Lisa J. Guzik v. Ryan Campbell, Mantua Township Board of Education, Gloucester County, 7/26/24, (#283SEC)

283-24SEC
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lisa J. Guzik,
Complainant,
v.
Ryan Campbell, Mantua Township Board
of Education, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Complainant alleged that respondent Ryan Campbell, a member of the Mantua Township Board
of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-21 et seq., when he called her employer, identified himself as a Board member, and
complained about her actions during Board meetings. 	As the respondent failed to submit a
Written Statement and/or Statement of Reasons, the allegations in the Complaint were
undisputed. Accordingly, following a full review of the matter, the School Ethics Commission
(SEC) determined that the respondent’s actions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members and recommended a penalty of censure.
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 censured as a school official found to have
violated the School Ethics Act.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of
the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

283-24SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C45-23
Agency Dkt. No. 198-6/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lisa J. Guzik,
Complainant,
v.
Ryan Campbell, Mantua Township Board
of Education, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the June 17, 2024 decision
of the School Ethics Commission (SEC). The SEC found that respondent Ryan Campbell, a member
of the Mantua Township Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the
School Ethics Act. 	The SEC recommended a penalty of censure 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). 	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 SEC’s
underlying finding of violation.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC for
respondent’s actions in contacting complainant’s supervisor, representing himself as a member
of the Board, and complaining about actions complainant took as a private citizen at a Board
meeting.

2
Accordingly, respondent is hereby censured as a school official found to have violated the
School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 26, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	July 31, 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
Docket No.: C45-23
Final Decision
Summary Disposition
Lisa J. Guzik,
Complainant
v.
Ryan Campbell,
Mantua Township Board of Education, Gloucester County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on April 19, 2023, by Lisa J. Guzik (Complainant), alleging
that Ryan Campbell (Respondent), a member of the Mantua 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(e) of the Code of Ethics for
School Board Members (Code).
When Respondent failed to file a Written Statement, the Commission, in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:28-7.3(b), issued a notice, dated May 16, 2023, and again on June 21, 2023,
informing Respondent that he had 10 additional days to file a Written Statement or each
allegation in the Complaint would be deemed admitted, and the Commission may decide the
matter on a summary basis. Despite these notices, Respondent did not file a Written Statement.
At its meeting on January 23, 2024, the Commission considered the filings, and at its
meeting on February 27, 2024, the Commission adopted a decision finding that there are
sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint1 to lead a reasonable person to believe
that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) was violated as set forth in the Complaint. 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) he should not be found in violation of the Act. Respondent was advised
that if he disputes any of the facts determined by the Commission to be both material and
undisputed, he should set forth the facts with which he 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.
1 As Respondent did not file a Written Statement, the Commission’s review of this matter was limited
solely to the Complaint.

2
The Commission sent a notice on April 2, 2024, when Respondent failed to file a
Statement of Reasons, and then again on April 23, 2024, informing Respondent that if he failed
to file a Statement of Reasons within 10 days, the matter would be decided on a summary basis
without his Statement of Reasons. Despite these notices, Respondent did not file a Statement of
Reasons.
Consequently, at its meeting on May 21, 2024, the Commission reviewed the record in
this matter and, at its special meeting on June 17, 2024, adopted a decision finding that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and recommending a penalty of censure for
Respondent’s violation of the Act.
II. 	Summary of the Pleadings
The Complaint
Complainant asserts that on April 4, 2023, Respondent contacted the principal of the
school 	where 	Complainant 	works 	and 	that 	during 	the 	conversation 	with 	the 	principal,
Respondent identified himself as a Board member. Complainant contends that Respondent
informed the principal that Complainant “personally attack[s] him” at Board meetings and he
believes the “attacks began because of his opposition to gender neutral bathrooms.” Complainant
attached an email to the Complaint that appears to be from her supervisor, stating:
I received a message from a Ryan Campbell to give him a call. I
did call him back . . . and [he] wanted to inform me that:
• 	He is a school board member in Mantua.
• 	Ms. Guzik personally attacks him at the [B]oard meetings
with unfounded claims.
• 	He is preparing to sue Ms. Guzik over her unfounded
claims.
• 	He believes the attacks began because of his opposition to
gender neutral bathrooms.
I did express my concern over the purpose of the call and this
matter is not a School or District related matter. It was an unusual
phone call from someone claiming to be Ryan Campbell.
Complainant asserts that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because “[h]is
actions were an attempt to silence [Complainant’s] speaking out at the . . . Board meetings” and
Respondent “identified himself as a school board member in a private matter for his own
perceived personal gain,” which questions the “integrity and authority” of the Board.

3
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 was a Board member in the Mantua Township School District
(District). Complaint at page 1.
2. 	Complainant works at a school and reports to a principal. Complaint at page 1.
3. 	On 	April 	4, 	2023, 	Respondent 	called 	the 	principal 	of 	the 	school 	where
Respondent works and asserted that Respondent “personally attack[s] him” at Board meetings
and that he believed that the “attacks began because of his opposition to gender neutral
bathrooms.” Complaint at page 1.
4. 	Complainant received an email from the principal of the school where she works,
stating:
I received a message from a Ryan Campbell to give him a call. I
did call him back . . . and [he] wanted to inform me that:
• 	He is a school board member in Mantua.
• 	Ms. Guzik personally attacks him at the [B]oard meetings
with unfounded claims.
• 	He is preparing to sue Ms. Guzik over her unfounded
claims.
• 	He believes the attacks began because of his opposition to
gender neutral bathrooms.
I did express my concern over the purpose of the call and this
matter is not a School or District related matter. It was an unusual
phone call from someone claiming to be Ryan Campbell.
Complaint at page 1; Exhibit to Complaint.
IV. 	Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Complainant argues that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when he called her
employer, identified himself as a Board member, and complained about her actions during Board
meetings. This provision of the Code states:
e. 	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.

4
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(a)(3), factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) shall include evidence that Respondent made personal promises or took action beyond
the scope of his duties such that, by its nature, had the potential to compromise the board.
Respondent failed to submit a Written Statement and/or Statement of Reasons, and as
such, the allegations in the Complaint are undisputed.
With the above in mind, the Commission finds that Respondent acted beyond the scope
of his duties as a Board member when he called Complainant’s supervisor, represented himself
as a member of the Board, and complained about actions that she took as a private citizen at a
Board meeting. Respondent’s behavior certainly has the potential to compromise the Board, as it
undermines the integrity of the Board for its members to attempt to silence members of the
public and/or encourage them not to attend future Board meetings by calling their employers in
an apparent attempt to get them into trouble in the workplace. Accordingly, and based on the
undisputed evidence as set forth herein, the Commission finds Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) when he called Complainant’s employer regarding “attacks” she made at a Board
meeting.
V. 	Recommended Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), 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 censure is the most appropriate penalty. In
reaching this determination, the Commission finds that, based on the record, Respondent
deliberately used his position as a Board member to intimidate Complainant because she had a
different opinion on the issue of gender neutral bathrooms and spoke publicly at Board meetings.
Whether Respondent believed that he was being attacked, he acted inappropriately by contacting
a constituent’s supervisor regarding action taken in a personal capacity at a Board meeting and
which has no bearing on her employment.
VI. 	Decision
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner
impose a penalty of censure for the violation of 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
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

5
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
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: June 17, 2024

6
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C45-23
Whereas, at its meeting on May 21, 2024, the School Ethics Commission (Commission)
considered the entirety of the record in this matter; and
Whereas, at its meeting on May 21, 2024, the Commission discussed finding a violation
of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e); and
Whereas, at its meeting on May 21, 2024, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of censure for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e); and
Whereas, at its special meeting on June 17, 2024, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
May 21, 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 special meeting on June 17, 2024.
_____________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission