Atif Nazir v. Nitang Patel and Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, 8/12/21, (#164-21SEC)

164-21SEC
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Atif Nazir,
Complainant,
v.
Nitang Patel, Board of Education of the
Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, a community resident and former member of the Piscataway Board of Education, alleged that
respondent, a then-current member of the Piscataway Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e), (f) and (g) of the School Ethics Act when he included his name, picture, and a reference to his
position on the Board of Education on a political flyer that was distributed during a primary election in
2019. The flyer, which did not include a disclaimer to indicate that respondent’s position only represented
his personal views and not that of the Board, referred to “a radical group under the leadership of
[complainant] that wants to take over our township government.” The School Ethics Commission (SEC)
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, finding
that a censure is the appropriate penalty for respondent’s failure to include a disclaimer while referencing
his position on the Board in a targeted political mailing. 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.

Agency Dkt. No. 85-5/21
SEC Dkt. No. C43-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Atif Nazir,
Complainant,
v.
Nitang Patel, Board of Education of the
Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the decision of the School Ethics Commission (SEC)
have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by respondent and complainant’s reply thereto.
The SEC found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f) and (g) when he
included his name, picture, and a reference to his position on the Board of Education on a political
flyer that was distributed during a primary election in 2019. The flyer, which did not include a
disclaimer to indicate that respondent’s position only represented his personal views and not that of
the Board, referred to “a radical group under the leadership of [complainant] that wants to take over
our township government.” The SEC recommended a penalty of censure.1 Pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), the SEC’s decision was forwarded to the Commissioner for final
determination on the recommended penalty.
In support of its recommendation for a penalty of censure, the SEC relied on four
cases. First, in Kwapniewski v. Curioni, Lodi Board of Education, Bergen County, SEC Docket No.
C70-17, decided December 18, 2019 (Curioni), aff’d Commissioner January 23, 2020, the board
member received a six-month suspension after repeatedly personally attacking a teacher on blog
1 The Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law recommended a penalty of reprimand, finding
that respondent only violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) and not N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) or (g).
164-21SEC

2
posts over a two-month period by posting inaccurate information about her salary, questioning her
teaching qualifications and honesty, calling her names, and posting a picture of the street where she
lives. Despite inclusion of a disclaimer, the board member repeatedly referenced his status on the
Board. Here, the SEC noted that while respondent only endorsed a single political flyer rather than a
series of blog posts, the significance of his failure to include a disclaimer while referencing his
position on the Board cannot be ignored, and a censure is the appropriate penalty.
Second, in Dunbar Bey v. Brown, Camden Board of Education, Camden County,
SEC Docket No. C25-11, decided December 21, 2011 (Brown), the SEC recommended a penalty of
censure after a board member failed to remove the superintendent’s picture which had appeared
under his Facebook post referencing local terrorists; the Commissioner, however, found a reprimand
was more appropriate given the lack of prior violations. In the instant matter, the SEC explained that
the respondent’s conduct was more deliberate and egregious than the action in Brown and warrants a
penalty of censure.
Third, in Fleres v. Zhong, West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education, Mercer
County, SEC Docket No. C17-18, decided May 3, 2019 (Zhong), a board member disclosed
confidential information about an incident involving a student to his immediate family, and the
information then spread. The SEC recommended a penalty of censure for the first-time offense, and
the Commissioner agreed. The SEC noted that, as in Zhong, a penalty greater than a reprimand is
appropriate for the first-time offense in this case.
Finally, in I/M/O Christopher T. Treston, Randolph Township Board of Education,
Morris County, SEC Docket No. 71-18, decided April 27, 2021 (I/M/O Treston), the SEC
recommended a penalty of censure, finding that a board member used an insufficient disclaimer in an
Op-Ed that targeted a candidate for the Board and endorsed another because he made multiple
references to his position on the Board. While the Commissioner has not yet issued a decision on the
penalty in Treston, the SEC notes that the facts are similar to the within matter.

