the Middlesex County Board of
Education for four years, and earned a Master Board Member designation from the New Jersey
School Boards Association. As a seasoned Board member who had undergone years of ethics
training, Respondent should have been well aware of her ethical obligations. The Commission
notes that as Respondent is no longer on the Board, it is limited to the issuance of a reprimand or
a censure, and it seeks to impose the more severe penalty of censure given the serious nature of
Respondents numerous violations of the Code.
IV. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission modifies the Initial Decision of
the 	OAL. 	Specifically, 	the 	Commission 	adopts 	the 	Initial 	Decision’s 	conclusions 	that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1; 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 Count 2; and did not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count 2. However, the Commission modifies the Initial
Decision to reject the conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in Count 1
and/or 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(c) 	in 	Count 	2. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Commission 	adopts 	the
recommended penalty of censure for the violations.
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

10
(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: September 26, 2023

11
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C86-21
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	March 	22, 	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 July 17,
2023; and
Whereas, the ALJ found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1, and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), 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 Count 2, but did not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count 2, and recommended that Respondent be censured; and
Whereas, Respondent filed exceptions to the Initial Decision and Complainants filed a
reply to Respondent’s exceptions; and
Whereas, at its meeting on August 22, 2023, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, and discussed adopting the ALJ’s conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) in Count 1, and 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 Count 2, but did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in
Count 2.
Whereas, at its meeting on August 22, 2023, the Commission also discussed modifying
the Initial Decision to reject conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) in
Count 1 and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) in Count 2, but adopting the penalty of censure; and
Whereas, at its meeting on September 26, 2023, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
August 22, 2023; 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
regularly scheduled meeting on September 26, 2023.
Brigid C. Martens, Acting Director
School Ethics Commission