In the Matter of Denise Sanders, Board of Education of the Township of Teaneck, Bergen County, 9/12/2022, (#225-22)

225-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Denise Sanders,
Board of Education of the Township of
Teaneck, Bergen County.
Synopsis
The School Ethics Commission (SEC) found that respondent Denise Sanders, a member of the Teaneck
Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members
(Code). The SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand for this violation.
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 recommended by the SEC for
respondent’s violation of the Code in connection with her failure to recuse herself from matters
regarding the compensation of the district’s superintendent when her daughter was employed as a per
diem substitute teacher by the district. Accordingly, the respondent shall be reprimanded 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.

1
SEC Dkt No. C60-19
OAL Dkt. EEC 04898-20
Agency Dkt. No. 198-7/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Denise Sanders,
Board of Education of the Township of
Teaneck, Bergen County.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the July 26, 2022 decision
of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that respondent
Denise Sanders, a member of the Teaneck Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) of
the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code). The Commission recommended a penalty
of reprimand for the violation. The Commission’s decision was forwarded to the Commissioner
for final determination on the recommended penalty pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c).
Respondent has neither filed exceptions to the recommended penalty nor instituted an appeal,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1 et seq., of the Commission’s underlying finding of violation.
Upon review, for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the decision of the Commission, the
Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the Commission for respondent’s
violation of the Code in connection with her failure to recuse herself from matters regarding
the compensation of the district’s superintendent when her daughter was employed as a per
diem substitute teacher by the district.
225-22
No.

2
Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded 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.
September 12, 2022
September 12, 2022

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-04898-20
SEC Docket No.: C60-19
Final Decision
I/M/O Denise Sanders,
Teaneck Board of Education, Bergen County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on September 26,
2019, by Gerald T. Reiner, Jr. (Complainant) alleging that Denise Sanders (Respondent), a
member of the Teaneck Board of Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. More specifically, the Complaint averred that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 1 and Count 2; violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count 3;
and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) in Count 4.
After the Complaint was served, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer
(Motion to Dismiss), and also alleged that the Complaint is frivolous. As part of his response to
the Motion to Dismiss and allegation of frivolous filing, Complainant agreed to voluntarily
withdraw the allegations in Count 1.
At its meeting on January 21, 2020, and following a review and discussion of the parties’
pleadings at a previous meeting, the Commission adopted a decision granting the Motion to
Dismiss as to the allegations in Count 2 and Count 3 (the allegations in Count 1 were voluntarily
withdrawn by Complainant); denying the Motion to Dismiss as to the allegations in Count 4;
finding the Complaint not frivolous and denying Respondent’s request for sanctions; and
directing Respondent to file an Answer to Complaint (Answer) for the remaining allegations. On
February 11, 2020, Respondent filed an Answer as directed.
Thereafter, and at its meeting on April 21, 2020, the Commission adopted a decision
finding probable cause for the remaining allegations in the Complaint. Following its finding of
probable 	cause, 	the 	Commission 	filed 	the 	above-captioned 	matter 	with 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested matter, and, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(b), the
attorney for the Commission (Petitioner) was charged with prosecuting the allegations in the
Complaint which the Commission found probable cause to credit.
At the OAL, the above-captioned matter was assigned to the Honorable Kimberly A.
Moss, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Moss). Initial Decision at 1. ALJ Moss conducted a
hearing on November 8, 2021, and the parties submitted closing briefs on May 16, 2022;
thereafter, the record closed. Id. at 2.

2
On May 23, 2022, ALJ Moss issued an Initial Decision detailing her findings of fact and
legal conclusions. The Commission acknowledged receipt of ALJ Moss’s Initial Decision on the
date it was issued (May 23, 2022); therefore, the forty-five (45) day statutory period for the
Commission to issue a Final Decision was July 7, 2022. Prior to July 7, 2022, the Commission
requested a forty-five (45) day extension of time to issue its decision so as to allow the
Commission, which only meets monthly, the opportunity to receive and review the full record,
including the parties’ Exceptions (if any). Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) and N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.8, and for good cause shown, the Commission was granted an extension until August 22,
2022.1
At its meeting on June 28, 2022, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, and at its meeting on July 26, 2022, the Commission voted to adopt the
findings of fact from ALJ Moss’s Initial Decision; to adopt the legal conclusion that Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b); to adopt the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c); and to modify the Initial Decision to include a penalty of reprimand.
II. 	Initial Decision
Based on the witness testimony and documentary evidence submitted, ALJ Moss issued
the following findings of fact: 	Respondent became a Board member in 2016; the Board has a
nepotism policy which exempts per diem substitute employees from the policy; on October 10,
2018, Respondent’s child was approved by the Board to become a per diem substitute for the
2018-2019 school year; on August 21, 2019, Respondent’s child was renewed as a per diem
substitute for the 2019-2020 school year; and on August 26, 2020, Respondent’s child was again
renewed as a per diem substitute for the 2020-2021 school year. Id. at 7-8.
Furthermore, substitute teachers can choose the assignments they want to take; substitute
teachers report to the Human Resources Department, and not to the Superintendent; the
Superintendent 	is 	responsible 	for 	everyone 	in 	the 	Teaneck 	School 	District 	(District);
Respondent’s child does not live with Respondent, and is not financially dependent on
Respondent; Respondent spoke with Board counsel about her child’s employment as a per diem
substitute, and was told that her child “was eligible to work as a substitute teacher, because
substitute teachers are per diem and not employees and exempt from the nepotism policy; and
Respondent abstained from voting when renewal of substitute teachers was voted on by the
Board. Id. at 8.
Moreover, Board members receive yearly training; ethics is part of that training;
Respondent participated in those training sessions; Respondent was present in executive session
on June 12, 2019, when the Superintendent’s evaluation was discussed; at its meeting on June
26, 2019, the Board approved the Superintendent’s merit goals, and Respondent voted on the
motion (affirmatively); if the merit goals are achieved, the Superintendent receives a fifteen
percent (15%) bonus; during executive session on June 26, 2019, the contract and evaluation of
the Superintendent was discussed; at the Board’s meetings on September 11, 2019, and
1 Technically, forty-five (45) days after May 23, 2022, was Sunday, August 21, 2022; by rule, the
deadline was extended until the next business day, which was Monday, August 22, 2022.

