In the Matter of Kenyatta Stewart, College Achieve Paterson Charter School, Passaic County, 9/5/19, (#231-19A)

Agency Dkt. No. 2-5/18A
SEC Dkt. No. D07-17
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Kenyatta Stewart,
College Achieve Paterson Charter School,
Passaic County.
This matter involves an appeal of the School Ethics Commission’s (SEC)
March 28, 2018 determination that respondent Kenyatta Stewart – a newly appointed charter
school trustee for the College Achieve Paterson Charter School – violated the School Ethics Act
(Act) for failure to timely file his Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements
(disclosure statements) in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and 26. 	Respondent ultimately
filed his disclosure statements after the issuance of the SEC’s February 27, 2018 Order to Show
Cause (OTSC), but prior to its March 27, 2018 meeting. 	The SEC recommended a penalty of
reprimand for the violation. Having carefully reviewed the SEC’s decision and the record in its
entirety, the Commissioner finds that the SEC’s decision is supported by sufficient, credible
evidence, and that respondent failed to establish that the decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary
to law. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). Additionally, the Commissioner finds that a penalty of reprimand
is appropriate.
By 	way 	of 	background, 	the 	Commissioner 	notes 	that 	pursuant 	to
N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.1, school officials must file disclosure statements with their local board
secretaries annually, on or before April 30th. 	Additionally, after April 30th, newly elected or
newly appointed board members or administrators must file their disclosure statements within
thirty days of appointment or taking office. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.1(c), (d), (e), and (f). In this matter,
231-19A

2
respondent was appointed to the board of trustees in May 2017. He failed to file his disclosure
statements within thirty days. 	Therefore, on February 5, 2018, the Passaic County Office of
Education sent a reminder to respondent by regular mail and e-mail – with a copy to the charter
school designee – that his disclosure statements had not yet been filed. Respondent points out that
the address used on this correspondence was unfortunately not his home address, nor was it the
charter school’s address. 	Respondent also alleges that the reminder was sent to an old e-mail
address, even though he had updated the charter school with his new e-mail address in September
2017. The SEC sent a letter on February 14, 2018 to the same incorrect address, with an e-mailed
copy to the Business Administrator, informing respondent that failure to file his disclosure
statements by February 21, 2018 would result in the SEC voting to issue an Order to Show Cause
(OTSC). Accordingly, the SEC issued an OTSC at its meeting on February 27, 2018, sent again
to the incorrect address with a copy to the Business Administrator. Thereafter, on March 5, 2018,
respondent filed his disclosure statements. 	Respondent maintains that he never received any of
the notifications or the OTSC, and that he only became aware of the OTSC when he was notified
by the Business Administrator. 	In its decision dated March 28, 2018, the SEC found that
respondent violated the Act for failure to timely file disclosure statements in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and 26, and recommended a penalty of reprimand for the violation.
In his appeal to the Commissioner, respondent argues that the SEC was out of time
in filing its OTSC as it was more than 250 days after the disclosure statements were due, and
N.J.A.C. 	6A:28-6.5(a) 	places 	a 	180-day 	filing 	deadline 	on 	complaints 	before 	the 	SEC.
Additionally, respondent contends that language in the rule proposal and in response to a comment
in the rule adoption for N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.3 demonstrates that the SEC intends to send a warning
notice letter prior to issuance of an OTSC for failure to file disclosure statements. 41 N.J.R. 26(a);

3
41 N.J.R. 2095(a). 	As such, respondent argues that he was deprived of due process because he
was not provided with notice and an opportunity to correct any deficiencies before the issuance of
the OTSC. He also maintains that he did not willfully violate the Act. Respondent further argues
that the 30-day period provided for newly elected or newly appointed board members to submit
disclosure statements in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.1 is only set forth in regulation, not statute, whereas
N.J.S.A.18A:12-33 allows one year for new board members to complete the training program.
Finally, respondent argues that even if respondent is found to have violated the Act, no penalty
should be issued because his actions were de minimis.
In opposition, the SEC argues that its decision that respondent violated the Act was
not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, as respondent admitted he failed to file his disclosure
statements within the required timeframe. The SEC contends that the Commissioner should reject
respondent’s argument that this matter is out of time because N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.5(a) places a
180-day filing deadline on complaints alleging violations of the Act. The SEC explains that this
matter was not initiated by a complaint, but rather by issuance of an OTSC pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.6, which does not have a filing timeframe. 	Additionally, the SEC argues that
respondent was provided with due process as he was given notice and an opportunity to respond
to the OTSC – which he in fact utilized, as he did respond to the OTSC. The SEC contends that
there is no requirement that it issue “warning letters” before the issuance of an OTSC.
Nevertheless, the SEC maintains that it did issue two warning notices to respondent, and that his
argument that he did not receive them is “undermined by the fact that Respondent did receive and
respond to the OTSC, which was sent to him and copied to the charter school’s designee in exactly
the same manner as to the two prior correspondence(s).” (SEC opposition brief at 8). Finally, the

4
SEC notes that its recommended penalty of a reprimand – the lowest level of penalty – is justified,
as respondent failed to timely file his disclosure statements.
In reply, respondent argues that it is undisputed that he never received the notices
sent by the SEC, as they were sent to the wrong street address and email address. Although the
SEC claims they sent multiple notices, respondent contends that the argument is irrelevant because
they sent them all to the same incorrect addresses. Additionally, respondent reiterates his argument
about failing to meet the 180-day filing deadline. Finally, respondent argues that any violation of
the Act should not warrant a penalty because he filed his disclosure statements three business days
after the issuance of OTSC.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the
decision of the SEC as to a determination of a violation of the Act is supported by sufficient
credible evidence, and the respondent has not established that the SEC’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.1, respondent
– as a newly appointed charter school trustee in May 2017 – was required to file his disclosure
statements within thirty days. It is undisputed that respondent did not file his disclosure statements
until March 5, 2018, well beyond thirty days from May 2017. As such, respondent failed to timely
file his disclosure statements in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and 26.
The Commissioner does not find respondent’s arguments as to whether a violation
occurred to be persuasive. With respect to his timing argument, the Commissioner notes that this
matter was initiated by way of an OTSC, not a complaint, and therefore the 180-day deadline for
the filing of complaints does not apply in this case. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.6. Additionally, respondent
had been in continual violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and 26 at the time the SEC issued the OTSC,
as he had not yet filed his overdue disclosure statements; therefore, a statute of limitations would

5
not apply in this circumstance, even if one existed. Furthermore, respondent’s argument that the
SEC waited more than 250 days after the disclosure statements were due to file its OTSC
undermines his own argument that he did not violate the Act, because it clearly demonstrates how
late respondent was in filing his disclosure statements. 	Regarding his argument that he did not
receive any warning letters, such argument does not affect whether a violation occurred. 	It is
undisputed that the disclosure statements were due many months before respondent ultimately
submitted them. Finally, the Commissioner notes that this is not the proper forum for a challenge
to the regulatory requirement that newly elected or appointed school officials have 30 days to file
disclosure statements, set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.1.
With respect to the appropriate penalty, while the Commissioner is sympathetic to
respondent’s argument that he did not receive the notices or the OTSC from the SEC, the
Commissioner finds that a reprimand – the lowest penalty – is the appropriate penalty in this
matter. The Commissioner notes that there is no requirement that the SEC issue warning notices
prior to issuance of an OTSC; the SEC does so as a courtesy. With respect to service of the OTSC,
it must be noted that the order was mailed to an address in Tinton Falls, Monmouth County, when
the College Achieve Paterson Charter School is located in Paterson, Passaic County; yet the SEC
failed to address this fact and instead argues that respondent must have received it because he did
respond to the OTSC. However, respondent’s argument that the Business Administrator alerted
him to the OTSC is consistent with the fact that the Business Administrator was copied
electronically. Nevertheless, as respondent received the OTSC – albeit not from the SEC – he had
the opportunity to respond to it, which he did. The Commissioner must note that respondent was
still months late in filing his disclosure statements. 	Given the lengthy time that respondent
remained out of compliance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and 26, the Commissioner finds that a

6
penalty of reprimand is warranted in this matter. 	Furthermore, the Commissioner finds that
issuance of a reprimand here is consistent with penalties in prior cases where a school official filed
disclosure statements after the issuance of an OTSC. See, e.g., In the Matter of Johanna Lopez,
East Newark Board of Education, Commissioner Decision No. 361-17SEC (December 18, 2017);
In the Matter of David Eichenholtz, East Newark Board of Education, Hudson County,
Commissioner 	Decision 	No. 	359-17SEC 	(December 	18, 	2017). 	Therefore, 	the 	SEC’s
recommended penalty will not be disturbed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school
official found to have violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 5, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	September 9, 2019
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to
P.L. 2008, c. 36. (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1)