Maria Ricupero and Gerlando Termini v. Jeanne Stifelman, Board of Education of the Township of Randolph, Morris County, 3/9/2023, (67-23SEC)

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

67-23SEC

New Jersey Commissioner of Education

Final Decision

Maria Ricupero and Gerlando Termini,

Complainants,

Jeanne Stifelman, Board of Education of the
Township of Randolph, Morris County,

Respondent.

Synopsis

Petitioners, citizens of Randolph, alleged that respondent, a member of the Randolph Board of
Education, violated multiple sections of the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1, through
actions she took as the chief proponent of a plan to eliminate the Columbus Day holiday from
the school district’s calendar — a result that generated great community outcry over the lack of
public vetting of the plan prior to the Board taking action to eliminate the holiday. The School
Ethics Commission (SEC) determined that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) 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 for respondent’s participation in a meeting with members of the public, which
constituted action beyond the scope of her duties as a board member and had the potential to
compromise the Board. Accordingly, the respondent was 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.

SEC Dkt. No. C25-21
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 10170-21
Agency Dkt. No. 22-1/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Maria Ricupero and Gerlando Termini,
Complainants,
v.
Jeanne Stifelman, Board of Education of the
Township of Randolph, Morris County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the January 31, 2023
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent Jeanne Stifelman, a member of the Randolph Township Board of Education,
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(e). 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.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the
Commission for respondent’s participation in a May 31, 2021 meeting with members of the
67-23SEC

2
public, which constituted action beyond the scope of her duties as a Board member and had
the potential to compromise the Board.
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:
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.
March 9, 2023
March 10, 2023

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-10170-21
SEC Docket No.: C25-21
Final Decision
Maria Ricupero and Gerlando Termini,
Complainants
v.
Jeanne Stifelman,
Randolph Township Board of Education, Morris County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on July 16, 2021, by
Maria 	Ricupero 	(Complainant 	Ricupero) 	and 	Gerlando 	Termini 	(Complainant 	Termini)
(collectively referred to as Complainants), alleging that Jeanne Stifelman (Respondent), a
member of the Randolph 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:12-24.1(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(f), and N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(b) in Count 1, 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), N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(b), and N.J.S.A
18A:12-24(c) in Count 2, violated 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(b), and N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(c) in Count 3, and violated N.J.S.A 18A:12-24.1(e),
N.J.S.A 18A:12-24.1(f), and N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(b) in Count 4.
On July 16, 2021, the Complaint was served on Respondent, via electronic mail,
notifying her that ethics charges had been filed against her with the School Ethics Commission
(Commission), and advising that she had twenty (20) days to file a responsive pleading. 1 On
August 4, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss),
and also alleged that the Complaint is frivolous. On August 27, 2021, Complainants filed a
response to the Motion to Dismiss and allegation of frivolous filing.
Thereafter, and at its meeting on November 16, 2021, the Commission adopted a decision
granting the Motion to Dismiss as to Count 1 (in its entirety); as to 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(b), and N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(c) in Count 2; as to
Count 3 (in its entirety); and as to N.J.S.A 18A:12-24.1(f), and N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(b) in Count 4,
1 In order to conduct business during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Commission
implemented an electronic filing system, which remains a permissible method by which the Commission
and parties can effectuate service of process. Consequently, service of process was effectuated by the
Commission through electronic transmission only

