Gregory Hudgins v. Miriam Vives-Rivera, Woodbine Board of Education, Cape May County, 1/10/25 (#14-25SEC)

14-25SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C78-23
Agency Dkt. No. 376-11/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Gregory Hudgins,
Complainant,
v.
Miriam Vives-Rivera, Woodbine Board of
Education, Cape May County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the November 26, 2024 decision of the School Ethics
Commission (SEC), and the exceptions filed by the respondent pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4
have been reviewed and considered.1
The SEC found that respondent Miriam Vives-Rivera, a member of the Woodbine Board
of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), 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(f), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) of the School
Ethics Act (Act). The SEC recommended a penalty of a 60-day suspension 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).
At its June 26, 2023 meeting, the Board discussed possible discipline associated with an
employee’s actions.2 	Respondent delivered a letter from Jane to the district’s Business
1 Complainant did not file a reply to respondent’s exceptions.

2
Administrator (BA) and asked him to make copies for each Board member, but not for the
Superintendent. 	During the discussion, respondent indicated that Jane was her good friend,
who had asked respondent to deliver her letter to the Board because she had a medical
condition that prevented her from attending in person. 	Respondent also questioned the
accuracy and motivation of the Superintendent, and expressed support for Jane. 	After the
meeting, Board counsel and the State Monitor assigned to the district informed respondent
that her actions had been inappropriate; however, respondent was not asked to leave
executive session or to refrain from voting on the disciplinary action.
Respondent does not appeal the SEC’s underlying finding that she violated the Act,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1 et seq., but does take exception to the SEC’s recommended penalty
and argues that a reprimand is the more appropriate penalty. 	Respondent contends that,
contrary to the SEC’s characterization, she admitted her actions, which were the result of an
honest mistake for which she received no personal benefit. 	According to respondent, she
sincerely believed that if her presence at, or participation in, the meeting was inappropriate,
Board counsel would have had advised her accordingly, and she would have left immediately.
Respondent argues that her violation was unintentional and does not raise a genuine concern
regarding her integrity. Respondent indicates that she has been a Board member for 15 years
with no other ethical charges against her and contends that a 60-day suspension for a first
offense is unduly harsh.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC for
respondent’s actions. As explained by the SEC, respondent was a member of the Board for 15
2 The employee will be referred to herein as Jane, a pseudonym.

3
years and should have been well aware of her ethical obligations. 	Despite that, she
overstepped her role significantly. 	While respondent attempts to explain that she was only
helping a medically incapacitated friend by delivering a letter, that explanation disregards the
remainder of respondent’s actions in participating in the discussion during executive session,
advocating for Jane, and disparaging the actions of the Superintendent. 	Furthermore, it is
irrelevant that Board counsel did not ask her to leave the meeting; while a penalty may be
reduced when a board member relies on the advice of counsel, respondent neither sought nor
received any advice prior to the meeting. See In re Zisa, 385 N.J. Super. 188 (App. Div. 2006).
Furthermore, although respondent’s violations are the result of a single incident, she violated
multiple provisions of the Act in a manner that she should have known was inappropriate.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended for 60 days for violating the School Ethics
Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 10, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	January 13, 2025
3 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
Docket No.: C78-23
Final Decision
Summary Disposition
Gregory Hudgins,
Complainant
v.
Miriam Vives-Rivera
Woodbine Board of Education, Cape May County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on October 23, 2023, by Gregory Hudgins (Complainant),
alleging that Miriam Vives-Rivera (Respondent), a member of the Woodbine 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) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g) in
Count 1, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)1 of the Code of Ethics for School
Board Members (Code) in Count 2, and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j)2 of
the Code in Count 3.
On April 2, 2024, Respondent filed a Written Statement, and also alleged that the
Complaint is frivolous. Despite sending warning letters notifying Complainant to file a response
to the allegation of frivolous filing, Complainant did not file a response.
At its special meeting on June 17, 2024, the Commission considered the filings, and at its
meeting on July 23, 2024, the Commission adopted a decision finding that there are sufficient
facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable
person to believe that the Act was violated as set forth in the Complaint. The Commission also
adopted a decision finding the Complaint not frivolous, and denying Respondent’s request for
sanctions. 	Additionally, 	the 	Commission 	voted 	to 	decide 	the 	above-captioned 	matter 	by
summary decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(c), and directed Respondent to file a
statement setting forth the reasons (Statement of Reasons) she should not be found in violation of
the Act. Respondent was advised that if she disputes any of the facts determined by the
1 While the Complaint stated a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(d), the language of the allegation
demonstrates that Complainant intended an allegation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).
2 While the Complaint stated a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), the language of the allegation
demonstrates that Complainant intended an allegation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).

