In the Matter of James Morgan, Ridgewood Board of Education, Bergen County, 4/14/2022, (#78-22SEC)

1
SEC Dkt No. C68-20
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 04009-21
Agency Dkt. No. 65-2/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of James Morgan, Ridgewood
Board of Education, Bergen County.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the February 25, 2022
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent, a member of the Ridgewood Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) in connection with public comments that he
made regarding litigation filed by a fellow Board member and his failure to recuse himself from
executive session discussing the litigation. The Commission recommended a penalty of censure
for the violations. 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, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the
Commission for respondent’s actions.
78-22SEC

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.
April 14, 2022
April 14, 2022

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-04009-21
SEC Docket No.: C68-20
Final Decision
Laurie Weber,
Complainant
v.
James Morgan,
Ridgewood Board of Education, Bergen County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
This matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on November 4, 2020 by Laurie
Weber (Complainant) alleging that James Morgan (Respondent) violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)
and (c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (in Count 1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c) (in Count 2)
because he made public comments about a Board candidate’s lawsuit against the Board related to
a denied OPRA request for documents, including Respondent’s official email information, and
then Respondent attended the executive session meetings regarding the litigation. At its meeting
on February 23, 2021, the Commission voted to deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety; found
the Complaint was not frivolous; denied Respondent’s request for sanctions and directed
Respondent to file an Answer to the allegations. On March 9, 2021, Respondent filed an Answer
denying any allegations of unethical conduct. On April 27, 2021, the Commission found
probable cause to credit the allegations that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c)
in Counts 1 and 2, and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) in Count 1, and transmitted the matter to the
OAL.
On May 27, 2021, the Honorable Nanci G. Stokes, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ
Stokes), conducted telephone conferences to discuss “needed discovery.” “Subsequently, the
parties agreed that the material facts were largely undisputed, and a motion for summary
decision could be appropriate.” On August 25, 2021, the parties presented a joint stipulation of
facts and ALJ Stokes “set a motion schedule as no hearing was necessary to resolve the facts or
legal issues presented.” On October 15, 2021, Respondent and Petitioner (Commission) “filed
their motions for summary decision, including supporting certifications and briefs.” Neither
party submitted a response and, therefore, on November 4, 2021, ALJ Stokes closed the record.
ALJ Stokes issued an Initial Decision on December 1, 2021. Thereafter, on December 14,
2021, Respondent filed Exceptions to ALJ Stokes’ Initial Decision, and Petitioner filed a
response to Respondent’s Exceptions on January 5, 2022.
At its meeting on January 25, 2022, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter, including the filed Exception and the filed reply. Thereafter, and at a special meeting on

2
February 25, 2022, the Commission voted to adopt the findings of fact from ALJ Stokes’ Initial
Decision; to adopt the legal conclusion that, based on the admissible evidence, there is sufficient
credible evidence to establish a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) of the Code; and to adopt the recommended penalty of censure.
II. 	Initial Decision
In the Initial Decision, ALJ Stokes offered the following findings of fact:
1. 	Respondent is a former Board member.
2. 	Respondent was the Board Vice President for the 2019-2020 Board year.
3. 	Respondent’s term as a Board member expired in May 2020 and he did not seek re-
election.
4. 	On May 4, 2020, the Board held a regularly scheduled public meeting.
5. 	The Board notified that it would be holding another meeting on May 7, 2020, to
discuss the status of a pending legal matter and a matter pertaining to pupil/personnel.
6. 	The legal matter concerned an OPRA lawsuit that was filed by Saurabh Dani, a
candidate for the Board’s upcoming elections on May 12, 2020.
7. 	Specifically, the legal matter related to whether Board members ever configured their
email settings in a manner that would allow them to retrieve Board emails on non-
Board devices or non-Board email accounts.
8. 	The only named respondent parties to the OPRA litigation were the Board and the
Board Secretary, who is also the official custodian of public records for the Board.
9. 	While Respondent was not a named party to the OPRA lawsuit, the information that
was being requested pertained to his personal devices and email accounts.
10. On March 13, 2020, after hearing oral arguments by counsel of the parties in the
OPRA lawsuit, and after consideration of written submission, the ALJ entered an
order whereby the Board must produce certifications from Board members Morgan
and Brogan “attesting to the manner in which they access emails from any and all
non-Board devices and/or non-Board email accounts.
11. In the March 13 Order, the ALJ also determined that Mr. Dani was entitled to
“attorneys’ fees and costs,” and ordered that the parties’ counsel attempt to agree
upon a reasonable amount of fees.
12. It was also determined that if the “parties failed in their attempt to negotiate
reasonable 	attorneys’ 	fees 	and 	costs, 	[Mr.] 	Dani’s 	attorney 	would 	submit 	a
certification of service within fourteen days of the March 13, 2020, Order, and the
Board would render a response within twenty-one days of same Order.”
13. At the May 7, 2020, special Board meeting, Board member Smith-Wilson advised
that she had received some questions when notification of that day’s meeting went
out, she did not provide an answer about the notification, and instead explained the
Board had two matters to discuss in executive session, one matter required action by
the Board and, therefore, needed to be public.
14. Board member Smith-Wilson then made a motion to go into executive session to
discuss 	matters 	related 	to 	litigation 	and 	a 	separate 	matter 	pertaining 	to
pupil/personnel. 	Board 	member 	Smith-Wilson 	further 	advised 	the 	public 	that