3
While respondent did not file an appeal to the Commissioner of the underlying
finding of a violation, he did file exceptions to the recommended penalty. In his exceptions,
respondent argues that the Commissioner should reduce the penalty from a censure to a reprimand
because he had no prior infractions and his conduct was not severe enough to warrant a censure.
Respondent contends that the cases the SEC relied upon do not support a penalty of censure. He
maintains that the conduct in Curioni, supra, is so severe that it cannot be compared to the present
matter, and that petitioner’s conduct does not rise to the same level of indecency. He also notes that
the penalty in Treston, supra, is not final as it is pending before the Commissioner. Respondent
argues that the disclosure of information concerning a minor in Zhong, supra, was much more
egregious than his conduct; therefore, while a penalty of censure was justified for a first-time
infraction in Zhong, it is not justified here. Finally, respondent contends that this matter is most
analogous to Brown, supra, where the final penalty was a reprimand, and that his actions were even
less egregious than in that case, because the flyer was only sent to a group and not posted to social
media. Accordingly, respondent urges the Commissioner to reduce the penalty to a reprimand.
In reply, complainant agrees with the SEC that a penalty of censure is appropriate in
this circumstance, and the case law supports such a penalty. Complainant emphasizes that the flyer
was inflammatory and Islamophobic because, as the flyer was translated into Gujarati and sent to
Hindu homes, it exploits the divide between Muslim Pakistani and Hindu Gujarati Indian
communities.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the SEC that censure is the appropriate
penalty. Respondent attached his name to a political flyer and deliberately chose to indicate that he
was a member of the Board, without including any disclaimer to indicate that his views were not
those of the Board. His violations were not inadvertent; he purposefully referenced his position on
the Board to support his political agenda. The Commissioner does not find respondent’s exceptions
to be persuasive. Instead, the Commissioner agrees with the SEC that, like Zhong, supra,

4
respondent’s violations warrant a penalty of censure for a first-time offense. Additionally,
respondent’s actions were more egregious than those in Brown, supra, because he intentionally used
his status as a Board member on a political flyer without any type of disclaimer. As such, the
Commissioner finds that a censure is the appropriate penalty for respondent’s failure to include a
disclaimer while referencing his position on the Board in a targeted political mailing.
Accordingly, the respondent shall be censured as a school official found to have
violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 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, 2021
August 12, 2021

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. C43-19
ATIF NAZIR,
Complainant,
v.
NITANG PATEL, A MEMBER OF THE
PISCATAWAY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________
Yael Bromberg, Esq. and Nina Rossi, Esq., for complainant (respectively of
Bromberg Law, LLC, and CAIR New Jersey, attorneys)
Donald W. Stieh, Esq., for respondent (Stanton & Stieh, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: February 12, 2021 	Decided: March 11, 2021
BEFORE JOSEPH A. ASCIONE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Complainant, Atif Nazir, asserts that respondent, Nitang Patel (Patel), a member
of the Piscataway Board of Education (Piscataway BOE), violated the Code of Ethics for
school board members contained in the School Ethics Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
2
24.1(e), (f), and (g), by subscribing his name and the Board of Education, on a political
piece distributed in the election community in 2019. The piece issued without a disclaimer
that the piece was respondent’s personal endorsement and not an official position or
action of the Piscataway BOE. 	Complaint asserts the “expression in the letter was
intentionally inflammatory”, as the word “radical” appears in the piece. 	Respondent
acknowledges the document speaks for itself, recognizing the absence of a disclaimer
and otherwise denies that he engaged in any conduct prohibited by the Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 28, 2019, the School Ethics Commission (Commission) issued a Letter
Decision, determining that complainant’s complaint was not frivolous in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.2 and declined to impose sanctions under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29 (e). The
Commission, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.8(a), transmitted the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), to conduct a hearing to determine whether respondent’s
actions violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (g), provisions of law regarding the ethical
conduct of school board members. 	The transmission, the OAL filed on September 6,
2019, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1.
On January 8, 2020, the respondent waived any appearance in this matter and
requested and consented to a disposition on the papers.
The complainant sought leave to amend the Complaint to include violations of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), respondent did not oppose the application, and the OAL granted
the application. An amended complaint nominated as a “Complaint”, dated February 20,
2020, does not appear in the files of the OAL until April 2020. An Answer to the Amended
Complaint, respondent filed on July 24, 2020.
A Zoom © hearing was conducted on November 30, 2020. 	The record was kept
open to allow the parties to submit written summations. The record closed on February
12, 2021.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Complainant provided three witnesses, himself, Darshni Patel (no relation to
respondent) (Darshni), and Aman Javaid (Javaid). 	Complainant also provided the flyer
in question with an attached translation into Gujarati (Exhibit P-1). 	Gujarati is an Indo-
Aryan language native to the Indian State of Gujarat. Gujarat is on the southwest border
of India and in proximity to the southeast border of Pakistan. A quick history lesson, India
at one time, a colony of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, gained its independence
in 1947. 	When British rule came to an end, the subcontinent was partitioned along
religious lines into two separate countries—India, with a majority of Hindus, and Pakistan,
with a majority of Muslims. This information is to provide some background to the current
controversy between the parties.
Another aspect of this matter is the term “radical” which has use as an adjective or
noun, and numerous uses, the definition which complainant wishes the tribunal to
consider is its use as, “(a) very different from the usual or traditional, ie. Extreme; (b)
favoring extreme change in existing views, habits, conditions or institutions; (c) associated
with political views, practices, or policies of extreme change; and (d) advocating extreme
measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.” e.g. the “extreme right.1”
The within matter involves the use of the word “radical” in a political flyer distributed
during the Piscataway Township Council election in 2019 by three individuals affiliated
with the Democratic Party.
The word radical has been used by both the conservative and liberal partisans of
our political processes to pejoratively address views of their opposition.
1 The above definitions, appearing in the on-line version of Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary at
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical. There are other definitions for use in math, medicine
and botany and linguistics, not referred to here.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
4
Complainant 	posits 	the 	word 	“radical” 	in 	the 	flyer 	connotes, 	inappropriate
inflammatory, derogatory, references to a religious divisions between the Gujarati
community and the Muslim community. That the use of the word is a subliminal message
for Islamophobic messaging. This tribunal cannot make that distinction on the evidence
presented, even if the tribunal accepted the excluded evidentiary documentation which
complainant had not appropriately authenticated.
One of those individuals whose name and signature appear on the flyer Exhibit P-
1, is the respondent herein who served on the Piscataway BOE during the Democratic
Primary election cycle in 2019. 	The flyer reflects printed under respondent’s signature,
his name, “Nitang Patel, Board of Education.” 	Respondent does not dispute this flyer,
nor his signature, nor that he consented to its distribution.
As stated, respondent served on the Piscataway BOE, at the time of 	the
distribution of the flyer2. As a member of the Piscataway BOE, respondent is subject to
the School Ethics Act N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 to 34.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22 provides, “The Legislature finds and declares:
a. In our representative form of government it is essential that the conduct
of members of local boards of education and local school administrators
hold the respect and confidence of the people. These board members and
administrators 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.
b. To ensure and preserve public confidence, school board members and
local school administrators should have the benefit of specific standards to
guide their conduct and of some disciplinary mechanism to ensure the
uniform maintenance of those standards among them.”
The legislation at N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 entitled Conflicts of Interest proceeds to
proscribe various actions. The legislation at N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 entitled Code of Ethics
for School Board Members and proceeds to define inappropriate actions by members.
2 	It 	appears 	respondent 	joined 	the 	Piscataway 	BOE 	on 	winning 	the 	2018 	election. 	See,
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/elections/2018/11/05/nj-midterm-elections-results-2018-
middlesex-county/1521823002/

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
5
Respondent does not dispute his actions violated a portion of the School Ethics
Act, but maintains it was inadvertent. Complainant, through himself and two witnesses,
posits the language of the political flyer is inflammatory and deserving of respondent’s
removal from office.
Darshni Patel (Darshni)
Darshni testified she presently attends George Mason University as a junior, and
maintains a 3.91 grade point average. 	She emigrated from India and resides at the
Princeton Gardens, a four-hundred-unit housing complex. She first saw the flyer (P-1) in
June 2019. She had not been handed the flyer, but came upon it in her home. She had
never met the respondent. She did not know how the flyer got into her home. She had
not realized divergent views could be so harmful. 	She expressed the sentiment in the
flyer as “dog whistle remarks” and “only seeing by skin tone.” Darshni explained it created
a concern over the direction by the School Board to disregard a portion of the community.
Aman Javaid (Javaid)
Javaid, a seventeen-year-old at the time, was a graduating senior of Piscataway
High School in June 2019. 	He is now at Rutgers University, seeking a degree as a
business major. He is politically active. His parents have run for the township committee.
He expressed the flyer, (P-1) had “buzz words” derogatory to the complainant. This upset
Javaid. He claims the flyer is discriminatory, and by referring to complainant as “radical”,
created an impression that people would not be safe in the neighborhood. 	He claimed
the use of the word “radical” pointed to the Muslim community which includes about 600
persons. 	He described the flyer as “dog whistle politics.” 	He denied knowledge of the
acquaintance of the respondent. 	He claimed he would not feel safe going to the
Piscataway BOE. He argues the culpability of the respondent demands a serious penalty.
Atif Nazir (Nazir)

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
6
Complainant, Nazir, came to Piscataway in 2001, has three children, and works as
a public health officer in one of the municipalities of Union County, directing about forty-
five people. He served two terms on the Piscataway BOE from 2012 to 2018. He advises
the Piscataway BOE is a non-partisan election and that new members of the Piscataway
BOE are advised by David Rubio, Esq., the attorney for the Piscataway BOE, of the Code
of Ethics on a new members orientation. 	He maintains, “radical group” refers to the
Muslim community group. The flyer is promoting hate and fear. Historically, the Gujarat
community are Hindu and Islamophobic.
The respondent did not testify. He answered the complaint and interrogatories by
stating the document speaks for itself; and acknowledged he did lend his signature and
endorsement to the flyer. Respondent claims the nature of the flyer leads any reasonable
reader to the conclusion that respondent’s actions were his individual comments and not
that of the Piscataway BOE. Respondent disputes the flyer compromised the position of
the Piscataway BOE. Respondent maintains the flyer is protected free speech, factually
true, or is otherwise opinion.
The tribunal recognizes the flyer is distressing to the three witnesses. 	However,
their personal reactions and statements the Board had become a hostile place toward
members of their religious beliefs is not supported by any evidence. 	Taking the oath as
a member of the Board of Education does not prevent that member from expression of
his own political views, even when they dismiss the view of an opponent or the opposition
in an election. Regretfully, political discourse, is neither attractive nor well intentioned to
consider opposing views.
Various documents were excluded from evidence. 	The documents were related
to alleged actions by other parties, newspaper editorials, protesting signatories, post the
distribution of the flyer; and Piscataway BOE minutes prior to the distribution of the flyer.
All not relevant to the determination of the facts and consequences this tribunal must
make.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
7
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Much of the testimony and the facts adduced therefrom are either not in dispute or
are admitted by the parties, and accordingly I FIND:
1. 	The complainant is a member of the public and a former member of the
Piscataway BOE.
2. 	At the time of the distribution of P-1, the respondent, Nitang Patel, was a
member of the BOE, having been elected to the BOE in the 2018 election.
3. 	As a member of the Piscataway BOE, Patel is subject to the School Ethics
Act N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1.
4. 	Complainant presented no evidence Patel made any personal promise or
take any action beyond the scope of his or her duties such that, by its nature,
had the potential to compromise the Piscataway BOE.
5. 	Patel did surrender his independent judgment to a partisan political group
by collaborating with other individuals to support certain candidates in the
Democratic primary for the office of the Piscataway Township Committee.
6. 	Patel did not set forth a disclaimer on the flyer (P-1) that the word Board of
Education only reflected his membership on the Piscataway BOE, and did
not reflect the opinion of or approval by the Piscataway BOE.
7. 	Patel did not set forth the flyer was respondent’s personal endorsement and
not an official position or action of the Piscataway BOE.
8. 	Complainant presented no evidence Patel’s actions were taken for personal
gain or for the gain of a friend or family member.
9. 	Complainant 	presented 	no 	evidence 	Patel 	disclosed 	any 	confidential
information to the injury of another.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
8
10. 	Complainant presented no evidence that the flyer constituted an action of
the Piscataway BOE, nor in any way compromised the Piscataway BOE.
11. 	The fact the flyer reflected the names of a council member and a zoning
board member, contraindicated it was an action of the Piscataway BOE.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The issues in this matter are whether, as complainant alleges, respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and/or (g) of the Code of Ethics for school board members
by his collaboration in the distribution of a political flyer during the 2019 Piscataway
Democratic Primary election, when he subscribed his name and Piscataway BOE, on a
political piece distributed in the election community without disclaimer that the piece was
respondent’s 	personal 	endorsement 	and 	not 	an 	official 	position 	or 	action 	of 	the
Piscataway BOE; and whether the content of the distributed political piece bears on the
violation or the penalty to be imposed if the distribution itself violates the above provisions.
The matter must be reviewed in the context of a contested partisan primary
election in which civility appears to have been left off the ballot. The question is whether
the respondent’s conduct rose to the level of a violation of the Code of Ethics or whether
it should be considered as over-exuberant electioneering or campaigning, which violation
would belong in a different forum.
A member of a local board of education holds a position of public trust. 	The
Legislature has declared:
In our representative form of government it is essential that
the conduct of members of local boards of education and local
school administrators hold the respect and confidence of the
people. These board members and administrators 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).]