2
Commission to be both material and undisputed, she should set forth the facts with which she
disagrees, and why they are material to the case. Finally, Respondent was advised that the
Commission may then make a determination of a violation on a summary basis. Respondent filed
a Statement of Reasons on August 15, 2024.
Consequently, at its meeting on October 22, 2024, the Commission reviewed the record
in this matter and, at its meeting on November 26, 2024, adopted a decision finding that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), 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(f) 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(j), 	and
recommending a penalty of a 60-day suspension for Respondent’s violation of the Act.
II. 	Summary of the Pleadings
A. 	The Complaint
Complainant notes that Respondent has been a Board member for more than 15 years.
According to Complainant, on June 26, 2023, the Board was discussing “the matter of an
employee’s actions and possible discipline” in executive session, and Respondent “had the
[Business Administrator (BA)] distribute copies of a letter the employee wrote concerning the
matter” to the Board, and then “instructed the BA not to give a copy to the Superintendent.”
Complainant maintains that Respondent stated she was “in contact” with the employee and had
picked up the letter at the employee’s home. Complainant further maintains that Respondent
noted she was “representing the employee because they are friends and questioned the
Superintendent’s statement regarding the employee’s actions.”
With the above in mind, and in Count 1, Complainant asserts Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), because she used her position to benefit others and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(g), because she represented an employee in a discipline matter pending before the Board.
In Count 2, Complainant contends Respondent “exceeded her role beyond policy making
and attempted to administer the schools in advocating for an employee in a disciplinary matter
before the Board,” and therefore, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), because she did not confine
herself to policy making and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), because she actively advocated for an
employee and thereby attempted to administer the schools.
In 	Count 	3, 	Complainant 	asserts 	Respondent 	“advocated 	for 	an 	employee facing
disciplinary action thereby surrendering her independence as a Board member and did not refer
the matter to the Superintendent.” In particular, Complainant contends Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), because she advocated for an employee who is a friend and surrendered
her independence as a Board member and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j), because she did not refer the
matter to the Superintendent as required, and instead “specifically denied the Superintendent
access to the employee’s letter.”

3
B. 	Written Statement and Allegation of Frivolous Filing3
Respondent initially notes that Woodbine is a close-knit community, and she has many
“friends,” one of them being the subject employee, who was “bed sick” and needed help, so
Respondent obliged by picking up and delivering the letters to the BA to make copies for the
Board members.
Respondent provides some background surrounding the Complaint, namely that it has
taken nine months to receive this Complaint, since the time of the incident (June 26, 2023).4
Additionally, she notes the BA, Superintendent and Fiscal Monitor have resigned or have been
reassigned, the remaining Board members had an “absence of written input,” “which would
indicate their lack of support,” and her presence in executive session was not questioned by
anyone even though they knew her relationship with the employee. Therefore, Respondent
asserts “moving forward with this compliant [(sic)] would be frivolous and very little would be
gained,” and therefore, Respondent “respectfully requests that this matter be dropped so that the
Board can move on.”
C. 	Statement of Reasons
Respondent admits that at the Board meeting, on June 26, 2023, she gave the BA an
envelope and asked him to make copies of its contents for each Board member, and also
requested that the BA not give a copy to the Superintendent. During that same meeting,
Respondent indicates the Superintendent “read her report to the Board concerning an employee
who was facing disciplinary action.” Per Respondent, she then informed the Board that the
employee “was her good friend” and the friend asked Respondent “to come to her house to pick
up an envelope containing a letter for the Board to consider regarding the disciplinary action.”
According 	to 	Respondent, 	the 	employee 	could 	not 	attend 	the 	meeting 	to 	dispute 	the
Superintendent’s allegations due to a “medical condition.” Respondent maintains that the
Superintendent’s report “differed significantly from the employee’s account,” and Respondent
“essentially questioned the accuracy and motivation of the Superintendent and her report.”
Consequently, Respondent states she provided the Board with information related to the
employee and indicated that the employee “should not be treated this way,” and that the
employee had been in the District for a long time, while the Superintendent had only been with
the District for a year. Respondent acknowledges she was advised by the State Monitor and
Board counsel that her “action was wrong and inappropriate”; however, Respondent asserts she
was never asked to leave the meeting or abstain on the vote related to the employee.
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), Respondent argues that she did not use her
position to “secure unwarranted privileges” for her friend or herself. According to Respondent,
“[a]ll employees are entitled to due process and can present a rebuttal to the administration
seeking to impose disciplinary action.” Respondent contends she assisted the employee because
3 The Commission found the Complaint not frivolous at its meeting on July 23, 2024.
4 The Commission notes that the Complaint was timely filed on October 23, 2023. However, due to
technological problems with Respondent’s computer, it appears that she did not receive the Complaint
until March 2024.