3
September 18, 2019, there were executive session discussions concerning merit goals for the
Superintendent, and 	Respondent participated 	in those discussions; and Respondent never
discussed her child’s employment with the Superintendent. Id. at 9.
With the above in mind, ALJ Moss found that Respondent’s child is not a member of her
(Respondent’s) immediate family because her child does not live with her (Respondent), and is
not financially dependent on Respondent. Id. at 11. Because her child is not an immediate family
member (as that term is defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23), ALJ Moss concludes Respondent did
not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c). Id.
However, ALJ Moss further concludes Respondent did violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b)
because, although a per diem substitute can decide when and where to work and technically
reports to the Human Resources Department, “the Superintendent is the individual who is
responsible for the District and therefore is responsible for the per diem substitute teachers.” Id.
In this case, Respondent voted to approve the Superintendent’s merit goals at the June 26, 2019,
Board meeting, and discussed the Superintendent’s merit goals at the September 11, 2019, and
September 18, 2019, Board meetings (in executive session). Id. If the merit goals are achieved,
the Superintendent receives a fifteen percent (15%) bonus. Id. Taken together, “A reasonable
person could believe that by [Respondent] voting on the merit goals which can include a fifteen
percent bonus for the Superintendent, [Respondent] believed that her [child] would continue to
be a per diem substitute teacher in the District.” Id. at 11-12. Consequently, Respondent violated
N.J.S.A 18A:12-24(b) because “voting and discussing the merit goals of the Superintendent
could be seen to have a pecuniary interest for her [child].” Id. at 12.
Based on the foregoing, ALJ Moss dismissed the alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(c), and sustained the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). However, ALJ Moss did not
recommend a penalty for Respondent’s violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).
III. 	Exceptions
Petitioner’s Exceptions
In its Exceptions filed on June 6, 2022, Petitioner (counsel for the Commission) argues
that the Initial Decision should be modified to impose a penalty for Respondent’s conduct and,
more specifically, for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). Although ALJ Moss “properly
found 	that 	Respondent 	violated” 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24(b), 	she 	“failed 	to 	indicate 	whether
Respondent should face a penalty, and if so what type of penalty she should face based on the
violation.” According to Petitioner, the absence of a recommended penalty renders the Initial
Decision incomplete as it “failed to properly dispose of all issues” as required by N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.3.
As for the penalty, Petitioner argues that Respondent must be censured for her conduct.
In this case, Respondent “engaged in conduct which could reasonably be seen as an attempt to
gain a personal benefit for her [child].” Per Petitioner, Respondent “was fully aware of her
ethical and statutory obligations, given her trainings.” Moreover, this case is analogous so I/M/O
Anderson, High Point Regional Board of Education, Sussex County, Docket No. 45-19, in which

4
Respondent was reprimanded based on a one-time vote approving the attainment of merit goals
by the Superintendent. Importantly, and unlike in I/M/O Anderson, Respondent here “violated
the Act on not one, but multiple occasions, during multiple meetings,” and was not new to the
Board or unfamiliar with her requirements; as such, and because Respondent’s actions constitute
a serious violation of the public trust, a penalty of censure is appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner argues the Initial Decision should be modified to
include a recommendation for censure.
Response to Petitioner’s Exceptions
In her response to Petitioner’s Exceptions, which were also filed on June 6, 2022,
Respondent asserts Petitioner’s “expanded interpretation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c) lacks merit as
the requirements set forth in the statute apply to the findings of the Commission and not that of
the [ALJ].” Respondent further asserts that she was “misguided as to her ethical and statutory
obligations” and, therefore a reprimand, not a censure, is appropriate.
Respondent testified that she consulted with a representative from the New Jersey School
Boards Association (NJSBA), prior to June 12, 2019, and this individual “advised [Respondent]
that substitutes are not employees of the district and that any decision she would be required to
make as a board member or trustee would not be affected by her [child’s] appointment as a per
diem substitute.” Respondent further testified that she consulted with Board counsel before her
child was hired as a per diem substitute, who advised Respondent, “as a per diem substitute
teacher her [child] would ‘not have the same regulations as an employee.’”
Despite Petitioner’s argument, Respondent maintains ALJ Moss was not required to
recommend a penalty to the Commission in her Initial Decision. Moreover, despite Petitioner’s
contention that Respondent should have been aware of her ethical and statutory obligations as a
result of the trainings she received, Respondent consulted with the NJSBA and Board counsel,
who both advised she was not required to recuse herself in matters related to the Superintendent
because her child was a per diem substitute teacher and, therefore, not an employee of the
District. Citing Cheng v. Rhodas, West New York Board of Education, Hudson County, Docket
No. C58-14, as well as I/M/O Carmine Cimino, Little Egg Harbor Township Board of Education,
Ocean County, Docket No. C31-14, Respondent notes, a “penalty greater than reprimand would
constitute an egregious miscarriage of justice” as Respondent relied, to her detriment, on the
advice of others. Therefore, Respondent asserts, if a penalty is necessary, “it should be no greater
than a reprimand.”
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
ALJ Moss’s findings of fact; adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24(b); and adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24(c).

5
Because, as determined by ALJ Moss, Respondent’s child does not reside in her
(Respondent’s) household and is not financially dependent on Respondent, the Commission
agrees that a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) - which requires a school official to act in a
matter where she, a member of her immediate family, or a business organization in which she has
an interest, has a direct or indirect financial involvement, or to act in a matter where she or a
member of her immediate family has a personal involvement – is not supported by the record.
Had Respondent’s child fell within the parameters of the term “member of immediate family,” a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) would have been sustainable.
As for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), the Commission agrees with ALJ Moss
that a reasonable person could believe that by discussing and voting to approve a significant
financial payment/bonus for the individual (the Superintendent) who is ultimately responsible for
the oversight and supervision of everyone who works in the District, including her own child,
Respondent “believed that her [child] would continue to be a per diem substitute teacher in the
District.” Id. at 11-12. By discussing and voting on the Superintendent’s merit goals, the
Commission wholeheartedly agrees that Respondent’s action “could be seen to have a pecuniary
interest for her [child].” Id. at 12.
V. 	Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission adopts the findings of fact from the Initial
Decision, adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and
adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
VI. 	Penalty
Although ALJ Moss found a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), the Initial Decision did
not recommend a penalty for Respondent’s ethical violation. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.3(c), a
written initial decision “shall” contain, among other things, a “disposition” of the contested
matter. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.3(c). Because ALJ Moss found a violation of the Act, the Commission
agrees with Petitioner that the failure to include a recommended penalty for the violation does
not fully dispose of the contested case.
Although the Commission could remand the above-captioned matter so that a penalty
could be recommended, the Commission instead elects to modify the Initial Decision to include a
penalty of reprimand for the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b). The Commission’s decision to
modify the Initial Decision, as opposed to remanding the above-captioned matter, is because the
record provides a sufficient basis upon which the Commission can recommend a penalty.
Based on the record, it is clear that Respondent received yearly training(s) (from NJSBA)
in her capacity as a Board member and that, despite receipt of such training(s), she was present
for and/or participated in several discussions regarding the Superintendent, and voted in the
affirmative on matters which resulted in the Superintendent receiving significant financial
remuneration (a bonus). Id. at 2-9. However, Respondent also testified that she consulted with a
representative from NJSBA and Board counsel about her involvement in matters related to the

6
Superintendent while her child was employed in the District, and she was advised, by both
NJSBA’s representative and Board counsel, that she did not have a conflict of interest.
Absent Respondent’s good faith efforts to seek guidance and advice from NJSBA and
Board counsel, and because Respondent repeatedly failed to recuse herself from such matters on
multiple occasions, the Commission would have censured Respondent for her conduct. However,
because she relied, albeit to her detriment, on the advice provided by NJSBA and Board counsel,
the Commission finds that a penalty of reprimand is appropriate.
In adopting a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and recommending a penalty of
reprimand, the Commission must emphasize and underscore the fact that although (as in this
case) a board of education may be able to hire a relative or member of a school official’s
immediate family because he/she is excluded from the scope of the school district’s nepotism
policy; the relative or member of the school official’s immediate family was grandfathered (i.e.,
because the employment of the relative or member of the school official’s immediate family
preceded a school official’s election, appointment, or employment); and/or the board of
education sought and received approval from the executive county superintendent for the hiring,
school officials can still violate the Act if they do not recuse themselves from any and all
matters in which they have a conflict of interest because of their relative or immediate family
member’s employment in the school district. In Advisory Opinion A24-17, the Commission
specifically addresses the matters from which school officials must recuse themselves because of
their familial relationships.
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, Commission modifies the Initial
Decision to include a recommended penalty of reprimand.
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.
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

7
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: July 26, 2022