Andrew Lewis v. Salvatore Giordano, Old Bridge Township Board of Education, Middlesex County, 6/13/25 (#303-25SEC)

303-25SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C42-23
OAL DKt. No. EEC-01233-24
Agency Dkt. No. 116-4/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Andrew Lewis,
Complainant,
v.
Salvatore Giordano, Old Bridge Township Board
of Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the April 22, 2025 decision
of the School Ethics Commission (SEC). The SEC found that respondent Salvatore Giordano, a
member of the Old Bridge Township Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f)
of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand
for the violation. The SEC’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 neither filed
exceptions to the recommended penalty nor instituted an appeal, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1 et
seq., of the SEC’s underlying finding of violation.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC for
respondent’s actions in making statements during a Board meeting regarding his candidacy for
General Assembly and failing to include a disclaimer about his comments.

2
Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have violated
the Code of Ethics.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 13, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 16, 2025
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.

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-01233-24
SEC Docket No.: C42-23
Final Decision
Andrew Lewis,
Complainant
v.
Salvatore Giordano,
Old Bridge Township Board of Education, Middlesex County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on April 11, 2023,1 by Andrew Lewis (Complainant), alleging
that Salvatore Giordano (Respondent), a member of the Old Bridge Township Board of
Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. More
specifically, the Complaint avers that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members (Code) in Counts 1 and 2. On
June 19, 2023, Respondent filed a Written Statement.
At its meeting on, January 23, 2024, and after reviewing the Complaint and the Written
Statement, the Commission adopted a decision finding probable cause for the alleged violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count 2, but finding probable cause did not exist for the remaining
violations alleged in the Complaint. Based on its decision, the Commission also voted to transmit
the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where Complainant would carry the
burden to prove that Respondent violated the cited provision of the Code.
At the OAL, following Complainant’s motion for summary decision, the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision on January 27, 2025, finding that Respondent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and recommending a penalty of reprimand. The parties did not
file exceptions to the Initial Decision.
At its meeting on March 25, 2025, the Commission reviewed the Initial Decision, and at
its meeting on April 22, 2025, the Commission voted to adopt the Initial Decision’s findings of
fact, 	the 	legal 	conclusion 	that 	Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(f), 	and 	the
recommended penalty of reprimand.
1 On April 10, 2023, Complainant filed a deficient Complaint; however, on April 11, 2023, Complainant filed an
Amended Complaint, which cured all defects and was deemed compliant with the requirements detailed in N.J.A.C.
6A:28-6.3.

2
II. 	Initial Decision
The ALJ made the following findings of fact based on the joint stipulation of facts and
joint exhibits:
1. 	Salvatore Giordano is a resident of Old Bridge Township and in January 2020, he became
a member of the Board.
2. 	Respondent Giordano was elected as Board President in January 2023.
3. 	On March 25, 2023, Respondent Giordano filed a petition with the New Jersey Division
of Elections to run as a candidate in the Republican Primary Election for the General
Assembly’s 12th Legislative District.
4. 	Respondent attended a Board meeting on April 25, 2023, in his capacity as Board
President, at which he made the following statement:
As many of you know, it’s primary season so please do your
research on candidates. I just happen to be on the ballot for
General Assembly and would appreciate any support and questions
you may have about the process or anything. And even if some
races are unopposed, just make sure your voices are heard so we
could have a high turnout. Thank you.
5. 	The statement was made at the end of the Board meeting, during “board business,” and
only Board members were allowed to speak during that portion of the meeting.
6. 	Respondent Giordano was the only Board member to speak about the General Assembly
election and he was seated behind a placard that identified him as the Board President
when he made the statement. He did not make these comments from the microphone
where private citizens are directed to speak during Board meetings.
7. 	Respondent Giordano did not include a disclaimer during or after his statement that he
was doing so as a private citizen rather than as the Board President nor did he express
that his candidacy did not reflect the endorsement, opinion, or approval of the Board, or
that his request for support did not connote any action, support, or endorsement of the
Board for his candidacy.
8. 	None of the Board members who spoke during the meeting expressly stated whether they
were speaking on behalf of the Board or as a private citizen.
9. 	During the same meeting, Giordano voted against the Board’s adoption of the New Jersey
State Bar Association’s Code of Ethics.2
Initial Decision at 3-4.
2 The Commission notes that the parties meant New Jersey School Boards Association’s Code of Ethics.

3
The ALJ concluded that Respondent made comments during a Board meeting about his
candidacy in an upcoming General Assembly primary seeking support, without a disclaimer that
his statement was being made in his capacity as a private citizen and not as a Board
member/Board President. Id. at 10. Therefore, the ALJ found that Respondent used his position
on the Board to solicit support and/or votes for his personal political campaign and in doing so,
used the schools to acquire a personal benefit in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Ibid. Thus,
the ALJ found the charges brought against Respondent have been proven by a preponderance of
the evidence and must be sustained. Ibid. The ALJ also concluded that because this is
Respondent’s first violation, and his conduct was not ongoing, the appropriate penalty is
reprimand. Ibid. The ALJ ordered that Complainant’s motion for summary decision be granted,
and Respondent be issued a reprimand for the violation. Id. at 11.
III. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission agrees
with the ALJ’s findings of fact, legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(f), and the recommended penalty of reprimand.
According to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), a board member must refuse to surrender his or
her independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups or to use the schools for
personal gain or for the gain of friends. The Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent’s
statements at a Board meeting, during “[B]oard business,” when only Board members were
allowed to speak during that portion of the meeting, about how he was running for General
Assembly, and his failure to include a disclaimer about his comments, was Respondent using his
position on the Board to solicit support and/or votes for his personal political campaign. In doing
so, the Commission finds Respondent used the schools to acquire a personal benefit, in violation
of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
The Commission agrees with the ALJ that a reprimand is the appropriate penalty for
Respondent’s violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). While Respondent’s communication was
inappropriate and compromised the Board, Respondent only made the inappropriate comments at
one meeting and the conduct was not ongoing.
IV. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the Initial Decision’s
findings of fact, the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and 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

4
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 Office 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
(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.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: April 22, 2025

5
Resolution Adopting Final Decision
in Connection with C42-23
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	January 	23, 	2024, 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission) voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a plenary hearing; and
Whereas, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision on January 27, 2025;
Whereas, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(f), 	and
recommended a penalty of reprimand; and
Whereas, neither party filed exceptions to the Initial Decision; and
Whereas, at its meeting on March 25, 2025, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, and discussed adopting the Initial Decision’s findings of fact, the legal conclusion that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and the recommended penalty of reprimand; and
Whereas, at its meeting on April 22, 2025, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
March 25, 2025; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Commission hereby adopts the within decision as its
Final Decision, and directs its staff to notify all parties to this action of its decision herein.
____________________________________
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that this Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at its
regularly scheduled meeting on April 22, 2025.
________________________________
Dana C. Jones
School Ethics Commission