2
and denying the Motion to Dismiss as to all other allegations. The Commission also adopted a
decision finding the Complaint not frivolous, and denying Respondent’s request for sanctions;
directing Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer) as to the remaining allegations in
the Complaint (N.J.S.A 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 2) and N.J.S.A
18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 4)); and transmitting the above-captioned matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) following receipt of the Answer. On December 8, 2021, Respondent
filed an Answer as directed, and the above-captioned matter was transmitted to the OAL.
At the OAL, the contested matter was assigned to the Honorable Andrew M. Baron,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Baron). Initial Decision (Granting Summary Decision) at 1.
Following the filing of Respondent’s Notice of Motion for Summary Decision, oral argument
was held on June 28, 2022, with supplemental argument on October 11, 2022; thereafter, the
record closed. Id. at 2.
On November 22, 2022, ALJ Baron issued an Initial Decision (Granting Summary
Decision) 	detailing 	his 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	legal 	conclusions, 	and 	the 	Commission
acknowledged receipt of same; therefore, the forty-five (45) day statutory period for the
Commission to issue a Final Decision was January 6, 2023. Prior to January 6, 2023, the
Commission requested a forty-five (45) day extension of time to issue its final decision so as to
provide the Commission, which only meets monthly, with the opportunity to receive and review
the full record. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) and N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.8, and for good cause
shown, the Commission was granted an extension until February 21, 2023.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 20, 2022, the Commission considered
the full record in this matter. Subsequently, and at a special meeting on January 31, 2023, and for
the reasons more fully detailed below, the Commission voted to adopt ALJ Baron’s findings of
fact; adopt the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) as
alleged in Count 2; adopt the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) as contended in Count 4; but to reject the legal conclusion that Respondent did not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) as asserted in Count 2. Based on its finding of a violation, the
Commission also voted to recommend a penalty of reprimand.
II. 	Decision on Motion to Dismiss
In its Decision on Motion to Dismiss, the Commission stated, in relevant part:
The Commission, however, finds that if the facts [as] argued are proven
true by sufficient credible evidence, they may support a finding that Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 2 and Count 4.
Although Respondent maintains that she provided “sufficient disclaimers
that she was speaking as an individual” during the meeting on May 31, 2021 with
Complainants and in connection with the alleged interview on June 13, 2021, the
Commission 	has 	advised 	that 	despite 	the 	use 	of 	an 	otherwise 	appropriate
disclaimer, the content of a message or communication could render any potential
disclaimer 	meaningless. 	As 	such, 	if 	Complainant 	can 	demonstrate 	that

3
Respondent’s meeting with Complainants and alleged interview on June 13, 2021,
constituted action beyond the scope of her duties as a Board member, and had the
potential to compromise the Board (e.g., because she responded to or addressed a
complaint or concern before it could be resolved by the administration), a
violation may be found. Therefore, the Commission finds that the contended
violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 2 and Count 4 should not be
dismissed.
Decision on Motion to Dismiss at 17.
In addition, and regarding the stated violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) in Count 2, the
Commission advised:
After review of the pleadings, the Commission finds that if the facts as
asserted are proven true by sufficient credible evidence, they may support a
finding that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). If Complainants can
prove 	by 	sufficient 	credible 	evidence 	that 	Respondent 	disclosed 	certain
information 	to 	Complainants 	during 	the 	May 	31, 	2021 	meeting, 	namely
confidential 	information 	from 	the 	DISC/DEI 	committee 	meetings 	or 	any
personally identifiable student information, and such information was “not public
under any laws, regulations or court orders of this State,” or was “otherwise
confidential in accordance with [B]oard policies, procedures or practices,” a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) may be established. Further, if Complainants
can demonstrate that Respondent’s sharing of data regarding the treatment of
Columbus Day in other Morris County schools was indeed not miniscule as
suggested by Respondents and establishes that the inaccuracy was other than a
reasonable mistake or personal opinion, a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)
may also be established. Therefore, the Commission finds that the alleged
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) in Count 2 should not be dismissed.
Decision on Motion to Dismiss at 18.
III. 	Initial Decision (Granting Summary Decision)
In the Initial Decision (Granting Summary Decision), ALJ Baron issued findings of fact,
and noted that the “parties essentially agree upon” the facts, but “dispute the application and
interpretation of the law in relation to the facts.” Initial Decision (Granting Summary Decision)
at 2.
In the “Factual Discussion” section of his Initial Decision (Granting Summary Decision),
ALJ Baron initially noted that the genesis of the Complaint is certain actions taken by the
Respondent in her capacity as a member of the Randolph Board of Education (Board). Id. More
specifically, at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 13, 2021, Respondent and another Board
member, Susan Devito, introduced a “walk-on” resolution to change the Randolph Township
School District’s (District) observation of Columbus Day in October to “Indigenous People’s
Day.” Id. at 3. For reasons unknown, Respondent brought the resolution on as a last minute

4
motion from the floor, which is somewhat unusual for a matter that would have such significant
importance. As such, the resolution was not part of the original meeting agenda advertised to
members of the community, which did not allow for a full-fledged debate and discussion prior to
the vote. Id.
Ultimately, a majority of the Board voted to remove Columbus Day from the District
calendar. Id. Upon learning of the change to the District calendar, which was not “vetted” in the
normal way such changes are usually introduced, there was a huge public outcry against what
Respondent and a majority of the Board had done. Id. Thereafter, Complainant Ricupero and
Complainant Termini felt compelled to exercise their rights as citizens to file an ethics complaint
against Respondent Stifelman who was the leading proponent of the change. Id.
However, prior to filing their Complaint with the Commission, Complainant Ricupero
and Complainant Termini sought a meeting with Respondent Stifelman to address their concerns
and listen to what Respondent had to say about the drastic change to the District calendar. Id.
The meeting, which occurred on May 31, 2021, lasted almost two hours, and Respondent was
not aware it was being recorded. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to justify her
actions, but was unsuccessful in addressing Complainants’ concerns. Id.
Complainants further contend that during the course of the meeting, Respondent also
revealed “confidential information” from a local diversity committee on which she served as a
member, but it is not disputed that the information she shared did not identify specific
individuals or specific cases which were discussed by the committee. Id. at 3-4. However,
Complainants strongly believe that none of this information should have been discussed even in
general terms. Id. at 4. It is unclear why this unrelated subject came up during a meeting between
the parties the primary purpose of which was to discuss the removal of Columbus Day from the
District calendar. Id.
In the approximately thirty (30) days that followed the initial vote to remove Columbus
Day from the District calendar, there was a tremendous backlash throughout the community,
many of whom are proud Italian-Americans, who rely on Columbus Day as a marker for their
Italian heritage, not just a day off from work and school as some have suggested. Id.
In a hastily arranged community forum sponsored by the Randolph Italian American One
Voice Committee, several local, county and State elected officials, and about sixty (60) members
of the community appeared to speak out against the removal of Columbus Day from the District
calendar. Id. Although she was not invited to the forum, Respondent appeared and was seen
speaking to members of the press and giving out information. Id. However, Ms. Stifelman was
not a speaker, and did not use her title as a Board member to defend her actions. Id.
Complainants strongly believe that by attending the forum, and being seen speaking to
members of the press even though she was not quoted, Respondent had an affirmative obligation
to identify herself as a Board member to anyone she was speaking with, and further believe that
the anonymous quote which appeared in the newspaper following the forum could only be
attributed to her. Id. Complainants further believe that, based on the Act, Respondent had an

5
affirmative obligation to disclaim her position and her role as an attendee, even though she was
not part of the formal program. Id.
At the Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting on June 10, 2021, the removal of
Christopher Columbus Day from the District calendar was raised again, this time as part of the
Board’s formal agenda. Id. Nearly all attendees at the Board meeting expressed their outrage at
what the Board and Respondent had done, and demanded that Christopher Columbus Day be
reinstated. Id.
In their Complaint, Complainants contend that Respondent circulated incorrect and
incomplete information about what other school districts had done on the Columbus Day issue,
and that Respondent was pursuing her own personal agenda in violation of the Act. Id. at 5.
At a special Board meeting on June 21, 2021, which was attended by over 400 members
of the community, the Board, including Respondent, voted to rescind its prior action and to
reinstate Columbus Day on the District calendar. Id. Prior to her vote, Respondent stated that a
committee should be created to further study the matter, an action which was not taken prior to
the earlier “resolution from the floor.” Id.
Still reeling from what they believe to be a violation of Respondent’s ethical obligations,
Complainants, who come across as sincere, caring, intelligent and dedicated citizens and
taxpayers, sought relief from the Commission for Respondent’s role as a leader in creating what
they believe to be bad public policy, and for acting outside the scope of her authority as a
member of the Board. Id.
Based on the foregoing factual findings, ALJ Baron concluded as follows:
 	Respondent, who did not use her title outside the scope of public Board meetings,
was convinced that her opinion on changing the Christopher Columbus holiday on
the District calendar was correct based on her research, and that action by the
Board was required despite the potential repercussions. Although Respondent
made the ill-advised and perhaps naive decision to try to force the Board to act on
a last minute resolution from the floor, which was not part of the monthly meeting
agenda, and while Complainants argue that such conduct technically violates the
Act, ALJ Baron concluded that her conduct “does not rise to the level of conduct
for which a penalty is warranted.” Id. at 8.
 	By voting with the majority of the Board to rescind the prior Board action after
hearing the consensus of the community, even if Respondent had committed any
prima facie violations of the Act, Respondent corrected her proposed policy
change which, at worst, was politically misguided. Id.
 	Requiring a Board member who attends a community forum(s) to, prior to
speaking about their votes, disclaim their speech would have a chilling effect on
elected officials at levels of government. Id. at 8-9.

6
 	Other than being a “driving force” in the decision to change the District calendar,
Respondent’s actions were not self-serving in nature and/or could have resulted in
her securing any kind of personal benefit from the change. Instead, Respondent’s
conduct was “bad public policy” which was later revoked by a majority of the
Board (when it rescinded its prior action). The rescission of the previous Board
action is a recognition that Respondent and her fellow Board members erred. Id.
at 9.
 	Respondent’s conduct may have been bad policy, but “it does not rise to the level
of unethical conduct under the statute.” Id.
With the above in mind, ALJ Baron ordered Respondent should not be penalized for any
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and summary decision is
granted in Respondent’s favor. Id.
IV. 	Exceptions
Neither Complainants nor Respondent filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision within the
time period prescribed by N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4(a).
V. 	Analysis
Upon a careful and independent review of the facts and evidence set forth in the record,
the Commission 	adopts 	ALJ 	Baron’s 	findings 	of 	fact; 	adopts 	the legal 	conclusion 	that
Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) as alleged in Count 2; adopts the legal
conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) as contended in Count 4; but
rejects the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) as asserted
in Count 2.
As an initial matter, the Commission agrees with ALJ Baron that Respondent’s role as
the “driving force” behind the change to the District calendar; the walk-on motion for the
resolution to change the District’s calendar; and the failure to include the resolution on the Board
agenda, thus depriving the community of the opportunity to have advance notice of, to debate,
and to discuss the issue are not reasons why she should be found in violation of the Act. In fact,
in its Decision on Motion to Dismiss, the Commission specifically said that if Complainants
could prove that Respondent’s meeting with Complainants on May 31, 2021 (Count 2) and
alleged interview on June 13, 2021 (Count 4), constituted action beyond the scope of her duties
as a Board member, and had the potential to compromise the Board, a violation(s) of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) could be found. Moreover, if Complainants could prove that Respondent
disclosed confidential or inaccurate information to Complainants during the May 31, 2021,
meeting (Count 2), a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) could be established. Decision on
Motion to Dismiss at 17-18. In this way, the Commission dispensed with the argument that any
action taken by Respondent at the Board meeting on May 13, 2021, June 10, 2021, and/or June
21, 2021, even if procedurally inappropriate and/or contrary to best practice, was unethical.
Instead, the Commission focused on Respondent’s conduct and actions outside of scheduled
Board meetings.

7
Based on a thorough review of the record, the Commission also agrees with ALJ Baron
that there is insufficient factual evidence that, on May 31, 2021, Respondent disclosed
“confidential” or “inaccurate” information to Complainants. Although Complainants may have
believed 	that 	the 	information 	was 	“confidential” 	and/or 	that 	it 	was 	not 	appropriate 	for
Respondent to have discussed it with them, Complainants needed to identify the specific
information that was confidential and the basis for its confidentiality, and/or substantiate the
inaccuracy of any information that Respondent may have provided during their meeting on May
31, 2021. The record before ALJ Baron did not reveal such evidence and, therefore, a violation
of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) is not supportable.
Similarly, the Commission further agrees there is insufficient factual evidence that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when she attended a community forum, regardless
of whether she was invited, and did not preface her statements to attendees with a disclaimer. In
this regard, and other than Complainants’ supposition, there is no evidence that any specific
statement was officially attributed to Respondent. Absent evidence that a statement was made by
Respondent or attributed to her in some official capacity, there is no way for the Commission to
determine whether it required a disclaimer or, even if a disclaimer was used, whether the
disclaimer was vitiated by the substance of the statement.
However, the Commission rejects ALJ Baron’s conclusion that there is insufficient
factual evidence that, on May 31, 2021, Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when she
met with Complainants to discuss the removal of Columbus Day from the District calendar. In
this regard, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) states, “I will recognize that authority rests with the board of
education and will make no personal promises nor take any private action that may compromise
the board.” In order to substantiate a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), Complainants shall
adduce certain factual evidence, namely “factual evidence that Respondent made personal
promises or took action beyond the scope of her duties such that, by its nature, had the potential
to compromise the board.” N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(5).
The factual record, limited as it is, is undisputed and confirms that: on May 13, 2021, and
without prior notice, Respondent made a walk on motion to approve a resolution to change the
District calendar, namely to change Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day; upon learning of
the change, “there was a huge public outcry against what Respondent and a majority of the
Board had done”; Complainants sought a meeting with Respondent “to address their concerns
and listen to what Respondent had to say about the drastic change on the calendar”; the meeting
between Complainants and Respondent occurred on May 31, 2021, and lasted for almost two
hours; during the meeting, Respondent attempted to “justify her actions,” but was unsuccessful
in addressing Complainants’ concerns; in the approximately thirty (30) days that followed the
Board’s vote on May 13, 2021, “there was a tremendous backlash throughout the community”; at
the Board’s meeting on June 10, 2021, all attendees save three “expressed their outrage at what
the [B]oard and [Respondent] had done” on May 13, 2021, and requested that Columbus Day be
reinstated to the District calendar; and at a special meeting on June 21, 2021, which was attended
by over 400 members of the community, the Board, including Respondent, voted to rescind its
prior action and to reinstate Columbus Day. Id. at 3-5.

8
Even if Respondent, when she agreed to meet with Complainants, tried to explain to
Complainants that she was speaking as an “individual,” the fact is she was the “driving force” of
a Board action that resulted in a “huge public outcry,” she was asked to attend the meeting
because of that action, Complainants wanted to express their concerns to that Board member,
Complainants wanted to listen to Respondent’s rationale for the “drastic change” that she
initiated to the District calendar. Id. In other words, Complainants wanted Respondent, as a
Board member, to be accountable, and to justify her actions as a Board member, and any attempt
to represent or disclaim otherwise was futile.
Respondent knew that there was “a huge public outcry” and “tremendous backlash” from
the community about her motion and the Board’s action. As a result, and when asked by
Complainants, Respondent should have declined the meeting, and referred Complainants to the
District’s administration, or to the Board. Respondent should never have agreed to meet to
discuss, or to comment upon, official Board action, especially when the action was so presently
divisive and a palpable point of contention.
By attending the meeting to discuss Board action, Respondent clearly took action beyond
the scope of her duties as a Board member. Not only did Respondent’s acceptance of, and
attendance at, the meeting with Complainants constitute action beyond the scope of her duties as
a Board member, it also had the potential to compromise the Board. As a Board member,
Respondent is required, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j), to refer all complaints to the
District’s administration, and is prohibited from resolving, or attempting to resolve, a complaint
at a time other than at a public Board meeting, and prior to the failure of an administrative
solution. By not referring Complainants’ concerns to the administration, which she was aware of
prior to attending the meeting, Respondent undermined the administration’s authority (and
ability) to potentially resolve or address the concerns and this, in turn, imposes an unnecessary
strain and hardship on the relationship between the administration and the Board.
Moreover, given the public outcry over Respondent’s motion and the Board’s action, it
was incumbent upon the Board, and not Respondent, to publicly discuss and explain the rationale
for its decision-making, and not for Respondent to explain it to Complainants. Although
Respondent may have made the motion which caused the Board to take action, Respondent did
not, by herself, cause the complained of action (even if she was the driving force). Instead, it was
the 	Board, 	and 	the 	Board 	alone. 	Therefore, 	it 	was 	the 	Board’s 	responsibility, 	and 	not
Respondent’s, to address any concerns, including those from Complainants, about why certain
action was taken. Agreeing to meet with certain constituents and to offer her rationale
undermined the ability of the Board to explain to the community at large, which included
Complainants, why the action was taken. By attempting to explain or rationalize why she made
the motion, Respondent compromised the integrity of the Board’s decision-making process.
Consequently, and regardless of how Respondent may have attempted to qualify the
capacity in which she was speaking and the capacity in which she was attending the meeting, the
record supports a finding that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 2.
VI. 	Decision

9
For the reasons more fully detailed above, the Commission adopts ALJ Baron’s findings
of fact; adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) as
alleged in Count 2; adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) as contended in Count 4; but rejects the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) as asserted in Count 2.
VII. 	Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and following its review
of the record, the Commission recommends a penalty of reprimand, the lowest form of
sanction/penalty that can be imposed for a violation of the Act. The Commission’s recommended
penalty of reprimand is predicated on the fact that Respondent’s actions, although violative of
the Code, did not appear to be willful, wanton, or reckless, and there is no evidence that she has
previously been found in violation of the Act. As such, the Commission recommends that
Respondent be reprimanded for having violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
of Education (Commissioner) for review of the Commission’s recommended sanction. Parties
may 	either: 	1) 	file 	exceptions 	to 	the 	recommended 	sanction; 	2) 	file 	an 	appeal 	of 	the
Commission’s findings of violations of the Act; or 3) file both exceptions to the recommended
sanction and an appeal of the Commission’s findings of violations of the Act.
Parties taking exception to the recommended sanctions of the Commission but not
disputing the Commission’s findings of violations may file, within thirteen (13) days from the
date the Commission’s decision is forwarded to the Commissioner, written exceptions regarding
the recommended sanctions 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 of any comments filed must be sent to the
Commission (school.ethics@doe.nj.gov) and all other parties.
Parties seeking to appeal the Commission’s findings of violations must file an appeal
pursuant to the standards set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:4, 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 mailing date to the parties, as indicated below. In such cases, the Commissioner’s review of
the 	Commission’s 	recommended 	sanctions 	will 	be 	deferred 	and 	incorporated 	into 	the
Commissioner’s review of the findings of violations 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 brief on appeal.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
School Ethics Commission

Mailing Date: January 31, 2023
10