In the Matter of Daniel Leonard, Toms River Regional Board of Education, Ocean County, 8/12/2022, (#201-22SEC)

1
SEC Dkt Nos. C56-19 and C57-19 (Consolidated)
OAL Dkt. Nos. EEC 01230-20
Agency Dkt. No. 202-8/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Daniel Leonard,
Toms River Regional Board of Education,
Ocean County.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the November 23, 2021
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent Daniel Leonard, a member of the Toms River Regional Board of Education, violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code). The
Commission recommended a penalty of censure 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 has 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, for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge and the decision of the Commission, the Commissioner concurs with
the penalty recommended by the Commission for respondent’s violation of the Code in
connection with certain posts he made to social media.
201-22SEC

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:
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.
August 12, 2022
August 12, 2022

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-01230-20
SEC Docket No.: C56-19 and C57-19 (Consolidated)
Final Decision
In the Matter of Daniel Leonard,
Toms River Regional Board of Education, Ocean County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
This consolidated matter arises from two (2) separate but related Complaints. More
specifically, on August 5, 2019, Sara Sheikh (Complainant Sheikh) filed a Complaint (C56-19)
alleging that Daniel Leonard (Respondent), a member of the Toms River Regional Board of
Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. when he
made certain posts to social media, further described below. Complainant Sheikh’s Complaint
alleged that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) of the
Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code) in Count 1, and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code in Count 2. On August 7, 2019, Nina Rossi
(Complainant Rossi) also filed a Complaint (C57-19) alleging the same.
By correspondence dated October 9, 2019, the parties were notified that, pursuant to its
authority as set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.6, the Commission consolidated the Complaints filed
by Complainant Sheikh and Complainant Rossi (collectively referred to as Complainants)
against Respondent.
Complainants alleged that on April 12, 2019, Respondent shared a Facebook post from
the “Rant Nation with Graham Allen” site to his personal Facebook page. The shared post
appears to link to a video purporting to show United States Representative Ilhan Omar. The post
additionally contains a picture of Congresswoman Omar wearing a hijab – a head scarf worn by
many Muslim women. 	In sharing the post, 	Respondent commented, “Terrorist….100%.”
Complainants further alleged that on April 19, 2019, Respondent shared a Fox News article
dated April 19, 2019, entitled, “Rashida Tlaib calls for hunger strikes to shut down ICE” to his
personal Facebook page. The post includes a picture of Congresswoman Tlaib, with a comment
by Respondent stating, “My life would be complete if she/they die….”
Finally, on April 28, 2019, Complainants alleged that Respondent shared a photograph on
his personal Facebook page of a doll, with a black eye, bruise on her chin and dressed in a hijab.
The body of the photograph bears the following text: “Sharia Barbie [-] Comes with a jihab
[(sic)], bruises and quran [-] Stoning accessories available for additional purchase.”1
1 The Commission acknowledges that the cited language/speech may be regarded as offensive, provocative,
disagreeable, or vulgar; however, the cited language/speech is quoted directly from the parties’ submissions. The
inclusion of this language/speech is not intended to disparage, offend, or disrespect the reader.

2
On August 29, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to
Dismiss) to Complainant Sheikh’s Complaint. Additionally, on September 5, 2019, Respondent
filed a Motion to Dismiss to Complainant Rossi’s Complaint.
At its meeting on November 19, 2019, the Commission considered the filings in this
matter and, at its meeting on December 17, 2019, the Commission voted to grant the Motion to
Dismiss as to the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), but to deny the Motion to Dismiss
as to all other allegations in the Complaint. Based on its findings, the Commission also voted to
direct Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer) as to the remaining allegations in the
Complaint (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) in Count 1, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) in Count 2, and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 3), and to
transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) following
receipt of the Answer.
On January 22, 2020, the matter was transmitted to the OAL and was assigned to the
Honorable Elia A. Pelios, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Pelios). The matter was heard on
October 6, 2020, and the record remained open to allow for the submission of written statements.
After the hearing concluded, Complainant Sheikh withdrew her Complaint, leaving Complainant
Rossi to prosecute the charges. On October 14, 2020, the record was closed.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of ALJ Pelios’ Initial Decision on March 18,
2021; therefore, the forty-five (45) day statutory period for the Commission to issue a Final
Decision was May 3, 2021. Prior to May 3, 2021, the Commission requested a forty-five (45)
day extension of time to issue its decision so as to allow the Commission, which only meets
monthly, the opportunity to 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
June 17, 2021. The Commission requested and was granted three additional extensions in order
to permit Respondent time to order and receive the transcript(s) of the proceedings and file
exceptions accordingly. On August 5, 2021, the Commission requested a fifth forty-five (45) day
extension of time to issue its Final Decision prior to the November 1, 2021 deadline for issuing a
Final Decision. Good cause having been shown, the time limit for issuing a Final Decision was
extended until December 16, 2021.
At a meeting on October 19, 2021, the Commission considered ALJ Pelios’ Initial
Decision, and at its meeting on November 16, 2021, the Commission voted to adopt ALJ Pelios’
Initial Decision as its Final Decision.
II. 	Initial Decision
Based on his review of the documents submitted and witness testimony offered, ALJ
Pelios found the following as fact:
(1) 	In April 2019, Respondent was at all times a member of the Board.
(2) 	On April 12, 2019, Respondent shared a Facebook post from the “Rant Nation with
Graham Allen” site to his personal Facebook page, “DP Leonard.”

3
(3) 	The shared post appears to link to a video purporting to show U.S. Representative
Ilhan Omar “MOCK[ING] Americans for Fearing al-Qaeda.”
(4) 	The original post carried the commentary, “This newly discovered video from her
past comes AFTER Congresswoman Omar claimed 9/11 was a situation where ‘some
people did something.’ SHAME on you.”
(5) 	The post contains pictures of Congresswoman Omar wearing a hijab, a head scarf
worn by many Muslim women.
(6) 	In sharing the post, Respondent commented, “Terrorist……….100%.”
(7) 	Respondent understands Representative Omar to be a member of the Muslim faith.
(8) 	On April 19, 2019, Respondent shared a Fox News article dated April 19, 2019, titled
“Rashida Tlaib calls for hunger strikes to shut down ICE” to his personal Facebook
page.
(9) 	The post contains a picture of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.
(10) 	In sharing the post, Respondent commented, “My life would be complete if she/they
die … .”
(11) 	Respondent understands Representative Tlaib to be a member of the Muslim faith.
(12) 	On April 28, 2019, Respondent shared a photograph to his personal Facebook page,
which depicts a doll dressed in a hijab, the doll appears to be a woman, and has a
black eye and a bruise on its chin.
(13) 	The body of the photograph bears the following text: “Sharia Barbie Comes with
jihab 	[(sic)], 	bruises 	and 	quran. 	Stoning 	accessories 	available 	for 	additional
purchase.”
(14) 	On July 23, 2019, the New Jersey Chapter of CAIR issued a press release calling for
the resignation of Respondent due to these posts.
(15) 	The matter of Respondent’s posts received media attention.
(16) 	The matter was addressed at a Board meeting held on July 24, 2019, with many
members of the public in attendance.
(17) 	On July 25, 2019, then Board President Joseph Nardini issued a letter (P-4) wherein
he described the July 24, 2019, meeting as “contentious.”
(18) 	Mr. Nardini denounced Respondent’s posts and asserted that they were distracting the
Board from its mission and purpose.
(19) 	Mr. Nardini stated in the letter that he had rescinded Respondent’s appointment to the
Board’s Safety, Security, and Transportation Committee.
(20) 	Mr. Nardini also noted in the letter, that although the Board could not remove
Respondent, he asked that Respondent consider resigning his seat on the Board in
order to “remove the distraction from the Board’s mission.”
(21) 	Mr. Nardini described the posts as an “obstruction to the Board’s message and
duties.”
(22) 	On July 30, 2019, Board attorneys Stephen R. Leone, Esq., and Melanie Appleby,
Esq., 	issued 	a 	letter 	describing 	Respondent’s 	posts 	as 	“racist, 	incendiary 	and
offensive.”
(23) 	The letter noted the inability of the Board to remove a member, but described the
legal process by which alleged ethics violations could be addressed.
(24) 	Respondent did not resign, but he did not run for reelection, and is no longer a Board
member.

4
Initial Decision at 6-9.
ALJ 	Pelios 	further 	examined 	Respondent’s 	credibility, 	noting 	that 	“[a]lthough
Respondent does not bear the burden of proof and although he does not dispute making the
Facebook postings at issue, some aspects of his testimony must be assessed for credibility.” Id. at
9. After describing the standard for credibility, ALJ Pelios found the following regarding
Respondent: (1) he “did not see himself as acting on behalf of the Board or in his role as a Board
member when he made the posts at issue to be credible”; (2) “his testimony that ‘D.P. Leonard,’
the Facebook account to which the posts were made, his personal, private Facebook account to
also be credible,”; (3) “his testimony that he has a disclaimer on his account’s profile page to
acknowledge that the views expressed are his own and not those of the Board to be credible”; (4)
“his testimony that he did not intend or expect his posts to be publicized beyond those permitted
to view the post under his privacy settings to be credible, if not naïve and ultimately incorrect”;
(5) “he intended and believed such to be the case when making the posts in question”; (6) “his
testimony that he and his family received threatening communications after his posts were
publicized” to also be credible. Id. at 10.
ALJ Pelios further finds that while Respondent “may sincerely believe he is not anti-
Muslim” but rather “anti-certain aspects of Sharia law,” “his posts suggest the presence of
negative attitudes toward Muslim faith and culture broader than, as he has asserted, his personal
understanding or interpretation of Sharia Law.” Id. at 10-11. ALJ Pelios concludes that “his
sharing of the posts in question was informed in significant measure by these attitudes.” Id.
In the “Conclusions of Law” section of his Initial Decision, ALJ Pelios again notes that
Complainant Sheikh withdrew her complaint and Complainant Rossi’s three-count complaint
remains. With respect to the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), ALJ Pelios discusses
Complainant’s burden of proof to establish factually a violation of the Code. After detailing the
preponderance of evidence standard that applies, ALJ Pelios outlines that “factual evidence of a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) ‘shall include evidence that the respondent(s) willfully
made 	a 	decision 	contrary 	to 	the 	educational 	welfare 	of 	children, 	or 	evidence 	that 	the
respondent(s) 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.’”
Id. at 14.
ALJ Pelios further states “Respondent does not dispute making the posts at issue, and the
record reflects that he did not believe he was acting in any official capacity when he made the
posts.” Id. Furthermore, “his posts and/or comments do not constitute a decision(s) related to the
Board and/or the business of the Board or [District], nor do they constitute action that obstructed
the District’s programs or policies” in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b). Id. According to
ALJ Pelios, “absent the establishment of a nexus between [R]espondent’s posts and/or comments
on social media and an actual – not theoretical – decision(s) or action(s),” ALJ Pelios is
“constrained” 	to 	conclude 	Complainant 	Rossi 	“has 	not 	met 	her 	evidentiary 	burden 	in
demonstrating violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b).” Id. ALJ Pelios concludes that the alleged
violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b) should be dismissed as to Counts One, Two, and Three of
Complainant Rossi’s petition.