4
the employee could not attend the meeting due to a medical condition. Respondent further argues
that because the employee could not attend the meeting due to medical reasons, her employment
should not have been discussed. Respondent asserts Complainant has not provided any evidence
to demonstrate that the employee “received any benefit that any other employee facing
disciplinary action would have received, making any alleged benefit the employee received the
same benefit available to all employees 	facing disciplinary action 	recommended 	by the
Superintendent” nor that Respondent received a benefit simply by picking up a letter and
delivering it to the BA.
Regarding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), Respondent contends that Complainant
did not provide any evidence to show that Respondent “‘represented’ the employee or presented
the Board with additional evidence on the part of the absent employee during the closed session.”
Moreover, Respondent further contends that during the discussion related to the employee,
Respondent “expressed her opinion” of the Superintendent’s report and the employee’s letter, but
did not make “assertions established by additional evidence presented by Respondent on the
employee’s behalf.”
As to the violations of Code, namely 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(f) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j), Respondent argues Complainant did not
present any evidence to demonstrate that Respondent “took any official action without consulting
the rest of the Board” or that she helped “frame policies” or “administer the schools”; “fail[ed] to
refer a complaint” to the Superintendent; “surrender[ed] her independent judgment for the
personal gain of friends” as she was forthcoming with her relationship with the employee and
she did not make any statements indicating that she “would oppose the Superintendent’s
recommendation solely because of her friendship with the employee”; “took any action unrelated
to her duties” as her participation in the “discussion regarding this employee, who happened to
be her friend” was appropriate action; nor that she made any “promises to the employee
regarding the proposed disciplinary action.”
In sum, Respondent argues, despite being told by the State Monitor and Board counsel
that her “action was wrong and inappropriate,” neither asked Respondent to leave executive
session while the Board discussed the matter. Respondent maintains she did not take any action
or make any promises beyond providing her opinion for a friend/employee who was unable to
attend in person to provide the Board “with a written statement in response to allegations of
misconduct.”
III. 	Findings of Fact
Based on its thorough and independent review of the record, the Commission finds the
following facts to be undisputed:
1. 	Respondent has been a Board member in the Woodbine School District (District)
for more than 15 years. Complaint at page 1; Statement of Reasons at page 1.
2. 	At the June 26, 2023, Board meeting, the Board discussed the possible discipline
associated with an employee’s actions. Complaint at page 1; Statement of Reasons at page 1.

5
3. 	Upon entering the executive session on June 26, 2023, Respondent gave an
envelope to the BA containing a letter from the employee and asked him to make copies for each
Board member, but not to give a copy to the Superintendent. Complaint at page 1; Statement of
Reasons at page 1.
4. 	The BA complied with Respondent’s request and the Board members read the
letter during executive session. Statement of Reasons at page 1.
5. 	The Superintendent read her report to the Board regarding the employee who was
facing disciplinary action, and thereafter, the Board discussed the matter. Statement of Reasons at
page 2.
6. 	During the discussion, Respondent informed the Board that the employee was her
good friend, who asked Respondent to come to her house to pick up the letter regarding her
disciplinary action. Complaint at page 1-2; Statement of Reasons at page 2.
7. 	Respondent advised the Board that the employee had a medical condition that
prevented her from attending the Board meeting on June 26, 2023. Statement of Reasons at page
2.
8. 	During the discussion in executive session, Respondent “questioned the accuracy
and motivation” of the Superintendent, as her report differed significantly from the employee’s
account. Statement of Reasons at page 2.
9. 	During 	the 	discussion 	in 	executive 	session 	Respondent 	indicated 	that 	the
employee “should not be treated this way,” expressed support for the employee, and stated that
the employee had been in the District for a long time, while the Superintendent had only been
with the District for a year. Statement of Reasons at page 2.
10. 	Following the Board’s discussion, the State Monitor and Board counsel informed
Respondent that her actions in delivering the employee’s letter was “wrong and inappropriate,”
but they had not asked Respondent to leave Executive Session or refrain from voting on the
disciplinary action. Statement of Reasons at page 2.
IV. 	Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Complainant 	argues 	that 	Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(b) 	and 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(g) when she picked up a letter from the home of an employee/friend regarding the
employee’s disciplinary discussion, gave it to the BA and asked him to make copies for the
Board members but not the Superintendent, and then questioned the Superintendent’s position
regarding the employee’s actions. These provisions of the Act state:
b. 	No school official shall use or attempt to use his official position to
secure unwarranted privileges, advantages or employment for himself, members
of his immediate family or others;

6
g. 	No school official or business organization in which he has an
interest shall represent any person or party other than the school board or school
district in connection with any cause, proceeding, application or other matter
pending before the school district in which he serves or in any proceeding
involving the school district in which he serves or, for officers or employees of
the New Jersey School Boards Association, any school district. This provision
shall not be deemed to prohibit representation within the context of official labor
union or similar representational responsibilities;
Complainant also argues 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(f) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j). These provisions of the
Code provide:
c. 	I will confine my board action to policy making, planning, and
appraisal, and I will help to frame policies and plans only after the board has
consulted those who will be affected by them.
d. 	I will carry out my responsibility, not to administer the schools,
but, together with my fellow board members, to see that they are well run.
f. 	I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special
interest or partisan political groups or to use the schools for personal gain or for
the gain of friends.
j. 	I will refer all complaints to the chief administrative officer and
will 	act 	on 	the 	complaints 	at 	public 	meetings 	only 	after 	failure 	of 	an
administrative solution.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)
In order to credit a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), Complainant must provide
sufficient factual evidence that Respondent used or attempted to use her official position to
secure an unwarranted 	privilege, advantage or employment for herself, members of her
immediate family, or “others.”
The Commission finds that by delivering a letter to the Board on behalf of her friend
during a Board meeting in which her discipline was to be discussed, indicating that the
Superintendent should not receive a copy, and then advocating on her friend’s behalf during
executive session, Respondent used her position as a Board member to secure a privilege or
advantage for the friend/employee. It is clear the friend asked Respondent to deliver the letter
because she was a Board member, a privilege that other individuals would not have. But for the
employee’s close friendship with Respondent, Respondent would not have personally retrieved
and delivered a letter, let alone instructed the BA not to give a copy to the Superintendent. Even
if, as Respondent asserts, she only assisted the employee because she had a medical condition
preventing her from attending the meeting, the employee could have submitted a response (if

7
Board policy permits responses) on her own through mail or email. Contacting Respondent to
deliver her letter, and Respondent’s willingness to oblige, as well as speak on the employee’s
behalf, certainly provided an advantage for the employee during executive session. Further, even
if the employee’s illness came on suddenly, preventing her from responding in any other way,
and Respondent was a last resort to deliver the letter, then Respondent should have given the
letter to the Superintendent and recused herself from the remainder of the discussion as she had
become 	personally 	involved. 	Instead, 	Respondent 	circumvented 	protocol 	and 	the
Superintendent’s authority to provide her friend with an advantage that another staff member
undergoing 	disciplinary 	review 	would 	not 	receive. 	As 	such, 	the 	Commission 	finds 	that
Respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g)
To credit a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), Complainant must provide sufficient
factual evidence that Respondent or a business organization in which she had an interest
represented a person or party other than the school board or school district in connection with
any cause, proceeding, application or other matter pending before the school district in which she
serves or in any proceeding involving the school district in which she serves, with the exception
of representation within the context of official labor or similar representational responsibilities.
The Commission finds that Respondent represented the employee in her disciplinary
proceedings by involving herself directly in the employee’s defense of her actions. Specifically,
Respondent picked up a letter from the home of her friend whose actions and possible discipline
were being discussed in executive session, delivered the letter to BA and Board members on
behalf of the employee, advised that the Superintendent should not receive a copy, and then
advocated for her friend during executive session discussion on the matter. If Respondent
believed that her friend needed assistance, Respondent could have picked up the letter, delivered
it to the Superintendent, as required, and then recused herself from the matter so the Board and
the Superintendent could have discussed the issue without Respondent’s influence following her
direct involvement on a close friend’s discipline matter. However, Respondent instead advocated
on behalf of her friend, questioned the Superintendent’s motives, and more importantly
specifically requested that the Superintendent not receive a copy of the letter. Respondent
personally represented her friend’s interests in a matter before the Board, and even further,
attempted to influence the proceedings by privately giving a letter to the Board members and not
the Superintendent who was responsible for making recommendations, and then by disparaging
the Superintendent’s recommendations based on the Superintendent’s limited time working at
the District. Therefore, the Commission finds that Respondent’s personal involvement and
representation of an individual, other than the Superintendent and District, in proceedings
pending before the Board constitutes a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)
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 board action to effectuate policies and plans
without consulting those affected by such policies and plans, or took action that was unrelated to
Respondent’s duty to (i) develop the general rules and principles that guide the management of

8
the school district or charter school; (ii) formulate the programs and methods to effectuate the
goals of the school district or charter school; or (iii) ascertain the value or liability of a policy.
The Commission finds that, by delivering a letter on behalf of the employee during
executive 	session 	and 	attempting 	to 	influence 	the 	discussions 	by 	not 	providing 	the
Superintendent a copy and by advocating on the employee’s behalf, Respondent took action that
was unrelated to her duties as a Board member. By going to an employee’s home to pick up a
letter for the Board to consider regarding the employee’s employment, delivering the letter to the
Board, and directing the BA, not to share it with the Superintendent, and then discussing the
matter with the Board in executive session, is an action Respondent was only able to do because
of her position on the Board. If it were not for her Board position, Respondent would not have
been able to direct the BA or discuss the matter, and therefore, Respondent took actions during
executive session of the Board meeting that were outside her established role to develop rules
and principles that guide the District, formulate programs and methods to effectuate the District’s
goals, or ascertain the value or liability of a policy. Accordingly, the Commission finds that
Respondent acted in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)
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(d) shall include, but not be limited to, evidence that Respondent gave a direct order to
school personnel or became directly involved in activities or functions that are the responsibility
of school personnel or the day-to-day administration of the school district or charter school.
The Commission finds that Respondent became directly involved in the activities and
functions that are the responsibility of school personnel or the day-to-day administration of the
District when she became directly involved in the disciplinary proceedings of a friend that was
the responsibility of the Superintendent and District staff. 	Specifically, when Respondent
retrieved a letter from an employee whose employment and possible discipline were being
discussed in executive session, then directed the BA to distribute the letter but not to give a copy
to the Superintendent, and advocated on behalf of the employee, Respondent overstepped into
the responsibility of District staff and undermined the established procedures for disciplinary
proceedings, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)
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(f) shall include evidence that Respondent took action on behalf of, or at the request of, a
special interest group or persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who adhere to a
particular political party or cause; or evidence that Respondent used the schools in order to
acquire some benefit for herself, a member of her immediate family or a friend.
The Commission finds that Respondent took action on behalf of her friend and used the
schools in order to acquire a benefit for her good friend, the employee. Respondent used her
position on the Board to assist with the employee’s disciplinary proceedings by picking up a
letter from the home of the employee and delivering the letter to the Board members on behalf of

9
the employee, and instructing the BA not to give a copy to the Superintendent, which provided a
benefit to her friend that other employees undergoing disciplinary action would not receive. As
explained, Respondent’s friend asked for her help specifically because of her position on the
Board, Respondent obliged, and then proceeded to use her position to influence the disciplinary
action 	by 	undermining 	the 	Superintendent 	and 	advocating 	for 	her 	friend. 	As 	such, 	the
Commission finds that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j)
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(j) shall include evidence that Respondent acted on or attempted to resolve a complaint, or
conducted an investigation or inquiry related to a complaint (i) prior to referral to the chief
administrative officer, or (ii) at a time or place other than a public meeting and prior to the
failure of an administrative solution.
The Commission finds that Respondent attempted to resolve a complaint or conducted an
investigation or inquiry related to a complaint prior to the referral to the chief administrative
officer when she picked up a letter from the home of an employee and delivered the letter to the
Board members on behalf of the employee, whose actions and possible discipline were being
discussed in executive session, without advising the Superintendent, and then instructed the BA
to distribute the letter but not to give a copy to the Superintendent. Respondent usurped the
Superindent’s authority by intentionally circumventing protocol and the chain of command when
she delivered the letter on behalf of an employee, and especially when she prevented the
Superintendent from becoming aware or receiving a copy of the letter. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that Respondent acted in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
V. 	Recommended Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g),
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(f) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(j), the Commission is authorized to recommend to the Commissioner of Education
(Commissioner) an appropriate penalty, which may range from reprimand to removal. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-29(c).
In its review, the Commission finds that 60-day suspension is the most appropriate
penalty. In reaching this determination, the Commission finds that, based on the record,
Respondent was an experienced Board member of 15 years and took inappropriate action that
went far beyond her role as a Board member. The Commission acknowledges that the employee
“had a medical condition which prevented her from attending the meeting” and further
acknowledges that Respondent was helping a friend. However, Respondent’s actions usurped the
authority of the Superintendent, who is responsible for making disciplinary recommendations.
Despite there being policies in place for an employee to dispute or represent themselves in a
matter before the Board, Respondent took it upon herself to go to an employee’s home, pick up a
letter and present it to the Board on behalf of the employee, direct the BA not to give a copy of
said letter to the Superintendent, and then instead of recusing herself from the matter, in which
she has an obvious personal interest and personal involvement, Respondent then continued to

10
advocate on behalf of the employee and question the Superintendent’s recommendation of an
employee. The Commission notes that Respondent’s egregious actions and numerous violations
of the Act, combined with her failure to recognize any wrongdoing, and lack of remorse,
warrants 	a 60-day 	suspension. 	The Commission 	further 	notes 	that 	Respondent 	lacks 	an
understanding of basic professional conduct, despite her status as a long-time Board member. To
the extent that Respondent seeks to defend her actions by claiming that Board counsel and the
State Monitor did not tell her to leave the meeting, the Commission asserts that Respondent
never sought the advice of counsel, and cannot now blame counsel for not giving her advice that
she never requested. In fact, Respondent acknowledged that the State Monitor and Board counsel
advised her that her “action was wrong and inappropriate.” Moreover, Respondent, as a 15-year
veteran on the Board, should have known that she cannot present testimonial information on
behalf of a friend in a proceeding before the Board, prevent the Superintendent from receiving a
copy, and then proceed to advocate on behalf of the friend against the Superintendent. However,
even now, Respondent admits all of her actions but fails to recognize why her actions were
inappropriate, and instead seeks to use Board counsel as a shield. For all of these reasons, the
Commission finds a 60-day suspension to be warranted in this matter.
VI. 	Decision
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner
impose a penalty of 60-day suspension for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(g), 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(f) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
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. 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 a 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. 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

11
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 in the appellant’s briefs on appeal.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: November 26, 2024

12
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C78-23
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	October 	22, 	2024, 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission) considered the entirety of the record in this matter; and
Whereas, at its meeting on October 22, 2024, the Commission discussed finding a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), 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(f) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j); and
Whereas, at its meeting on October 22, 2024, the Commission discussed recommending
a penalty of 60-day suspension for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(g), 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(f) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(j); and
Whereas, at its meeting on November 26, 2024, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
October 22, 2024; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Commission hereby adopts the decision and
directs its staff to notify all parties to this action of its decision herein.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that the Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at
its meeting on November 26, 2024.
_____________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission