Lisa Strutin, Mary Renaud, Craig Green, Abigail Christmann, Harriett Gaddy, and Stephen Bienko v. Lisa A. Moyer, Allmuchy Township Board of Education, Warren County, 4/11/2024, (#161-24SEC)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

161-24SEC
New Jersey Commissioner of Education

Final Decision

Lisa Strutin, Mary Renaud, Craig Green,
Abigail Christmann, Harriett Gaddy, and
Stephen Bienko,

Complainants,

Lisa Moyer, Allamuchy Township Board
of Education, Warren County,

Respondent.

Synopsis

Complainants alleged, inter alia, that respondent Lisa Moyer, a member of the Allamuchy
Township Board of Education (Board), violated several sections of the School Ethics Act (Act),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq., when she used her Board position to attempt to reverse a
harassment, intimidation, and bullying determination made by the Board against her child.
Following a full review of the matter, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) determined that the
respondent’s actions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members and recommended a penalty of reprimand.

The case was forwarded to the Commissioner for final determination of the appropriate penalty
in this matter. Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the penalty recommendation of
the SEC. Accordingly, the respondent shall be reprimanded 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.

161-24SEC
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 11079-22
SEC Dkt. No. C24-22
Agency Dkt. No. 45-2/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lisa Strutin, Mary Renaud, Craig Green,
Abigail Christmann, Harriett Gaddy, and
Stephen Bienko,
Complainants,
v.
Lisa Moyer, Allamuchy Township Board
of Education, Warren County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the February 27, 2024
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent Lisa Moyer, a member of the Allamuchy Township Board of Education (Board),
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the
School Ethics Act. The Commission recommended a penalty of reprimand 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.

2
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the
Commission for respondent’s actions in using her Board position to attempt to reverse a
harassment, intimidation, and bullying determination made by the Board against respondent’s
child.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have
violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: April 11, 2024
Date of Mailing: April 12, 2024
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-11079-22
SEC Docket No.: C24-22
Final Decision
Lisa Strutin, Mary Renaud, Craig Green, Abigail Christmann,
Harriett Gaddy, and Stephen Bienko,
Complainants
v.
Lisa A. Moyer,
Allamuchy Township Board of Education, Warren County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on March 13, 2022,1
by Lisa Strutin (Complainant Strutin), Mary Renaud, Craig Green, Abigail Christmann, Harriett
Gaddy, 	and 	Stephen 	Bienko 	(collectively, 	Complainants) 	alleging 	that 	Lisa 	A. 	Moyer
(Respondent), a member of the Allamuchy Township 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(b) (in Count 3), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) of
the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code) (in Counts 1-3, Count 5, and Counts 7-8),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) of the Code (in Count 1 and Count 7), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) of the
Code (in Count 1, Count 3, and Counts 5-6), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) of the Code (in Count 1,
Count 6, and Counts 9-10), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code (in Count 1, Counts 4-6, and
Counts 9-10)¸ N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) of the Code (in Count 7, and Counts 9-10), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(g) of the Code (in Counts 1-2), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) of the Code (in Counts
1-2, Count 4, Counts 8-9, and Count 11).
On May 23, 2022, the Commission voted to place this matter in abeyance, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-32. Following resolution of the conflicting matter on or about September 6,
2022, the instant ethics case proceeded.
At its special meeting on October 17, 2022, and after reviewing Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss) and allegation of frivolous filing, as well as
Complainants’ response thereto, the Commission voted to grant the Motion to Dismiss as to the
alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Count 1 and as to Counts 2-11 (in their entirety);
1 On March 13, 2022, Complainants filed a deficient Complaint; however, on March 24, 2022,
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
but deny the Motion to Dismiss as to Count 1 (excluding the alleged violation of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(a)). The Commission voted to find the Complaint not frivolous, and to deny
Respondent’s request for sanctions. Based on its decision, the Commission also directed
Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer) as to the remaining allegations (N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(b), 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(g), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 1). In light of the fact that the
only remaining allegations involved violations of the Code, the Commission voted to transmit
the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) following receipt of the
Answer, which the Commission received on December 1, 2022.
At the OAL, a hearing was held on June 22, 2023, and July 24, 2023. Thereafter, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision on December 22, 2023, finding that
Respondent violated the remaining allegations in Count 1 of the Complaint, and recommended
that only the “minimum monetary penalty” be imposed.”2 The parties did not file exceptions to
the Initial Decision.
At its meeting on January 23, 2024, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its special meeting on February 27, 2024, the Commission voted to modify
the Initial Decision, finding that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1, but did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 1. The Commission also voted
to recommend a penalty of reprimand.
II. 	Initial Decision
This matter involves allegations that Respondent and her spouse were involved in
“ongoing efforts to negotiate with the District Administration to reverse a determination that
their child had committed a [Harassment Intimidation and Bullying (HIB)] violation, as well as a
Code of Conduct violation, which became part of [their child’s] school record.” Initial Decision
at 2.
Prior to the Board’s reorganization meeting on January 4, 2022, Respondent’s child had
been “deemed liable for a Code of Conduct violation for an incident that occurred in District.”
Id. at 6. The Superintendent testified that she denied Respondent’s request to have the Code of
Conduct violation removed, and she also denied the request to have the matter brought before the
full Board. Id. at 4. Nevertheless, Respondent communicated directly with the Superintendent
several times “seeking her direct intervention and a reversal of the finding” against her child. Id.
at 6. The Superintendent testified that Respondent “pressed on to the point of threatening her,
saying . . . in the presence of others that ‘she could not stand her’ and that the Board ‘needed to
hold her accountable.’” Id. at 4. The Superintendent felt threatened by the tone of Respondent’s
accusations and retained counsel. Id. at 4, 6.
2 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), the Commission may recommend penalties including the reprimand,
censure, suspension or removal of a school official, but does not have the authority to issue monetary
penalties.

3
In addition, Respondent also sent an email regarding the topic to each Board member,
and did not indicate that she was doing so as a parent and not as a Board member. Id. at 6.
Furthermore, Board counsel testified that he received emails from Respondent regarding her
child, which “is not standard protocol since usually [B]oard member inquiries go through
[a]dministration first.” Id. at 4. The email stated, among other things, “No offense . . . but my
legal counsel runs rings around you and your firm . . . 	Besides the obvious that I am a client
there is also a moral obligation that a normal person would naturally feel after hearing what
happened to a child. But because your client is devoid of any of those natural feelings we are
now all in the mess that we are finding ourselves in.” Exhibit P-8.
Respondent’s husband raised the subject of their child’s punishment at the same Board
meeting, during public session, and sought clarification on the Board policy related to the
subject. Initial Decision at 6. Respondent and her spouse continued their advocacy for their child
directly with the administration and the Board until they secured private counsel some time after
the January 4, meeting. Ibid. Respondent and her spouse filed suit against the Board, which was
ultimately resolved. Ibid. Respondent testified that “everything she did was to advocate on behalf
of her [child] who she feels was being unfairly treated.” Id. at 5.
Based on the testimony of six witnesses, including Complainant Strutin and Respondent,
the ALJ finds “there is clear evidence of personality conflicts and disputes over [B]oard policy
between a majority of the members of the Board and Respondent which explains in part why the
Complaint was filed by multiple [Complainants].” Id. at 7. The ALJ further finds Respondent
acted inappropriately at the meeting on January 4, by communicating directly with the
Superintendent, as well as sending an email about the situation to the entire Board, even if the
email was sent as a parent and not as a Board member. Ibid. The ALJ also finds there were at
least two other Board members who shared concerns during the public meeting related to
Respondent’s conduct at the meeting, and that despite warnings, Respondent’s spouse still
discussed the matter in public. Ibid. Finally, the ALJ finds sending a letter to the entire Board
without indicating in which role it was being sent, parent or Board member, is a violation of the
Act. Ibid.
The ALJ concludes Complainants have met their burden as to Count 1, namely that
Respondent violated the alleged provisions of the Code. Id. at 11. The ALJ further concludes
Respondent’s actions were self-serving in nature and she would secure a personal benefit if the
Code of Conduct violation were changed. Ibid. According to the ALJ, Respondent’s conduct
“constitutes bad judgment in violation of the School Ethics training she received and is obligated
to follow by circulating an email to the entire Board, by communicating directly with the
Superintendent about a private matter, by not stopping or cautioning her husband from bringing a
private confidential matter into an open forum, and by not recusing herself or stepping aside
when her husband went forward with his presentation to the entire [B]oard during the January 4,
meeting.” Ibid.
The ALJ asserts that although he finds that the remaining allegations in the Complaint
have been sustained, “by way of mitigation, due to the emotional nature of the incident involving
her [child] . . . Respondent felt that she was acting in [the child’s] best interests and was simply
unable to separate the two roles” of parent and Board member. Id. at 7. The ALJ notes that “this

4
is an unfortunate situation where Respondent and her spouse got carried away in what they
thought was zealous advocacy for their [child], which was compounded by Respondent’s refusal
to adhere to instructions from [B]oard counsel and other members of the Board.” Id. at 8.
Therefore, and although Respondent violated the alleged violations of the Code, the ALJ
recommends that only the “minimum monetary penalty” should be imposed against her. Ibid.
III. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission finds
that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) in Count 1, but did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and/or
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 1. Accordingly, the Commission recommends a penalty of
reprimand for the violations.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), board members must make decisions “in terms of the
educational welfare of children” and “seek to develop and maintain public schools that meet the
individual needs of all children regardless of their ability, race, creed, sex or social standing.”
The Commission finds that Respondent’s attempts to advocate for her child, including any
contact made to the Superintendent, Board members, or Board counsel, while it may have been
inappropriate or a violation of the Act, it does not establish that Respondent made a decision
contrary to the educational welfare of children, or that she took deliberate action to obstruct the
programs and policies designed to meet the individual needs of all children, regardless of their
ability, race, color, creed, or social standing. Respondent’s behaviors stemmed from an attempt
to advocate for her child, not contrary to the needs of all children, which does not arise to a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b).
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 Respondent used her
position as a Board member to contact Board counsel to further her personal agenda regarding
her child’s disciplinary record. A non-Board member parent would not have the ability or
opportunity to reach out directly to Board counsel, and as such, Respondent’s actions in doing so
for personal reasons stemmed from her Board membership and is action unrelated to her duties
as a Board member, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c).
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 	direct
communication, on multiple occasions, with the Superintendent to seek “direct intervention and a
reversal of the finding” against her child, was a direct order to school personnel to alter her
child’s disciplinary record. By contacting individual members of the Board and Board counsel,
in addition to the Superintendent, to lobby for a change to her child’s disciplinary record,
Respondent became involved in the functions that are the responsibility of school personnel.
Although it was a highly emotional situation for Respondent, she attempted to administer the
schools by insisting that the Superintendent remove her child’s Code of Conduct violation and/or
bring the matter to the full Board, and by pressing the issue with individual Board members and
Board counsel, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).

5
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.” The Commission finds that Respondent’s efforts to
persuade individual Board members and Board counsel to advocate for her personal agenda,
namely the reversal of her child’s Code of Conduct and HIB violations, was action beyond the
scope of her duties as a Board member. Although parents may contact the Superintendent
regarding their children, Respondent was only able to contact individual Board members and
Board counsel regarding her child’s disciplinary record due to her Board member status. Such
action has the potential to compromise the Board as she was attempting to influence Board
members to overturn a decision regarding her child that the chief school administrator made.
Additionally, when Board counsel receives emails, counsel may charge the Board for the time
spent reading and/or responding to communications stemming from matters involving the Board,
so Respondent’s email to Board counsel for a personal matter may cost the Board money. As
such, Respondent’s actions went beyond the scope of her duties, and by its nature, that action
had the potential to compromise the Board, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
As set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), board members must “hold confidential all
matters pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the
schools” and in all other matters, board members must “provide accurate information and . . .
interpret to the staff the aspirations of the community for its school.” The Commission finds that
Respondent’s 	discussion 	of 	her 	child’s 	matter 	in 	public 	does 	not 	amount 	to 	disclosing
confidential information. It does not appear that Respondent disclosed any information that she
learned through her position on the Board, but rather she discussed information involving her
own child that she learned as a parent. As such, Respondent’s advocacy for her child does not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
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. Respondent’s contact and tension with the
Superintendent stemmed from the sensitive and emotionally charged topic of disciplinary action
involving her child. As such, the Commission finds her communications were not deliberate
action that resulted in undermining, opposing, compromising, or harming school personnel in the
proper performance of their duties, and therefore, did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
With respect to a penalty, the Commission finds that a reprimand is appropriate. The
Commission understands the need for a parent to advocate on behalf of her child and recognizes
that Respondent was highly emotional given her concerns surrounding what she felt was an
incorrect outcome that would have a lasting impact on her child’s disciplinary record. However,
the Commission notes that in doing so, a school official must adhere to the Act. Given
Respondent’s violations of the Code, balanced with the unique mitigating circumstances present
in this matter, the Commission recommends a penalty of reprimand.
IV. 	Decision
For the aforementioned reasons, the Commission modifies the Initial Decision of the
OAL and finds that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and

6
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1, but did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(g), and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 1. Additionally, the Commission
recommends a penalty of reprimand 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
(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: February 27, 2024

7
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C24-22
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 December
22, 2023; and
Whereas, the ALJ found that Respondent violated the remaining allegations in Count 1 of
the Complaint, and recommended that only the “minimum monetary penalty” be imposed; and
Whereas, the parties did not file exceptions to the Initial Decision; and
Whereas, at its meeting on January 23, 2024, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, and discussed modifying the Initial Decision to find that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 1, but did not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in
Count 1; and
Whereas, at its meeting on January 23, 2024, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of reprimand for the violations; and
Whereas, at its special meeting on February 27, 2024, the Commission reviewed and
voted to approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its
meeting on January 23, 2024; 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 special meeting on February 27, 2024.
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission