Joseph Argenziano v. Kathleen Fable, Board of Education of the Northern Valley Regional School District, Bergen County, 8/29/2023, (#258-23SEC)

258-23SEC+
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Joseph Argenziano,
Complainant,
v.
Kathleen Fable, Board of Education of the
Northern 	Valley 	Regional 	School 	District,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Complainant alleged, inter alia, that respondent, a member of the Northern Valley Regional
School 	District 	Board 	of 	Education, 	violated 	two 	sections 	of 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Act,
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq, when she conducted a personal investigation into the cost of
computer equipment by contacting vendors and other school districts without authorization
from the Board, actions that had the potential to compromise the Board. 	The School Ethics
Commission (SEC) determined that the respondent’s actions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)
and 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.

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Joseph Argenziano,
Complainant,
v.
Kathleen Fable, Board of Education of the
Northern Valley Regional School District,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the July 25, 2023 decision
of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that respondent
Kathleen Fable, a member of the Northern Valley Regional Board of Education (Board), violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code of Ethics for School Board
Members. 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 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 actions in conducting a personal investigation into the cost of
258-23SEC+
SEC Dkt. No. C20-20
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 10182-20
Agency Dkt. No. 204-7/23

2
equipment by contacting vendors and other school districts without authorization from the
Board.
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 EDUCATION2
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 29, 2023
August 30, 2023
2 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:4-34, this matter has been delegated to Kathleen Ehling.

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-10182-20
SEC Docket No.: C20-20
Final Decision
Joseph Argenziano,
Complainant
v.
Kathleen Fable,
Northern Valley Regional Board of Education, Bergen County
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on May 15, 2020,1 by Joseph Argenziano (Complainant), a
member of the Northern Valley Regional Board of Education (Board), alleging that Kathleen
Fable (Respondent), also a member of the Board, violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-21 et seq. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members
(Code) when she conducted a personal investigation into the cost of Chromebooks by contacting
vendors and other school districts without authorization from the Board.
At its meeting on September 29, 2020, and after reviewing Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss) and Complainant’s response thereto, the
Commission voted to deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Based on its determination, the
Commission also voted to direct Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer), and to
transmit the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) following receipt of the Answer.
On October 19, 2020, Respondent filed an Answer as directed. The Commission
subsequently transmitted the matter to the OAL for a plenary hearing where Complainant would
carry the burden to prove the alleged violations of the Code as set forth in the Complaint.
At the OAL, a hearing was held on November 22 and 23, 2022. Thereafter, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision on May 15, 2023. Respondent filed
exceptions to the Initial Decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and Complainant filed a
reply thereto.
1 On May 15, 2020, Complainant filed a deficient Complaint; however, on May 19, 2020, Complainant
cured all defects and filed an Amended Complaint that was deemed compliant with the requirements
detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.3.

2
At its meeting on June 27, 2023, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on July 25, 2023, the Commission voted to adopt the Initial
Decision’s findings of fact, the legal conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and the recommended penalty of censure.
II. 	Initial Decision
During the 2019-2020 school year, the Board was considering replacing the Apple
devices in the one-to-one program where each student receives a device. Initial Decision at 21.
On March 31, 2020, the Board heard a presentation on a feasibility study in which a
recommendation was made to replace the 2,100 student devices with the MacBook Air 13. Ibid.
While a vote was not taken at the Board meeting to approve the MacBooks, Respondent “set
forth her skepticism” regarding the cost of the devices. Id. at 21-22. According to Respondent,
she and another Board member were “frustrated with what they thought was the lack of
information from the administration regarding their selection of new Apple devices to replace the
old Apple Devices.” Id. at 21.
On April 1, 2020, Respondent emailed the business administrators for the Tenafly,
Emerson, Paramus and Ridgewood Boards of Education indicating that she was a member of the
Board and requesting information on their experiences with Chromebooks as she was “looking to
do an analysis of Apple devices versus Chromebooks.” Id. at 22. Thereafter, Respondent’s
employee at her private business, Breana Sylvester (Sylvester), sent several emails to a district
vendor, CDW-G. Ibid. Sylvester indicated that she was emailing “on behalf of a board member
of the Northern Valley Regional High School district [(District)] in Demarest, NJ” and requested
a quote for Chromebooks with detailed specifications, as “[t]he school is looking to move
students over to Chromebooks, as part of a 1:1 program.” J-5; Initial Decision at 22. The vendor
alerted the Superintendent to the request, and the Superintendent advised the vendor that
Sylvester was “illegally soliciting information” on the District’s behalf. Initial Decision at 22.
On April 14, 2020, CDW-G responded to Sylvester indicating that it could not provide quotes to
an “unauthorized person.” Respondent replied and indicated that she was seeking information
regarding her “PERSONAL RESEARCH as a board member,” but that as CDW-G was not
responsive, 	she 	would 	contact 	another 	approved 	vendor. 	J-8; 	Initial 	Decision 	at 	22.
Consequently, Respondent sought price quotes for Chromebooks from Ocean Computers and
Dell EMC. Initial Decision at 23.
Respondent did not apprise the Board of her plans, nor did she have approval from the
Board, the Finance Committee, the Superintendent, the Board President, or the Board attorney to
contact vendors or other school districts. Ibid. On April 27, 2020, the Board authorized the
purchase of MacBooks for the one-to-one program, and on May 11, 2020, passed a resolution
authorizing Complainant to file the within ethics complaint. Ibid.
The ALJ found that it is undisputed that Respondent contacted vendors, both directly and
through her employee, as well as other school districts ostensibly on behalf of the Board. Id. at
25. The ALJ further found that Respondent and her employee identified Respondent as a Board
member and represented that the Board was contemplating switching from MacBooks to
Chromebooks, despite the fact that the Board was considering no such switch. Ibid. According to

3
the ALJ, Respondent’s “rationale” was her belief that she had not been given accurate and
detailed information related to the MacBooks and wanted to do her own research. Ibid. However,
the ALJ contends in doing so, Respondent violated [D]istrict policy and the Code because she
put the Board in “potentially compromised positions” when she took private action to conduct a
personal investigation into the cost of Chromebooks without authorization.” Ibid.
In concluding Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A 18A: 12-24.1(e)
and recommending an appropriate penalty, the ALJ compared the within matter to Lowell v.
Smallwood, Asbury Park Board of Education, Monmouth County, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub.
LEXIS 1267 (App. Div. 2017). In Lowell, the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and
N.J.S.A 18A: 12-24.1(e) when they conducted a site visit to assess a candidate for interim
Superintendent without 	board 	authority 	and 	without approval of the State monitor. The
Commission recommended a penalty of censure for the violations, which was accepted by the
Commissioner, and affirmed by the Appellate Division. The ALJ found this present matter to be
similar to Lowell as Respondent “made repeated contact with vendors and school administrators
without [B]oard approval.” Initial Decision at 26. As such, the ALJ recommended a penalty of
censure. Ibid.
III. 	Exceptions
Respondent’s Exceptions
In her exceptions, Respondent initially argues that she had requested information
regarding the costs of the technology refresh multiple times, but it was not provided, and that
seeking data from outside entities when District administration fails to provide it is in accordance
with the “best practices” for Board members according to the Lighthouse Inquiry, a publication
by the Iowa Association of School Boards in 2001.
Respondent argues she did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) because Complainant did
not provide any evidence to support that Respondent “acted beyond the scope of her capacity as
a board member.” On the contrary, Respondent maintains, the evidence demonstrates that she
“conducted her own research, not on behalf of the Board, but with knowledge of all members of
the Finance Committee,” which is common practice. Respondent further argues the Initial
Decision disregarded Daniel Eller’s testimony which indicated that conducting outside research
was part of the Finance Committee discussion and was discussed in the presence of Complainant
and the Superintendent. Additionally, Respondent contends that the ALJ failed to consider
Sylvester’s testimony that Respondent did not review the email she sent to the vendor, but rather
another supervisor did.
Respondent argues she did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) because there is no
evidence that she made any personal promises to the individuals she contacted. Respondent
maintains 	that 	contacting 	other 	school 	districts 	to 	learn 	about 	their 	experiences 	with
Chromebooks 	is 	not 	something 	that 	would 	compromise 	a 	school 	board. 	Additionally,
Respondent asserts that there is no evidence she “leveraged her standing as a [B]oard member to
get information from outside sources,” such as other school districts or vendors, as she was
conducting “personal research.” Respondent maintains she did not direct her assistant to use her

4
Board member status when drafting the emails in question, nor did she tell her assistant what
companies to contact or the specifications for the Chromebooks. Furthermore, Respondent
contends her inquiries did not compromise the Board.
As to the penalty, Respondent notes despite that she has not been a Board member since
2021, Complainant read the Initial Decision and the recommended penalty of censure to the
public at the May 22, 2023, Board meeting, without waiting for the Commissioner of Education
to make a final pronouncement of the penalty. Respondent argues a penalty of reprimand should
be issued, rather than censure, due to the mitigating factors of Complainant’s use of the process
for his own political gain and the administration’s failure to provide Respondent and the Finance
Committee with “necessary information.”
Complainant’s Reply to Respondent’s Exceptions
In his reply, Complainant argues there is no basis to reject the ALJ’s findings that
Sylvester and Respondent were not credible witnesses. Complainant contends the Commission
should adopt the ALJ’s findings, namely that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), and
N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(e). 	More 	specifically, 	Complainant 	notes 	contrary 	to 	Respondent’s
assertion that she was conducting “personal research,” it is undisputed that Respondent held
herself out as representing the Board when she and her assistant solicited pricing information
from vendors and information from other school districts. Complainant asserts Respondent
contacted a District vendor and a potential vendor without the authorization of the full Board,
while representing that she was seeking information as a Board member, and directed her
assistant, who has no connection to the Board, to seek information on the Board’s behalf, in
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c).
Regarding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), Complainant argues Respondent
engaged in private action that compromised (or at a minimum had the potential to compromise)
the Board when she “directly solicited information concerning school technology from a District
vendor and a potential vendor, as well as several neighboring school districts’ Business
Administrators 	without 	first 	obtaining 	authority 	from 	the 	Board.” 	Complainant 	reiterates
Respondent and her assistant, on Respondent’s behalf, “‘gave the impression’ that she was acting
on behalf of the Board, although she did not have permission to do so.”
Complainant urges the Commission to find a censure as the appropriate penalty as
Respondent was “a seasoned Board member and serving in her second term at the time of the
events at issue.” Therefore, Respondent should have been “well-aware” that her actions were
unethical.
IV. Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission agrees
with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
At the outset, the Commission notes that an agency head may not reject or modify any
findings of fact as to issues of credibility of lay witnesses unless it is first determined from a

5
review of the record that those findings are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not
supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the record. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c);
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(c). Despite Respondent’s arguments, the Commission finds no basis to disturb
the credibility findings of the ALJ regarding Respondent’s or Sylvester’s testimony. The ALJ
had the opportunity to observe and assess the witnesses during their testimony, and the
credibility findings are supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the record.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), board members must confine board action to
“policy making, planning, and appraisal” and “frame policies and plans only after the board has
consulted those who will be affected by them.” Respondent took official action to effectuate
policies and plans without consulting those affected by the policies and plans when she contacted
vendors and other school districts, both indirectly and through her private employee who did not
have a connection to the Board; identified herself as a member of the Board; and indicated that
the Board was contemplating switching from MacBooks to Chromebooks, when the Board had
not considered a change. In using misrepresentations (either directly or indirectly) and her
position on the Board to find a quote for Chromebooks in the hope of securing a contract for
Chromebooks, Respondent took action to effectuate plans without consulting with the Board.
While Respondent alleges that some members of the Finance Committee were aware that she
may conduct research, Respondent did not have Board approval to take such actions. Moreover,
Respondent’s actions far exceeded preliminary internet searches or “research”; she conducted a
detailed inquiry in which she contacted school vendors and gave the impression that she was
doing so on behalf of the Board. As such, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that
Respondent’s actions constitute a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c).
In accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), Board members must “recognize that
authority rests with the board of education,” and therefore, must “make no personal promises nor
take any private action that may compromise the board.” Respondent took personal action when
she contacted vendors and school districts without authorization from the Board, seeking price
quotes for Chromebooks. Such actions had the potential to compromise the Board as Respondent
falsely implied to vendors, including a District vendor, that the Board was considering
purchasing Chromebooks. The Commission disagrees with Respondent that it is the “best
practice” 	to 	seek 	data 	from 	outside 	entities 	when 	information 	is 	not 	provided 	by 	the
administration. Respondent was within her right to express disagreement at the Board meeting,
but it was inappropriate of Respondent to conduct her own private investigation and place the
Board at risk. Further, the administration did not fail to provide information; a feasibility study
was provided but Respondent sought additional information. Accordingly, the Commission
agrees with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
The Commission further agrees with the ALJ that a censure is the appropriate penalty for
such a violation. Lowell, supra, presents an analogous case in which violations of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(c) 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(e) 	resulted 	in 	a 	censure 	after 	the 	respondents
conducted a site visit without authority to assess a candidate for interim Superintendent. The
Commission notes that while Respondent no longer serves on the Board, she was an experienced
Board member in her second term at the time of the violations and made repeated contacts with
other school districts and vendors without Board approval. Furthermore, Respondent not only
committed such flagrant violations on her own, but also recruited her private employee without

6
any connection to the Board to conduct an investigation on her behalf. Accordingly, the
Commission adopts the ALJ’s recommended penalty in this matter.
IV. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the Initial Decision of the
OAL as the final decision in this matter. The Commission finds that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and adopts the recommended penalty of
censure for the violation.
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: July 25, 2023

7
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C20-20
Whereas, at its meeting on September 29, 2020, the School Ethics Commission
(Commission) voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a plenary hearing; and
Whereas, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), issued an Initial Decision dated May 15,
2023; and
Whereas, the ALJ found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e), and recommended that Respondent be censured; and
Whereas, Respondent filed exceptions to the Initial Decision and Complainant filed a
reply to Respondent’s exceptions; and
Whereas, at its meeting on June 27, 2023, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, discussed adopting the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and discussed adopting the recommended penalty of
censure; and
Whereas, at its meeting on July 25, 2023, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
June 27, 2023; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Commission hereby adopts the within decision.
____________________________________
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that this Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its
regularly scheduled meeting on July 25, 2023.
________________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Acting Director
School Ethics Commission