Bernard Biesiada v. Deborah Riley, Millstone Board of Education, Monmouth County, 6/2/26 (#195-26SEC)

195-26SEC
OAL Dkt. No. EEC-16971-25
SEC Dkt. No. C87-24
Agency Dkt. No. 165-04-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Bernard Biesiada,
Complainant,
v.
Deborah 	Riley, 	Millstone 	Board 	of 	Education,
Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the April 28, 2026 decision of the School Ethics Commission
(SEC). 	The SEC recommended that respondent Deborah Riley, a member of the Millstone Board of
Education, be censured pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into by the parties in resolution of
complainant’s allegations that respondent violated the School Ethics Act.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby censured.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 2, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 3, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the
date of mailing of this decision.

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-16971-25
SEC Docket No.: C87-24
Final Decision (Settlement)
Bernard Biesiada,
Complainant
v.
Deborah Riley,
Millstone Board of Education, Monmouth County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on October 28, 2024, by Bernard Biesiada (Complainant),
alleging that Deborah Riley (Respondent), a member of the Millstone Board of Education
(Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. More specifically, the
Complaint alleged that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c),
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) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members (Code). Respondent filed a Written Statement on December
13, 2024, which included an allegation that the Complaint was frivolous. On January 2, 2025,
Complainant filed a response to the allegation of frivolous filing.
At its meeting on, July 22, 2025, and after reviewing the Complaint, the Written
Statement, including the allegation of frivolous filing, and the response to the allegation of
frivolous filing, the Commission adopted a decision finding that there were sufficient facts and
circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to
believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) were
violated as set forth in the Complaint, but insufficient facts and circumstances to lead a
reasonable person to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) were
violated as alleged in the Complaint. The Commission also adopted a decision finding the
Complaint not frivolous, and denying Respondent’s request for sanctions. Based on its decision,
the Commission also voted to transmit the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for
a hearing, where Complainant would carry the burden to prove that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
At the OAL, the parties agreed to amicably resolve the matter and, on or about January
13, 2026, the parties filed a fully executed settlement agreement. The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) issued an Initial Decision (Settlement) on February 26, 2026, which concluded that the
settlement agreement was voluntary, consistent with the law, and fully dispositive of all issues in
controversy between the parties, and should therefore, be approved.

2
At its meeting on March 24, 2026, the Commission reviewed the Initial Decision
(Settlement), and at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission voted to adopt the Initial
Decision (Settlement) as its Final Decision. However, the Commission also voted not to take a
position on the enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement. Additionally, the
Commission recommended that the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) impose a
penalty of censure, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement.
II. 	Analysis
In their fully executed settlement agreement, the parties set forth the terms of their
settlement. More specifically, the parties agreed, in relevant part, that Respondent admits that her
conduct constituted violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) and
acknowledges that her conduct was inconsistent with the ethical standards required under the
Act; Complainant will withdraw his complaint that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e); Respondent will accept the penalty of Censure to be read into the official record of a
Board meeting within 60 days of approval of the settlement; upon execution of the settlement
and satisfaction of its terms, Complainant releases and forever discharges Respondent from all
claims, liabilities, damages, or causes of action arising out of or related to the underlying facts;
Complainant agrees to discontinue the Action with prejudice upon execution of the agreement;
and nothing in the agreement shall be construed as an admission of any wrongdoing by
Complainant. Initial Decision (Settlement) (attachment).
After reviewing the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, the ALJ found that the
settlement is voluntary, consistent with the law, and fully disposes of all issues in controversy
between the parties. Initial Decision (Settlement) at 1-2. Having concluded that the parties’
settlement agreement met the requirements of N.J.A.C. 1:1-19.1 and should be approved, the
ALJ incorporated the terms of the settlement into the Initial Decision. Id. at 2.
III. 	Decision
Following its review, the Commission does not find a reason why it should not defer to
the parties’ mutual decision to amicably resolve their dispute. As such, the Commission adopts
the Initial Decision (Settlement) as its Final Decision, but does not take a position on the
enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement. Additionally, consistent with the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner impose
a penalty of censure.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
for review of the Commission’s recommended penalty.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: April 28, 2026

3
Resolution Adopting Final Decision (Settlement)
in Connection with C87-24
Whereas, at its meeting on July 22, 2025, the School Ethics Commission (Commission)
voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a
hearing; and
Whereas, while at the OAL, the parties submitted a duly executed settlement agreement
to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for review; and
Whereas, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision on February 26, 2026, concluding that the
settlement met the requirements of N.J.A.C. 1:1-19.1 and should be approved; and
Whereas, at its meeting on March 24, 2026, the Commission considered the Initial
Decision and discussed adopting the Initial Decision as its Final Decision, but not taking a
position on the enforceability of the parties’ written settlement agreement; and
Whereas, at its meeting on March 24, 2026, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of censure, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement; and
Whereas, at its meeting on April 28, 2026, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
March 24, 2026; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Commission hereby adopts the within decision as its
Final Decision, and directs its staff to notify all parties to this action of its decision herein.
____________________________________
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that this Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at
its meeting on April 28, 2026.
________________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission