Thomas Baldosaro and Virginia Murphy v. Julie Kozempel, Washington Township Board of Education, Gloucester County, 1/16/26 (#19-26)

19-26
OAL Dkt. Nos. EEC-06605-22 and EEC-07465-22 (consolidated)
SEC Dkt. Nos. C54-22, C43-22, C44-22, and C62-22
Agency Dkt. No. 11-8/25A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Thomas Baldosaro,
Complainant,
v.
Julie Kozempel, Washington Township Board of
Education, Gloucester County,
Respondent,
and
Virginia Murphy,
Complainant,
v.
Julie Kozempel, Washington Township Board of
Education, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
This matter involves complainants’ appeal of the School Ethics Commission’s July 22,
2025, determination that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(f) with respect to Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the Complaint and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) with

2
respect to Count 6 of the Complaint.1 Having carefully reviewed the Commission’s decision and
the record in its entirety, the Commissioner finds that the Commission’s decision is supported by
sufficient, credible evidence and that complainants 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 for the violations not challenged on appeal.2
Initially, 	complainants assert 	that the 	Commission 	should have 	determined that
respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (f) in connection with Counts 1, 2 and the 3 of
the Complaint as they relate to an email sent from respondent’s personal email account to a
member of the public in which she expressed support for a Board superintendent candidate.3
The Commission agreed with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that respondent’s expression of
support for a candidate as a private citizen is not a violation of the Code. The Commission also
agreed with the ALJ that nothing in the record suggested that respondent did anything to ensure
that her preferred candidate became superintendent. Her private email did not influence the
votes of other Board members, contain any personal promises, or represent private action taken
1 N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code) prohibits board members
from making personal promises or taking private action “that may compromise the board.” 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f) of the Code prohibits board members from surrendering their “independent judgment to
special interest or partisan political groups” or using “the schools for personal gain or for the gain of
friends.”
2 The Commission determined that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g),
and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) with respect to Count 4 of the Complaint when she read a text message at a
public meeting concerning another Board member’s views about a school official. 	The Commission
recommended that respondent be reprimanded for those violations, and respondent has not contested
that sanction.
3 Because complainants did not submit a formal brief, letter brief, or appendix in support of their notice
of appeal as contemplated by N.J.A.C. 6A:4, Subchapter 2, their contentions on appeal are gleaned from
the notice of appeal itself.

3
to influence the Board superintendent search. 	Moreover, the Commission agreed with the ALJ
that respondent’s statement regarding “the red hats who are sheep that consume media bias
and don’t give a crap about the kids” was merely an expression of respondent’s opinion and did
not violate the Code.
Complainants also assert that the Commission should have determined that respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in connection with Count 6 of the Complaint for retaliatory
conduct involving a phone call made by respondent to complainant Baldosaro’s employer.
Respondent, who had applied for employment at the same company, called the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), identified herself as a board member, and asked whether complainant Baldosaro’s
ethics accusations against her had impacted her job application. The Commission agreed with
the ALJ that the record lacked evidence to establish that respondent’s conversation with the CEO
compromised the Board or compromised the employer’s vendor relationship with the district.
Additionally, the Commission agreed with the ALJ that the record lacked evidence to suggest that
the CEO believed that respondent was calling in her official capacity as a Board member or was
speaking on behalf of the Board.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the decision of
the Commission as to Counts 1, 2, 3 and 6 is supported by the record and complainants have not
established that the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
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 beyond the scope of respondent’s duties such
that, by its nature, had the potential to compromise the district board of education.” N.J.A.C.
6A:28-6.4(a)(5). Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) “shall include evidence

4
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 to acquire some benefit for the
respondent(s), a member of the respondent’s immediate family or a friend.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:28-
6.4(a)(6).
The Commissioner agrees with the Commission that the factual record lacks sufficient
evidence to establish that respondent violated the Code when she sent an email from her
personal email account to a member of the public expressing support for one of the candidates
for Board superintendent. The text of the email did not contain personal promises, nor did it
constitute action that had the potential to compromise the Board. Furthermore, the statement
in the email regarding “the red hats who are sheep that consume media bias and don’t give a
crap about the kids” is respondent’s opinion and does not indicate action on behalf of a special
interest group or persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion and who adhere to a
particular political party or cause.
Complainants’ 	claim 	that 	the 	Commission 	improperly 	required 	proof 	of 	actual
compromise to the Board rather than the potential to compromise the Board is unsupported by
the record. 	Moreover, complainants’ characterization of the email as a deliberate effort to
influence the Board’s official processes is likewise unsupported by the record. It was sent from
respondent’s personal email address to a member of the public who was not a Board member,
and respondent did not participate in the Board superintendent search. The email did not use
the schools to acquire a benefit for a friend; it was an expression of respondent’s opinion.
Furthermore, complainants’ assertion that the Board was forced to hire an expensive external