3
although the Board is not taking action on the litigation matter in executive session,
the Board can take action related to the pupil/personnel matter in executive session.
15. Board member Smith-Wilson did not disclose the identity of the Complainant in the
matter nor did she divulge the substance of the complaint.
16. Board member Brogan seconded the motion to go into executive session.
17. After the motion was moved and seconded, Respondent opposed the motion and
requested to read a statement to the public via Zoom.
18. Respondent first stated he did not object to discussing the pupil/personnel matter in
executive session; however, he did object to discussing the litigation matter in
executive session, which he divulged pertained to a settlement proposal that was
brought to the Board by the attorney of one of the candidates who was running for a
seat on the Board in next week’s election.
19. Respondent publicly commented that based on his personal knowledge of the facts
and the advice of the Board attorneys, the Board opposed the lawsuit and that none of
the material being sought in the lawsuit existed.
20. Respondent then claimed that the judge in the litigation matter asked the Board for
additional information, which the Board supplied, but to date, has not issued an
opinion on the lawsuit and that serious questions remain about the future of this case.
21. Respondent then divulged that the candidate’s lawsuit against the Board was based on
an OPRA claim, which permits the plaintiff’s attorneys to request the District to pay
their legal fees, if the Board is found to be in violation of the law.
22. In his public statement, Respondent also asserted that the Board has not yet been
ordered to pay attorney’s fees and that it was far from certain that such fees would be
awarded.
23. Respondent claimed that because the candidate did not want to have pending
litigation that would disqualify him from taking a seat on the Board should he be
elected, the candidate’s attorney approached the Board to propose that the Board pay
$6,674.45 in attorney’s fees in exchange for the candidate dismissing the OPRA
claims.
24. Respondent expressed that it was his personal opinion that because the Board cannot
take actions on litigation matters during executive session, the legal matter involving
the candidate for a seat on the Board should be discussed in public since the
Ridgewood taxpayers had a right to know how the Board is spending its funds.
25. No one else on the Board made any public comments.
26. On January 30, 2020, the Record newspaper and at least one local blog site previously
reported on the OPRA litigation.
Based on the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motions for summary
decision, ALJ Stokes also issued the following findings of fact:
27. In response to the March 13, 2020, Order, Respondent Morgan and Board member
Brogan supplied certifications to Mr. Dani on March 17, 2020, after an unresolved
deficiency letter, Mr. Dani filed a motion to enforce litigant’s rights, maintaining
Board member Brogan and Respondent Morgan failed to adhere to Judge Mizdol’s
Order requirements. Mr. Dani sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs, and his
counsel provided a certification of attorney services to Judge Mizdol.

4
28. On May 11, 2020, Respondent publicly posted that his and Board member Brogan’s
emails were the subject of Mr. Dani’s lawsuit.
29. On May 14, 2020, Judge Mizdol entered an Order finding the Board violated
litigant’s rights, ordered the Board’s compliance with sections 1(c) and (d) of the
March 13, 2020, Order, and entered judgment against the Board for reasonable
counsel fees and costs.
30. At the Board meeting on May 18, 2020, Board member Smith-Wilson, motioned for
an executive session to discuss the litigation and a personnel issue. Before the
executive session, Respondent again stated that the Board should discuss the litigation
publicly because it “involves a candidate for the Board of Education” Board member
Brogan advised she would recuse herself from the executive session concerning the
litigation, but Respondent did not. Upon return to the public meeting, Board member
Smith-Wilson reported that both Respondent and Board member Brogan recused
themselves from the executive session concerning the litigation. The Board discussed
the “next steps” to the litigation, and Board member Mahmoud motioned to appeal
the recent court decision and not resolve the case. Neither Board member Brogan nor
Respondent participated in the vote on the motion.
With the above in mind, ALJ Stokes made the following conclusions of law: in this
present matter a “genuine issue” of material facts does not exist, and the only issues presented
are whether Respondent’s public comments before the May 7 and May 18, 2020, executive
sessions, his failure to recuse himself from the May 7, 2020, executive session, and/or his failure
to recuse himself before going into the May 18, 2020, executive session are violations of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b), (c) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and if so, what sanction is appropriate. ALJ
Stokes notes, “no genuine issue exists” that Respondent served as the Board Vice President when
he made public comments concerning the litigation, including its status and subject matter and
his belief that the Board should discuss the litigation publicly; the litigation against the Board
concerned a denied OPRA request by a Board candidate seeking Respondent’s and Board
member Brogan’s official email accounts’ forwarding settings to determine if either individual
was sharing Board information to their non-Board electronic devices; Respondent did not recuse
himself from the executive discussion on May 7 and although Board member Smith-Wilson
reported that Respondent recused himself from discussion during the May 18 executive session,
Respondent did not recuse himself before the executive session as Board member Brogan did.
Therefore, ALJ Stokes concludes this case is ripe for summary discussion.
ALJ Stokes asserts, Respondent’s comments against Mr. Dani and “his lawsuit against
the Board damaged [Mr.] Dani’s reputation and created an unfair advantage to other candidates
of [Respondent’s] choosing in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).” Moreover, “Because a
member 	of 	the 	public 	hearing 	[Respondent’s] 	comments 	could 	reasonably 	believe 	that
[Respondent] intended his statements to influence the election in favor of other candidates,” ALJ
Stokes concludes a preponderance of the evidence exists that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b), and moreover, the fact that Mr. Dani secured a Board seat in the election is
immaterial as the Commission only needed to find the school official attempted to secure
unwarranted privileges for another.

5
ALJ Stokes further asserts that Respondent was personally involved in the litigation and
the Court required him to disclose personal information about his email and devices; however,
Respondent did not recuse himself from the executive session discussions on May 7, 2020, even
though he was the subject of the Order. Furthermore, on May 18, 2020, Respondent went in to
executive session, without first recusing himself (as Board member Brogan did). Although the
meeting minutes reflect that Respondent later recused himself from discussion, Board member
Smith-Wilson did not report this until after the executive session. ALJ Stokes notes the problem
arises when the school official “has an interest not shared in common with the rest of the public”;
therefore, ALJ Stokes concludes a preponderance of the evidence exists that Respondent had, at
minimum, an “indirect personal interest” in the outcome of the litigation. ALJ Stokes further
notes the OPRA lawsuit involved Respondent’s email and devices and, therefore, ALJ Stokes
further concludes “that a member of the public could justifiably believe that [Respondent’s]
objectivity was impaired when discussing the litigation, a resolution of the lawsuit, or the
Board’s ‘next steps’ concerning the case.”
ALJ Stokes maintains that Respondent should have recused himself from the discussion
on May 7 and before entering executive session on May 18. According to ALJ Stokes, the Board
moved to appeal the May 14, 2020, Order directing Respondent to supply the information he
previously failed to provide and this action created a benefit for Respondent; therefore, ALJ
Stokes concludes that Respondent acted in his official capacity on both dates in a matter where
he had personal involvement and received a benefit in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
ALJ Stokes contends that the Record reported the litigation and its subject or the OPRA
request made by Mr. Dani in January 2020, making it public. Moreover, documents filed with
the Superior Court are also available to the public. According to ALJ Stokes, the March 13 Order
notes that the information sought was related to Board member Brogan’s and Respondent’s
email accounts and devices. Mr. Dani’s counsel supplied an attorney certification of services to
the court and sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs, thereby making it public. Therefore,
ALJ Stokes concludes a preponderance of the evidence does not exist that Respondent made the
information public. However, ALJ Stokes concludes that Respondent’s public comments on
May 7, against litigant candidate Mr. Dani and the lawsuit’s status were inaccurate and
misleading. More specifically, on May 7 Respondent advised the public that the judge had not
yet issued an opinion on the case or that the judge had not yet ordered the District to pay Mr.
Dani’s attorney’s fees when in fact on March 13, 2020, Judge Mizdol found Mr. Dani to be a
prevailing party and that the Board owed Mr. Dani attorney’s fees and costs associated with the
OPRA litigation. Furthermore, Judge Mizdol also ordered that Respondent and Board member
Brogan provide certifications as to their email used and forwarding settings. In addition, Judge
Mizdol directed the parties to resolve the issue of fees and costs, or she would decide the fee
amount after receiving submission on fees. ALJ Stokes notes on March 17, 2020, Respondent
and Board member Brogan supplied Mr. Dani with certifications, which demonstrate that
Respondent was aware of the Order on March 13, 2020. Contrary to Respondent’s statement, an
“award of fees was not an ‘if’” regardless of whether the Board later appealed, and Mr. Dani was
not “senselessly” demanding materials that “did not exist.”
ALJ Stokes further contends on May 7, 2020, Respondent also stated the settlement offer
scheduled for discussion by the Board was so that Mr. Dani would not have pending litigation

6
against the Board that would disqualify him from office and that Mr. Dani sought attorney’s fees
in exchange for a dismissal of the OPRA claims. However, Respondent’s statements were
misleading because the March 13 Order concluded that Mr. Dani’s counsel was entitled to fees
and the Board members’ certifications, were not a dismissal in exchange for those fees.
Furthermore, Respondent believed the Board should discuss the matter publicly because
Ridgewood residents had the right to know how the Board spent its “limited resources.” ALJ
Stokes maintains Respondent made a similar comment at the May 18 meeting, and he was
incorrect. According to ALJ Stokes, the Board should only discuss litigation matters in executive
session, not in public and even if Respondent, as a “seasoned [B]oard member, and its vice-
president, incredibly believed that the Board could publicly discuss litigation against the [B]oard,
his public statements should have been accurate.” Therefore, ALJ Stokes concludes that a
preponderance of the evidence exists that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). ALJ
Stokes notes Respondent’s preface that his statements were “in his opinion” appropriately made
public does not excuse the inaccuracies of those comments as a mistake, a personal opinion, or
because of developing circumstances.
Having found Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), (c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(g) and because Respondent is no longer a Board member, ALJ Stokes concludes that
censure is an appropriate penalty. ALJ Stokes maintains Respondent did not vote upon or
execute a settlement agreement; Mr. Dani’s complaint was not against Respondent individually;
Respondent inaccurately commented on litigation in public on May 7 and May 18; Respondent
attended the May 7 executive session; went in to the May 18 executive session without recusing
himself, knowing the Board was going to discuss action regarding Mr. Dani’s OPRA lawsuit;
Board member Smith-Wilson publicly advised the subject matter of both executive session and
ALJ Stokes concluded that Respondent had a personal involvement and interest in the outcome
of the litigation. ALJ Stokes notes Respondent’s conduct fell short of his ethical obligations as a
Board member.
ALJ Stokes orders that Complainant’s motion for summary decision is granted and
Respondent’s motion for summary decision is denied and orders that Respondent be censured.
III. 	Exceptions
Respondent’s Exceptions
In his Exceptions, which were filed on December 14, 2021, Respondent initially argues
that ALJ Stokes’ “conclusion and imposed penalty are improper and too severe under the
circumstances.” 	Respondent continues to deny that he violated the Act and notes that even “if
the facts as alleged constitute violations,” a censure “is not an appropriate penalty.”
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) (Counts 1 and 2), Respondent maintains and
ALJ Stokes concurs that Respondent “recused [himself] from the executive session concerning
the litigation,” on May 18, 2020, and “there are no facts suggesting that Respondent took any
action such [as] a vote in favor of settling the litigation matter” on May 7, 2020, contrary to the
respondents as cited in Friends and Somerville. Regarding the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c)
(Count 1 and 2), Respondent reasserts the statements he made before the executive sessions were

7
“for the benefit of the pubic and due to his personal opinion.” Respondent contends that his
statements were made to “reinforce public trust rather than to violate it.” As to a violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 1), Respondent maintains that “holding [him] liable for violating
the inaccurate information provision is unacceptable because it is holding him to the standard of
a practicing attorney, and fails to consider that the inaccurate information provision has safe-
harbors for inaccurate information told due [to] ‘reasonable mistake or personal opinion, or was
not attributable to developing circumstances.’” Respondent asserts his statements at the Board
meetings were due to either reasonable mistake or personal opinion and, therefore, Respondent
did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
Turning to the penalty, Respondent argues ALJ Stokes cites several cases, namely,
Grimsley, Rodriguez, Kilmurray, Famularo and Friends, all of which, according to Respondent,
involve “aggravating circumstances” that are not contained in the present matter. Respondent
once again notes he did not vote on the litigation matter and maintains the Commission “seems
to give some leeway” to individuals who operate under “false belief” and who make mistakes.
Therefore, Respondent asserts the appropriate penalty is reprimand because his conduct “falls far
short of the conduct included in the cases cite by” ALJ Stokes.
Complainant’s Reply to Respondent’s Exceptions
In Petitioner’s (SEC) Reply to Respondent’s Exceptions, Petitioner maintains the Initial
Decision is “well reasoned, amply supported by evidence, and should be adopted in its entirety.”
Petitioner argues that ALJ Stokes’ finding that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(b) is correct. Petitioner maintains the “record shows that Respondent’s comments were not
just limited to informing the public about the nature of the OPRA lawsuit,” as Respondent
claims, nor “did they solely pertain to his opinion that the public should be more informed about
lawsuits that may result in expenditure of their tax dollars.” Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s
explanations “do nothing to dispute the fact that he publicly ‘proceeded to denigrate the merits of
[Mr.] Dani’s claims and any expenditure of Ridgewood’s resources on the lawsuit.’” As to a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), Petitioner argues once again ALJ Stokes’ findings were
correct. Petitioner notes ALJ Stokes accurately concluded that “because the OPRA lawsuit
specifically sought an order that would ‘require[] [Respondent] to disclose personal information
about his email and devices … a preponderance of the evidence exists that [he] had at a
minimum an indirect personal interest’ in the outcome of the litigation, which a public member
could justifiably believe would impair his objectivity during executive sessions ‘when discussing
the litigation, a resolution of the lawsuit, or the Board’s next steps concerning the case.’”
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), Petitioner contends ALJ Stokes’ finding that
“Respondent could not preface his demonstrably inaccurate statements as being the result of a
mistake, personal opinion, or developing circumstances” is appropriate.
Finally, Petitioner agrees that the penalty of censure is appropriate. Petitioner asserts ALJ
Stokes’ conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), as well as “finding that said violations warrant a penalty of censure,
should both be adopted.”

8
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
ALJ Stokes’ findings of fact, and adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), ALJ Stokes properly concluded that
Respondent’s comments against Mr. Dani and “his lawsuit against the Board damaged [Mr.]
Dani’s reputation and created an unfair advantage to other candidates of [Respondent’s]
choosing in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).” Moreover, “Because a member of the public
hearing [Respondent’s] comments could reasonably believe that [Respondent] intended his
statements to influence the election in favor of other candidates,” ALJ Stokes concludes a
preponderance of the evidence exists that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and
moreover, the fact that Mr. Dani secured a Board seat in the election is immaterial as the
Commission only needed to find the school official attempted to secure unwarranted privileges
for another.
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), ALJ Stokes properly concluded that
Respondent should have recused himself from the Executive Session discussions on May 7, 2020
and May 18, 2020, and because Respondent had, at minimum, an “indirect personal interest” in
the outcome of the litigation. ALJ Stokes further notes the OPRA lawsuit involved Respondent’s
email and devices and, therefore, ALJ Stokes further concludes that a member of the public
could justifiably believe that Respondent’s objectivity was impaired when discussing the
litigation, a resolution of the lawsuit, or the Board’s “next steps” concerning the case.”
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), ALJ Stokes properly concluded that
Respondent’s misleading public comments regarding the proposed settlement offer, which
should have been discussed in Executive Session and not in public despite Respondent’s preface
that his statements were his opinion.
V. 	Decision
The Commission adopts ALJ Stokes’ Initial Decision finding that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
VI. 	Penalty
For the reasons set forth by ALJ Stokes in her Initial Decision, the Commission adopts
the recommended penalty of censure.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
for review of the Commission’s recommended sanctions. 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.

9
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.” A copy of any comments filed
must be sent to the Commission 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
Mailing Date: February 25, 2022

10
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C68-20
Whereas, 	by 	correspondence 	dated 	April 	27, 	2021, 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission) transmitted the above-referenced matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
for a hearing; and
Whereas, at the OAL, both Respondent and Complainant filed Motions for Summary
Decision; and
Whereas, the Honorable Nanci G. Stokes, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Stokes) issued an
Initial Decision dated December 1, 2021; and
Whereas, in the Initial Decision, ALJ Stokes ordered the Complaint filed by Complainant
against Respondent be affirmed to the extent of the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g); and
Whereas, on December 14, 2021, Respondent filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision; and
Whereas, on January 5, 2022, Complainant filed a reply to Respondent’s Exceptions; and
Whereas, at its meeting on January 25, 2022, the Commission reviewed and discussed the
record, including ALJ Stokes’ Initial Decision, the filed Exceptions, and the filed reply; and
Whereas, at its meeting on January 25, 2022, the Commission discussed adopting the
findings of fact from the Initial Decision, adopting the legal conclusion that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and adopting the
recommended penalty of censure; and
Whereas, at a special meeting on February 25, 2022, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
January 25, 2022; 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 a special meeting on February 25, 2022.
________________________________
Kathryn A. Whalen, Esq.
Director, School Ethics Commission
(For Submission Only)