5
The only remaining allegation is N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 2 and Count 3.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) provides that a board member “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.” ALJ Pelios asserts, “the record is devoid of any evidence or allegation
that [R]espondent made any personal promise to anyone in posting the article and comment
regarding Rep. Tlaib or the picture of ‘Sharia Barbie.’” Id. at 15. Therefore, ALJ Pelios
maintains, “What remains is to determine whether in making those posts [R]espondent took
private action, that is, action beyond the scope of his duties, such that, by its nature, had the
potential to compromise the Board.” Id.
ALJ Pelios notes, “testimony by all three witnesses and documents in evidence paint a
picture of numerous phone calls to Board staff constituting harassment and threats that no doubt
have had a negative impact to the Board’s operation. Furthermore, and more perilous, is the
potential for further compromise.” Id. at 16. According to ALJ Pelios, the Legislature made “it
clear” that “it is essential … BOARD members ‘must avoid conduct which is in violation of their
public trust or which created a justifiable impression … that such trust is being violated.’” Id.
ALJ Pelios asserts, “It is appropriate to conclude that conduct creating such an impression has
the potential to cause the impairment of the Board or to expose it to discredit or suspicion – in
other words, to compromise the Board.” Id. at 16-17. ALJ Pelios concludes Respondent’s
admitted conduct has that same potential.
According to ALJ Pelios, “It is not a stretch to consider that students or families of
students of Muslim faith may fear that their culture or faith may play a role in adverse decisions
by the Board” based on Respondent’s “public expression of negative attitudes towards Muslim
culture and faith.” Id. at 17. Furthermore, “they may well be discouraged from even seeking
redress to the Board if they feel there is no point.” Id. ALJ Pelios contends, “This is clearly an
example of conduct that would cause members of the Board to lose the confidence and respect of
the people, and … ‘creates an unjustifiable impression … that such trust is being violated.’” Id.
Therefore, ALJ Pelios concludes Respondent’s posting and commenting as described in Counts 2
and 3 of Complainant Rossi’s petition constitute private action that has the potential to
compromise the Board and, therefore, violates N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Furthermore, ALJ Pelios
notes the Commission “has indicated that in exercising those rights, board members must comply
with the [Act].” Id. ALJ Pelios asserts the record shows that Respondent “has not complied with,
and in fact has violated, the Act and, therefore, ALJ Pelios concludes that charges of violating
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) should be sustained as to Counts 2 and 3. Id. at 18.
Having found violations of the Act, and with regard to the appropriate penalty, ALJ
Pelios notes that Respondent’s term on the Board has ended and he did not run again; therefore,
removal is not appropriate since he no longer serves on the Board. However, ALJ Pelios found
that Respondent should be censured for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Counts 2
and 3.

6
III. 	Exceptions
Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision.2
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
ALJ Pelios’ findings of fact, and adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e), but did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), Board members shall “make decisions in terms of
the educational welfare of children and will 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 agrees that Respondent did not act in his official capacity when
making the posts at issue. Further, the Commission agrees that Complainant did not meet her
evidentiary burden pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4 to demonstrate that the posts made by
Respondent obstructed the District’s programs and policies. Therefore, the Commission agrees to
dismiss the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b).
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), ALJ Pelios appropriately concluded
that Respondents action constituted “private action that may compromise the Board.” In
discussing the legislative intent for the School Ethics Act, ALJ Pelios properly highlighted that
Board members “must avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a
justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated.” N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22(a).
The Commission notes that board members do not surrender the rights that they have as citizens
such as freedom of speech when they become members of a school board. However, as discussed
in Dunbar Bey v. Brown, Camden Board of Education, Camden County, Commission Docket
No. C25-11 (Brown), and in light of the social media posts by Respondent, the Commission
echoes its decision in Brown, specifically that “when a sitting Board member makes such a
judgmental proclamation, it is likely to be credited far more than a statement offered by an
ordinary citizen.” Brown at 7. In Brown, the Commission found that the respondent, a board of
education member, violated the Code when he posted a message on his Facebook page (“Now if
we could only do something about our local terrorists that destroy dreams and burn futures”), the
Superintendent’s photo came up as a result of the post, and he did not remove it. Further, the
Commission emphasized “that in using social media, the affirmative duties within the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members may not be overlooked.” Id. at 8. With the above in mind,
Respondent’s disparaging posts to social media at issue constituted conduct that undermined the
public’s trust in the Board and compromised the Board’s ability to engage with the public. As
ALJ Pelios discussed, Respondent’s post had the potential to discourage members of the public,
namely members of the Muslim community, to engage with the Board “given what may seem to
be an apparent bias.” As such, ALJ Pelios’ determination is entirely appropriate.
2 The Commission notes that Respondent received all requested transcripts from the proceedings referenced in
section I, and subsequently thereafter indicated to the Commission on August 26, 2021 via e-mail that he would not
be filing exceptions in the matter.

7
V. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts findings of fact and the
legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), but violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) in Counts 2 and 3 when he made certain posts to social media.
VI. 	Penalty
As ALJ Pelios notes, the Commission acknowledges Respondent’s term on the Board has
ended and he did not run again. Therefore, removal is not possible. However, the Commission
agrees with ALJ Pelios and adopts the recommended penalty of censure for the violations of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Counts 2 and 3.
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: November 23, 2021