5
search firm to conduct the superintendent search as a result of respondent’s email is not
adequately supported by the record.
Additionally, the Commissioner agrees with the Commission that the factual record lacks
sufficient evidence to establish that respondent violated the Code when she called the CEO of
complainant 	Baldosaro’s 	employer 	alleging 	harassment 	and 	to 	ask 	whether 	the 	ethics
accusations he made against her had impacted her job application.4 The record fails to establish
that respondent’s phone call to the CEO had the potential to compromise the Board. 	As for
complainants’ claims that respondent’s phone call and related conduct resulted in actual harm
to the Board because the employer later withdrew its sponsorship of a district hoagie sale, the
Commissioner is not permitted to speculate about if or why such a withdrawal of sponsorship
occurred and the reason for the alleged withdrawal was not established during the proceedings.
Regarding the recommended penalty of reprimand, the record reflects that the
Commission fully considered the nature of the proven conduct and weighed the effects of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including that respondent apologized and ultimately
resigned from the Board. 	However, complainants insist that the sanction of reprimand is
insufficient because it ignores a sustained pattern of misconduct by respondent, including new
material facts which occurred weeks after the hearing. 	Because it is not appropriate for the
Commissioner to consider facts which occurred after the hearing when determining the
appropriate sanction in this matter, same will not be considered.
4 As for complainants’ assertion that the ALJ should not have excluded as hearsay an email from the
employer’s HR department which summarized respondent’s phone call, the Commissioner finds that such
decisions are well within the ALJ’s discretion and finds no basis to disturb it. N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.1, N.J.A.C.
1:1-15.5. Respondent testified firsthand about her contacts with complainant Baldosaro’s employer.

6
As for complainants’ reliance upon Lisa G. Guzik v. Ryan Campbell, Mantua Township
Board of Education, Gloucester County, SEC Dkt. No. C45-23, Commissioner Decision No. 283-
24SEC (July 26, 2024), that matter is distinguishable. Guzik involved undisputed allegations that
the respondent, who was censured, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when he called the
complainant’s employer, identified himself as a Board member, and criticized actions that the
complainant took as a private citizen during Board meetings in an apparent attempt to silence
her and/or get her in trouble at work. Here, unlike in Guzik, the record fails to establish by a
preponderance of credible evidence that respondent’s call to the CEO was intended to silence
complainant Baldosaro or to somehow jeopardize his employment; respondent testified that she
made the call because she was concerned about her own job application as she had not been
contacted to interview for the position. Therefore, the Commission’s recommended penalty of
reprimand–which is not contested by respondent—will not be disturbed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Julie Kozempel is hereby reprimanded as a school official
found to have violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.5
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 16, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 20, 2026
5 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.

Before the School Ethics Commission
Final Decision
OAL Docket No.: EEC-06605-22
SEC Docket No.: C54-22
CONSOLIDATED
OAL Docket No.: EEC-07465-22
SEC Docket No.: C43-22, C44-22,
and C62-22
Thomas Baldosaro,
Complainant
v.
Julie Kozempel,
Washington Township Board of Education,
Gloucester County,
Respondent
Virginia Murphy,
Complainant
v.
Julie Kozempel,
Washington Township Board of Education,
Gloucester County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from four separate, but related Complaints filed with
the School Ethics Commission (Commission), by Thomas Baldosaro, Virginia Murphy, James
Wakemen, Sr., and Barbara Dahdah-Anderson1 (Complainants) who alleged that Julie Kozempel
(Respondent), member of the Washington Township Board of Education (Board), violated the
School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq.
More specifically, in C54-22, Thomas Baldosaro (Complainant Baldosaro) filed a
Complaint with the Commission on May 9, 2022. Ultimately, on July 28, 2022, the Commission
transmitted the alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 12-
24.1(f), and N.J.S.A. 12-24.1(g) (Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code)) to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing to determine whether Respondent violated the
Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code).
In 	C43-22, 	Virigina 	Murphy 	(Complainant 	Murphy) 	filed 	a 	Complaint 	with 	the
Commission on May 22, 2022. The Commission exercised its authority under N.J.A.C. 6A:28-
6.6, and consolidated Complainant Murphy’s Complaint with two related Complaints (C44-22
and 	C62-22) 	that 	were 	filed 	by 	James 	Wakemen, 	Sr. 	and 	Barbara 	Dahdah-Anderson,
1 The Complaints filed by Wakeman (C44-22) and Dahdah-Anderson (C62-22) were dismissed for failure
to appear on the first hearing date.