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
9
A full understanding of the parameters of ethical conduct for board members can
be achieved only with training and experience. The formal Code of Ethics offers guidance
to members of local boards as follows:
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.
f. 	I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to
special interest or partisan political groups or to use the
schools for personal gain or for the gain of friends.
g. 	I will hold confidential all matters pertaining to the
schools 	which, 	if 	disclosed, 	would 	needlessly 	injure
individuals or the schools. 	In all other matters, I will provide
accurate information and, in concert with my fellow board
members, 	interpret 	to 	the 	staff 	the 	aspirations 	of 	the
community for its school.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (emphasis added).]
The essence of the Code of Ethics is perhaps best summarized by the language
in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), which describes the scope of the board member’s role by
stating that board members do not themselves run the public schools, rather, they see to
it that the schools are well run.
The complainant has the burden of factually establishing a violation of the Code of
Ethics. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(b); N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4. 	In this matter, violations of Code of
Ethics sections (e), (f), and (g) are alleged to have been committed by respondent. The
Administrative Code offers guidance in analyzing whether conduct rises to a violation of
the Code of Ethics, as follows:
(a) 	For complaints alleging a violation of the code of ethics
for school board members, the complainant has the burden to
factually 	establish 	a 	violation 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
standards set forth below:
5. 	Factual 	evidence 	of 	a 	violation 	of 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) 	shall 	include 	evidence 	that 	the
respondent made personal promises or took action

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
10
beyond the scope of his or her duties such that, by its
nature, had the potential to compromise the board.
6. 	Factual 	evidence 	of 	a 	violation 	of 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f) 	shall 	include 	evidence 	that 	the
respondent(s) 	took 	action 	on 	behalf 	of, 	or 	at 	the
request 	of, 	a 	special 	interest 	group 	or 	persons
organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who
adhere 	to a particular 	political 	party or 	cause; or
evidence that the respondent(s) used the schools in
order to acquire some benefit for the respondent(s), a
member of his or her immediate family or a friend.
7. 	Factual 	evidence 	of 	a 	violation 	of 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(g) 	shall 	include 	evidence 	that 	the
respondent(s) 3 N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a)(7) provides that
factual evidence of a violation of the confidentiality
provision 	of N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(g) shall 	include
evidence that the respondent(s) took action to make
public, reveal or disclose information that was not
public under any laws, regulations or court orders of
this 	State, 	or 	information 	that 	was 	otherwise
confidential 	in 	accordance 	with 	board 	policies,
procedures or practices. Factual evidence that the
respondent 	violated 	the 	inaccurate-information
provision 	of N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(g) shall 	include
evidence 	that 	substantiates 	the 	inaccuracy 	of 	the
information 	provided 	by 	the 	respondent(s) 	and
evidence that establishes that the inaccuracy was
other than reasonable mistake or personal opinion or
was not attributable to developing circumstances.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4.]
In determining whether a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) has occurred, the
evidence must demonstrate that the respondent made personal promises or took action
beyond the scope of his or her duties such that, by its nature, had the potential to
compromise the Piscataway BOE. 	In this matter, no proof has been presented that
respondent made any personal promises. 	The question remains whether respondent’s
private action might have compromised the Piscataway BOE. 	His conduct in regard to
the flyer were related to the election. 	While respondent’s statements may have been
distressing to the complainant, or to a certain portion of the public there was nothing in
them to indicate that respondent’s statements had the potential to compromise the board.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
11
Respondent made no representation he had the capacity to act alone to bring about any
Piscataway BOE action. Accordingly, the charge brought under this section has not been
proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
In determining whether a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) has occurred, the
evidence must demonstrate that the respondent took action to make public, reveal or
disclose information that was not public under any laws, regulations or court orders of this
State, or information that was otherwise confidential in accordance with board policies,
procedures or practices. 	Complainant presented no evidence of such a disclosure.
Respondent maintains the use of the word “radical” is an opinion of complainant’s
progressive leanings. 	Complainant presents its use is inflammatory, and anti-Islamic.
This tribunal can make no such conclusion. The evidence is not there of any violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g).
“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, in exercising those rights, board members must
comply 	with 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Act. 	In 	I/M/O 	Eileen 	Quinn, 	C45-04,
(February 	7, 	2005), 	Commissioner 	decision 	(March 	23, 	2005), 	the
Commission found that a board member violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12- 24.1(e)
when she printed and distributed a flier during her reelection campaign
which contained incomplete fiscal information regarding the tax impact of
the board’s budget. The Commission found the board member took private
action that compromised the board because the information in the flier was
misleading and because the flier, distributed prior to passage of the budget,
was designed to have an impact on the budget, which was defeated by a
slim margin. While the board member did not give up her right to participate
in political activity, the Legislature has established specific standards to
guide the conduct of board members to ensure and preserve public
confidence. See: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22. These standards are set forth at
N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1. 	Board 	members, 	in
exercising their right to participate in political activity, must ensure that the
activity does not violate those standards.” See, Advisory Opinion A02-06.
The violative conduct of the respondent was to fail to note a disclaimer on the flyer
that his reference to the Piscataway BOE did not connote any action by the Piscataway
BOE, but rather he personally. 	Consistent with guidance provided by Advisory Opinion
36-14, respondent failed to include such a disclaimer. 	Respondent’s actions were in
contravention of that Advisory Opinion.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
12
Respondent’s consent to the distribution of the flyer, without specifically including
a disclaimer it represented his personal conduct and not the endorsement of the
Piscataway BOE, rises to the level of a violation of the Code of Ethics N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(f), for school board members.
I therefore CONCLUDE that respondent, Nitang Patel, has violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f) of the Code of Ethics.
PENALTY
Respondent first began to serve on the Piscataway BOE in January 2019.
Respondent maintains his actions in failing to include the disclaimer was an oversight.
The combination of his limited time of service, absence of any prior violation, and
representation the action was an oversight indicates that the appropriate penalty is to
REPRIMAND Nitang Patel for his participation in the distribution of the flyer.
ORDER
I ORDER that the complaint filed by complainant Atif Nazir against respondent
Nitang Patel for violation of the N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) be DISMISSED.
I ORDER that the complaint filed by complainant Atif Nazir against respondent
Nitang Patel for violation of the N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) be DISMISSED.
I ORDER that the complaint filed by complainant Atif Nazir against respondent
Nitang Patel for violation of the N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) be GRANTED.
I ORDER that the penalty against respondent Nitang Patel for violation of the
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) be a REPRIMAND.
In accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.6 the Commission is required to “hold all
information confidential regarding any pending matter until it first takes action at a public

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
13
meeting to determine probable cause, or violation, or until the matter is settled, withdrawn
or dismissed . . . .” As the Commission has not yet taken action on this matter, it should
presently remain confidential, as the regulation requires. 	Accordingly, I FURTHER
ORDER, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-4.1, that the entire record in the matter, including all
evidence, the stenographic notes or audiotape, and the Initial Decision are hereby sealed
pending further action by the Commission. No one, including the parties and attorneys,
shall disclose or permit access to the record, Initial Decision or any portion thereof, to any
person or entity other than the parties, attorneys for the parties, and personnel employed
by the OAL or the School Ethics Commission and the Department of Education.
I hereby FILE my initial decision with the SCHOOL ETHICS COMMISSION.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29, the School Ethics Commission has jurisdiction to
determine whether a violation of the School Ethics Act occurred. If it concludes that the
conduct constitutes a violation of the School Ethics Act, it shall recommend an appropriate
penalty to the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner of Education shall issue
the final decision in this matter.
If the School Ethics Commission determines that a violation has occurred, it shall
issue a written decision recommending to the Commissioner of Education an appropriate
penalty and shall forward the record, including this recommended decision and its
decision, to the Commissioner of Education. 	The Commissioner of Education may
subsequently render a final decision as to the appropriate penalty. If the Commissioner
of Education does not render a final decision within forty-five days of its receipt of this
initial decision, and unless such time period is otherwise extended, the recommended
decision of the School Ethics Commission shall become the final decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
14
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the SCHOOL ETHICS
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PO Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
March 11, 2021
DATE 	JOSEPH A. ASCIONE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
/lam

OAL DKT. NO. EEC 12359-19
15
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For complainant:
Atif Nazir, complainant
Darshni Patel, a college student (no relation to respondent)
Aman Javaid, a graduating Senior
For respondent:
None
LIST OF EXHIBITS
For Complainant:
P-1 	Flyer and Translation
For Respondent:
None