2
respectively. After its review, the Commission determined that the allegations in C43-22 (Count
5), relating to a series of emails between Respondent and a member of the public from July 22,
2021, 	through 	July 	24, 	2021, 	were time-barred. 	On 	August 	29, 	2022, 	the Commission
transmitted Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 to the OAL for a plenary hearing. In sum, the alleged Code
violations by Count are as follows: Counts 1, 2, and 3 (March 22, 2022 incident): N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(b), (e), (f) and (h)2; Count 4 (April 26, 2022 incident): N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (g)
and (i); and Count 6 (Inspira Health incident): N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
The matters were consolidated at the OAL on January 12, 2023. The consolidated matter
was tried over four hearing dates: June 19, 2024, June 20, 2024, September 17, 2024, and
October 4, 2024. The last summation brief was received on February 10, 2025, and the record
closed that day.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision on March 11, 2025,
finding that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 4 and recommending a penalty of reprimand. Complainants filed
exceptions to the Initial Decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4.
At its meeting on June 17, 2025, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on July 22, 2025, the Commission voted to adopt the ALJ’s
findings of fact, the legal conclusions that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) and voted to adopt the recommended penalty of
reprimand.
II. 	Initial Decision
The ALJ found the following facts to be undisputed: Respondent was a Board member
from 2019 to May 2022 and served as Board President from 2019 until she resigned in May
2022. Joseph Bollendorf was the Superintendent during that time and informed Respondent
Kozempel, as the Board President, that he would be retiring at the end of his five-year term. The
Board approved an abbreviated employment contract on March 30, 2021, to allow the Board
time to replace the Superintendent. Initial Decision at 4.
In July 2021, Ronald Lucarini, retired District teacher, “engaged in personal email
conversations with [Respondent] on her personal email address about whom they supported in
the upcoming Board elections. Mr. Lucarini wanted [Respondent] to support [Baker] . . . but
[Respondent] felt it was the wrong time, and indicated her support was with a different
candidate. Ibid. [Respondent] expressed to Lucarini that she felt Dr. Shawnequa Carvalho should
be the next superintendent.” Ibid. At the time, Dr. Carvalho was the Assistant Superintendent in
West Deptford, and was the Board VP (Washington Twp.), until she moved out of district in
September 2021, leaving a vacancy that was filled by Baker in November 2021.
2 Only C44-22 and C62-22 contained a reference to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(h). As those
complaints were dismissed prior to the hearing, the alleged violation of section (h) was not addressed by
the ALJ.

3
In December 2021, Baker (new Board member), sent a text to Respondent “discussing
her disagreement with granting tenure to a building principal.” Ibid. Respondent replied, “I’m at
work. And I won’t discuss employees in writing and you should avoid doing that going
forward.” Initial Decision at 5.
In February 2022, a small committee of Board members met to begin the process of
finding a new Superintendent. Respondent was on the committee, and a vacancy notice was
posted on February 23, 2022.
At the Board meeting on March 22, 2022, Lucarini read a portion of an email Respondent
had sent to him on July 24, 2021:
I always agree with you so do what you want. I am just a little more strategic
because I feel that Shawnequa should be the next Sup and want to ensure that.
Connie would be on board for that. She knows how effective Shawnequa is in
WD and the change she would affect in Twp. I just also know that the unions will
likely vote for our people because we support them, as will various other unions
because we are supporters of labor unions.
Elayne was elected because she was staff and nobody was slated and people know
Clancy over Ellis. I want Brian on the board and it’s hard enough to get him
elected in this climate without another dem diluting the votes. I’d support her full
run next year. This is a Gov election so higher salience. Connie is better over the
red hats who are sheep that consume bias media and don’t give a crap about the
kids.
Ibid.
On March 24, 2022, at a special Board meeting, Respondent recused herself from the
Superintendent search. Mr. Lucarini’s email “caused disruption that extended beyond the March
22, 2022,” Board meeting. Initial Decision at 6. In April 2022, Respondent resigned as Board
President. At a Board meeting on April 26, 2022, Respondent read a text that Baker sent to her
on December 7, 2021, about a District staff member, and although she read it verbatim, she did
not disclose the name of the employee, but she did refer to him as the building principal and she
did include his salary and marriage to a part-time teacher in the District. Ibid.
On or about April 11, 2022, Respondent applied for a job at the same company for which
Complainant Baldosaro was employed. Respondent was never contacted for an interview, so she
contacted the company to inquire about the status of her application. She also stated that she was
“concerned because some of Baldosaro’s accusations against her were sent from his work email
address. She wanted to know whether his comments negatively influenced her application.” Ibid.
Thereafter, on May 9, 2022, Respondent contacted the company CEO and told the CEO that “she
felt harassed by Baldosaro [and] admitted to telling [the CEO] that she was a [Board member].”
Ibid. In May 2022, Respondent resigned from the Board.
Based on witness testimony the ALJ issued these additional findings of fact:

4
Regarding Counts 1, 2 and 3 (July 24, 2021, email) and a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(b), Complainants alleged that Respondent’s actions were made in the interest of getting her
friend appointed as the next Superintendent, not in consideration of the educational needs of the
students. The ALJ notes that there was not any testimony or documentary evidence provided that
would support any action taken by Respondent to “ensure” her friend became the next
Superintendent 	other 	than 	the 	words 	in 	the 	July 	21, 	2021, 	email 	written 	as 	private
correspondence from her personal email account. Initial Decision at 11. The ALJ further notes
that the members of the selection committee did not have any knowledge of any action taken by
Respondent to advance Dr. Carvalho’s application nor were any applications reviewed by the
Board when Lucarini disclosed the email. Moreover, the ALJ maintains that Respondent recused
herself from the search committee prior to the applications being reviewed and Dr. Carvalho
testified that Respondent did not have a role in her decision to apply for the superintendent
position. Complainant Murphy viewed the email as a negotiation between Lucarini and
Respondent to ensure that Dr. Carvalho became the next superintendent; however, there were not
any facts provided to support that belief. The ALJ contends that Respondent’s support for certain
candidates as a private citizen is not a violation. The ALJ further contends that Respondent only
has one vote and there was nothing even suggested by the testimony that she influenced the votes
of other Board members. Therefore, the ALJ finds that Complainants have not met their burden
of proof to sustain a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b).
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the ALJ asserts Complainants did not
provide any testimony or documentary evidence that Respondent made any promises or took any
action to ensure Dr. Carvalho became the next superintendent. The ALJ maintains that there is
no doubt that the reading of the email by Lucarini caused chaos and bred discontent which had
the potential to compromise the Board. However, the ALJ further maintains there is nothing in
the record that shows Respondent made any personal promises or took any action to influence
the Superintendent search. Furthermore, the ALJ notes Respondent recused herself from the
search, resigned as the Board president, and after two months resigned from the Board.
Therefore, the ALJ finds Complainants have not met their burden to sustain a violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
Regarding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), the ALJ contends Complainants alleged
that the language used by Respondent, namely when she stated, “Connie is better than the red
hats who are sheep that consume media bias and don’t give a crap about the kids” violated
N.J.S.A.18A:12-24.1(f). Initial Decision at 13. The ALJ further contends neither the testimony
nor factual evidence suggests that this language was anything other than an expression of
Respondent’s opinion. Therefore, the ALJ finds that Complainants have not demonstrated that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
As to Count 4, the April 26, 2022, incident, and a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e),
the ALJ maintains Respondent did not provide an explanation for why she divulged the text
message. The ALJ further maintains the video evidence (P-9) displayed the animosity between
Respondent and Board member Baker and the text message contained the personal opinions of
Board member Baker written in a text message to Respondent. The ALJ notes that Respondent’s
response indicated Board members should not be discussing employees in this fashion, and she

5
told Board member Baker to avoid such actions in the future. The ALJ further notes that despite
her admonishment of Baker’s text, Respondent chose to make the text public at a Board meeting
and reading this text was clearly outside the scope of her duties. Although Respondent did not
use the employee’s name, the ALJ contends the testimony indicated that the identifying
characteristics in the text message did not shield the building principal’s identity. The ALJ finds
Complainants have met their burden to prove a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 4.
ID. at 14.
Regarding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), the ALJ asserts Respondent’s only
purpose in making Board member Baker’s text message public was to discredit her and
Respondent’s words and actions established that Respondent knew better than to discuss
employees 	between 	Board 	members 	in 	such 	a 	cavalier 	fashion 	and 	she 	believed 	such
conversations could constitute ethical violations. The ALJ further asserts that by exposing Board
member Baker’s comments, Respondent made her opinions public, regardless of their accuracy
or potential to discredit the school and this action harmed the reputation of the Board. Therefore,
the ALJ finds that Complainants have met their burden to prove a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(g) in Count 4. ID at 15.
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), the ALJ maintains there is nothing
ambiguous about the contents of the text message. The ALJ maintains although nothing was
presented to show how school personnel were harmed, Respondent’s action in publicly reading
this text, without authority or justification, undermined and compromised school personnel.
According to the ALJ, the statement attributable to a Board member and publicized by another
Board member as retribution undermined the Superintendent and compromised the reputation of
the building principal. Therefore, the ALJ finds that Complainants have met their burden of
proof to sustain a violation N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i). ID. at 16.
As to Count 6, and a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), as it relates to Respondent’s
interaction with Complainant Baldosaro’s employer, the ALJ asserts the legally competent
evidence was in the form of testimony from Complainant Baldosaro and Respondent about their
conversations with the CEO. Respondent admitted that she called the company and spoke with
the CEO. According to the ALJ, Respondent’s reason for her call was to inquire whether
Complainant Baldosaro’s accusations against her impacted her job application. Respondent and
Complainant Baldosaro both testified that they felt they were being harassed. The ALJ notes
there is nothing to indicate that Respondent’s action in speaking with the CEO compromised the
Board’s vendor relationship with the District. The ALJ further notes that while Respondent
admitted that she told the CEO she was a Board member, there is no evidence to suggest that the
CEO believed that Respondent had contacted her in her official capacity as a Board member or
that Respondent was speaking on behalf of the Board during their telephone conversation.
Therefore, the ALJ finds that Complainants have not met their burden to prove a violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). ID. at 17.
Legal Discussion
The ALJ concludes that because Complainants’ have met their burden of proof related to
Respondent’s action in reading a text message from a fellow Board member in public at the

6
meeting on April 26, 2022, Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i).
As to penalty, the ALJ asserts that only one of the three charges has been proven by a
preponderance of evidence. Moreover, as it relates to those charged, Respondent apologized and
immediately recused herself from the Superintendent search after her personal email was made
public at a Board meeting and consequently, she resigned as Board President. The ALJ further
asserts Respondent took those actions for the good of the Board; however, that did not appease
the entire Board and criticism continued. According to the ALJ, Respondent’s decision to
discredit Board member Baker had unintended consequences and school personnel were
collateral damage. Therefore, the ALJ concludes that a reprimand is warranted.
III. 	Exceptions
Complainants’ Exceptions3
Complainants take exception with the ALJ’s findings that they failed to meet the burden
of proof to demonstrate that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and/or N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f) by sending the July 24, 2021, email; and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) when
she contacted the CEO of the company where Complainant Baldosaro was employed in May
2022. Complainants take further exception to the penalty of reprimand.
First, as to the Respondent’s July 24, 2021, email, which was read at the March 22, 2022,
Board meeting, Complainants argue that although the ALJ correctly noted the “‘chaos and
discontent’ that followed the publication of Respondent’s July 24, 2021, email, she failed to
properly evaluate the consequences of Respondent’s private conduct.” Complainants note, “the
issue is not whether Respondent was actually successful in hiring her friend, Dr. Carvalho . . .
but rather whether Respondent's private action in sending the email itself had any potential to
compromise 	the 	[B]oard.” 	Despite 	the 	ALJ’s 	finding 	that 	“there 	was 	no 	testimony 	or
documentary evidence of any action taken by Kozempel to ‘ensure’ her friend became the next
[S]uperintendent 	other 	than 	the 	words 	in 	the 	July 	24, 	2021, 	email 	written 	as 	private
correspondence from her personal email account.” Complainants argue Respondent’s intent
within her email is abundantly clear. Complainants provide the following statements were all
contained in Respondent’s email:
• “I feel Shawnequa should be the next Sup and want to ensure that. Connie
would be on Board for that. She knows how effective Shawnequa is in WD and
the change she would affect in Twp.” “I've recruited most of the people who have
run the last three years, personally. I asked Brian (Ellis) who was on the equity
committee. Kath (Gallinaro, board member during super search) too. I've known
Stacey Dimeo (board member during super search) since our kids were four.”
• “I asked Ray (DiNovi- board member during super search) to run. He agrees
with our goals and is progressive.”
3 The Commission notes that Respondent did not file exceptions.

7
• “I want Brian (Ellis) on the board and it's hard enough to get him elected in this
climate without another dem diluting the votes. I'd support her (Connie Baker)
full run next year.” Response from Ron Lucarini, “If you promise to support next
time around, I can talk her out of it.”
According to Complainants, “these were not merely personal opinions of [Respondent],
as the ALJ suggests, but rather an outline of a deliberate plan to organize political support,
through 	both 	Board 	members 	and 	unions, 	for 	a 	specific 	candidate 	in 	the 	upcoming
Superintendent search.” Complainants assert Respondent’s “precise language” and word choice
– “ensure” – “demonstrates her intent to exert personal influence over the outcome and not
merely express personal preference.” Complainants maintain that the ALJ’s finding that the
testimony from Board members did not demonstrate that Respondent influenced the Board to
choose Dr. Carvalho “is not the proper analysis.” Complainants further maintain more accurate
would be whether Respondent’s July 24, 2021, email, “itself constituted an individual action
which ‘had any potential’ to compromise the Board.” According to Complainants, “there can be
no doubt that [Respondent’s] email did not only have the potential to compromise the Board (as
[the ALJ] actually stated within the Decision) but in reality did far more.” Complainants contend
Respondent’s “email directly undermined public confidence, disrupted the Superintendent hiring
process, and forced the Board to incur significant, unbudgeted expenses to repair the damage.”
Complainants further contend Respondent’s action to keep the Superintendent search “confined
to an internal search” gave Respondent “more control over the ultimate outcome.” Complainants
assert that although Respondent recused herself from the Superintendent search, the Board “was
forced to hire” a search firm, which was the Board’s attempt to “restore public trust and
confidence” in the search for a new Superintendent. Complainants further assert that witness
testimony demonstrates that the harm to the Board “was not merely speculative, but rather is
direct, documented, and substantial.” Therefore, Complainants aver that the Commission should
conclude Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) by virtue of her July 24, 2021, email.
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) related to the July email, Complainants
maintain the email “plainly sets forth that [Respondent] wanted to ‘ensure that her friend,’ Dr.
Carvalho, was hired as the Superintendent.” Complainants further maintain that is the exact
example of using “the schools in order to acquire some benefit for… a friend.” Moreover,
witness testimony demonstrated that Respondent made comments “years before” her July email,
indicating her “scheme” to hire her friend. Complainants assert that the ALJ’s finding that
Respondent’s “comments were private, political opinion is contrasted by Commission advisory
opinions regarding board member freedom of speech,” namely Advisory Opinion A02-06.
Complainants further assert “it is clear that [Respondent’s] email was not private action and was
not protected freedom of speech given that she made these comments specifically and overtly in
her capacity as a Board member.” Accordingly, Complainants contend it must be concluded that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
Complainants further take exception to the ALJ’s determination that Complainants did
not meet their burden of proof to show that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), by
contacting the CEO of the company where Complainant Baldosaro is employed. Complainants
argue 	they 	established 	by 	a 	preponderance 	of 	evidence 	that 	Respondent’s 	contact 	with
Complainant Baldosaro’s employer, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Complainants further

8
argue that the ALJ’s finding that an email from the HR Specialist at the company was “hearsay”
because she did not testify was an error because “[c]ompetent evidence was introduced in the
record to permit the Court to consider the email from [the HR Specialist] when determining the
ultimate ‘finding of fact’ – namely whether [Respondent’s] contact with Baldosaro’s employer []
was a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).” Complainants note that Respondent corroborated
the email, and her contention that “she merely wanted to inquire about the status of a job
application . . . was inconsistent.” Complainants maintain “it is clear” from Respondent’s
testimony, and the timing of the call to Complainant Baldosaro’s employer that this was not a
“follow-up,” but rather “was a pretextual, retaliatory call to Complainant Baldosaro’s employer
due to him exercising his rights to speak at public Board meetings and to file an ethics
complaint.” Complainants further maintain the ALJ’s “refusal to consider the corroborated email
was therefore a reversible error, as it ignored testimony that directly supports the finding that
[Respondent’s] contact with [the company] was retaliatory and in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e).” Moreover, Complainants assert in order to sustain a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e), it is not whether Respondent’s action actually compromised the Board, but whether there
was any potential for harm. Complainants note the timing of Respondent’s contact with the
company and that she identified herself as a Board member are “key factor[s] in determining the
potential for harm.”
Complainants also take exception to the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondent resigned from
the Board before the end of her term, because “she placed the interests of the Board before her
own interests,” and therefore, issued a reprimand. Complainants note the present situation of the
Board, and state that Respondent “has wasted no time in continuing her pattern of concerning
and unethical behavior.” Respondent has publicly stated that the ALJ’s findings are “no big deal”
and she has “erroneously advised the public that this matter had been dismissed and that there
was no finding of probable cause.” Complainants argue Respondent’s “knowing misstatements”
and repeated behavior “reflects a sustained and escalating pattern of unethical behavior” and in
conjunction with the sustained violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (g) and (i), the only
appropriate penalty should be removal.
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
the ALJ’s findings of fact, and adopts the legal conclusions that Respondent did not violate
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Counts 1, 2
and 3, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in
Count 4, and did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 6. The Commission also adopts
the ALJ’s recommended penalty of reprimand.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), a board member must make decisions in terms of
the educational welfare of children and seek to develop and maintain public schools that meet the
individual needs of all children regardless of their ability, race, creed, sex, or social standing. The
Commission agrees with the ALJ that Complainants have not shown how Respondent made a
decision 	contrary 	to 	the educational 	welfare 	of 	children, 	or 	provided 	evidence that 	the
Respondent took deliberate action to obstruct the programs and policies designed to meet the
individual needs of all children, regardless of their ability, race, color, creed, or social standing.

9
Therefore, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(b) in Counts 1, 2, and 3.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), a board member must recognize that authority rests with
the board and a board member shall not make any personal promises or take any action that may
compromise the board. The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that Complainants did
not meet the burden of proof to sustain a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Counts 1, 2, and
3. The Commission agrees that Respondent’s e-mail to a fellow Board member was not a
personal promise or action that could have compromised the Board as she was expressing her
support for certain candidates from her private email account to a retired teacher. Therefore, the
Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent did not violate in Counts 1, 2, and 3.
As for Count 4, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s actions when she
read the message from another Board member about a school principal had the potential to
compromise the Board, and therefore, Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). As the ALJ
found, reading the text message in public was “clearly outside the scope of her duties.” ID. at 14.
As for Count 6, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that Complainants did
not meet the burden of proof to sustain a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). As the ALJ
determined that the alleged email was hearsay, the ALJ found that Complainants did not prove
that 	Respondent, 	in 	her 	capacity 	as 	a 	Board 	member, 	took 	any 	action 	that 	may 	have
compromised the Board. Therefore, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent did
not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 5.
Pursuant 	to 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(f), 	a 	board 	member 	must 	refuse 	to 	surrender
independent judgment to special interest or partisan groups or use the schools for personal gain
or for the gain of friends. The Commission agrees with the ALJ that Complainants’ have not
shown how the Respondent 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 used the schools to acquire some benefit for the
Respondent, a member of the Respondent’s immediate family or a friend. Respondent is entitled
to her own political thoughts and opinions. While the Commission finds the e-mail where
Respondent expressed her desire to have Dr. Carvalho as the next Superintendent and certain
individuals to serve on the Board to be concerning, the Commission agrees that Complainants
were unable to prove that Respondent took action to use the schools to acquire a benefit for her
friends as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Therefore, the Commission agrees with the ALJ
that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Counts 1, 2, and 3.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) requires a board member to hold confidential all matters
pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the schools,
and 	also 	to 	provide 	accurate 	information. 	The 	Commission 	concurs 	with 	the 	ALJ 	that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) when she read another Board member’s text
messages aloud at a public meeting, providing information about a school official, regardless of
the accuracy of the information. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the ALJ’s conclusion that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) in Count 4.

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) provides that a board member will support and protect school
personnel in proper performance of their duties. In the current matter, the Commission agrees
with the ALJ that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) when she read a text message, at
a public meeting, concerning another Board member’s views related to a school official.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(i).
With respect to the appropriate penalty, the Commission adopts the recommended
penalty of reprimand. Accordingly, the Commission finds a penalty of reprimand is appropriate
for Respondent’s violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 4.
IV. 	Decision
For the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the ALJ’s findings of fact, the
legal conclusions that that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Counts 1, 2 and 3 and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count
6but did violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in
Count 4. The Commission also adopts the recommended penalty of reprimand.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c), this decision shall be forwarded to the Commissioner
of Education for review of the Commission’s recommended penalty. The parties may either:
1) file exceptions to the recommended sanction; 2) file an appeal of the Commission’s finding of
a violation; or 3) file both exceptions to the recommended sanction together with an appeal of the
finding of a violation.
Parties taking exception to the recommended sanction of the Commission but not
disputing the Commission’s finding of a violation may file, within thirteen (13) days from the
date the Commission’s decision is forwarded to the Commissioner, written exceptions regarding
the recommended penalty to the Commissioner. The forwarding date shall be the mailing date to
the parties, as indicated below. Such exceptions must be forwarded to: Commissioner of
Education, c/o Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625,
marked “Attention: Comments on Ethics Commission Sanction,” as well as to
(ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov). A copy must also be sent to the Commission
(school.ethics@doe.nj.gov) and all other parties.
Parties seeking to appeal the Commission’s finding of violation must file an appeal
pursuant to the standards set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:4:1 et seq. within thirty (30) days of the filing
date of the decision from which the appeal is taken. The filing date shall be three (3) days after
the date of mailing to the parties, as shown below. In such cases, the Commissioner’s review of
the Commission’s recommended sanction will be deferred and incorporated into the
Commissioner’s review of the finding of violation on appeal. Where a notice of appeal has been
filed on or before the due date for exceptions to the Commission’s recommended sanction
10

11
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: July 22, 2025
(thirteen (13) days from the date the decision is mailed by the Commission), exceptions need not be
filed by that date, but may be incorporated into the appellant’s briefs on appeal.

12
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with
C54-22, C43-22, C44-22, and C62-22 (Consolidated)
Whereas, at its meeting on July 26, 2022, the School Ethics Commission (Commission)
voted to transmit the matter docketed as C54-22 to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a
hearing; and
Whereas, at its meeting on August 23, 2022, the Commission voted to transmit the
matter(s) docketed as C43-22, C44-22, and C62-22 to the OAL for a hearing; and
Whereas, 	the 	matters 	docketed 	as 	C54-22, 	C43-22, 	C44-22, 	and 	C62-22 	were
consolidated at the OAL; and
Whereas, on March 11, 2025, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision, finding that Respondent
did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in
Counts 1, 2 and 3, and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 6, but did violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 4, and recommending a
penalty of reprimand; and
Whereas, Complainants filed exceptions to the Initial Decision; and
Whereas, at its meeting on June 17, 2025 the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, discussed adopting the legal conclusions that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Counts 1, 2 and 3 and
did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 6, but violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e),
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i) in Count 4, , and adopting a penalty of
reprimand; and
Whereas, at its meeting on July 22, 2025, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
June 17, 2025; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Commission hereby adopts the within decision.
____________________________________
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that this Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at
its meeting on July 22, 2025.
________________________________
Dana C. Jones
School Ethics Commission