Laurie Tietjen v. Pamela Rogers, Robin Stella, and Nicholas DiFranco, Board of Education of Middletown Township, Monmouth County, 11/02/2023, (#330-23SEC)

330-23SEC
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Laurie Tietjen,
Complainant,
v.
Pamela Rogers, Robin Stella, and Nicholas
Di Franco, Middletown Township Public
Schools 	Board 	of 	Education, 	Monmouth
County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Complainant alleged, inter alia, that respondent Pamela Rogers, a member of the Middletown
Township Public Schools Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), 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), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) of the
School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq through actions she took relating to the planning of a
rally on school grounds that was not a Board-sponsored event, including the use of her Board email
account in a politically motivated way. The School Ethics Commission (SEC) determined that the
respondent’s actions 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, and recommended a penalty of reprimand for the violations.
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. 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.

SEC Dkt. No. C59-20
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 02706-21
Agency Dkt. No. 259-9/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Laurie Tietjen,
Complainant,
v.
Pamela Rogers, Robin Stella, and Nicholas
Di Franco, Middletown Township Public
Schools Board of Education, Monmouth
County,
Respondents.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the September 26, 2023
decision of the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that
respondent Pamela Rogers, a member of the Middletown Township Public Schools Board of
Education (Board), 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. 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).1 Respondent
1 The Commission dismissed the complaint as to respondents Robin Stella and Nicholas DiFranco. Because
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c) only authorizes the Commissioner to act on the Commission’s recommendation regarding
sanctions, the portion of the Commission’s decision dismissing the complaint as to Stella and DiFranco is not at
issue here.
330-23SEC

2
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, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the
Commission for respondent’s actions in using her Board email to plan a rally that was not a
Board-sponsored event.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded 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.
November 2, 2023
November 3, 2023

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC 02706-21
SEC Docket No.: C59-20
Final Decision
Laurie Tietjen,
Complainant
v.
Pamela Rogers, Robin Stella, and Nicholas DiFranco,
Middletown Township Public Schools Board of Education, Monmouth County,
Respondents
I. 	Procedural History
This matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on October 2, 2020,1 by Laurie Tietjen
(Complainant), alleging that Pamela Rogers (Respondent Rogers), Robin Stella (Respondent
Stella), and Nicholas DiFranco (Respondent DiFranco) (collectively referred to as Respondents),
members of the Middletown Township Public Schools Board of Education (Board), violated the
School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. The Complaint alleges that Respondents
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Count 1, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b)
in Count 2, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) in Count 3, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in Count 4, and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(j) in Count 5.
At its meeting on February 23, 2021, and after reviewing Respondents’ Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss) and Complainant’s response thereto, the
Commission voted to grant the Motion to Dismiss as to the allegations in Count 1, Count 2, and
Count 5, but to deny the Motion to Dismiss as to the allegations in Count 3 and Count 4. Based
on its decision, the Commission also voted to direct Respondents to file an Answer to Complaint
(Answer) as to the remaining allegations (Count 3 and Count 4). In light of the fact that the
remaining allegations in the Complaint only involve violations of the Code of Ethics for School
Board Members (Code), the Commission additionally voted to transmit the matter to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL) following receipt of the Answer, which Respondents filed on
March 5, 2021.
A hearing was held at the OAL on July 19 and September 26, 2022. Thereafter, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision on July 12, 2023. Respondent Rogers
1 On October 2, 2020, Complainant filed a deficient Complaint; however, on October 6, 2020,
Complainant cured all defects and filed an Amended Complaint that was deemed compliant with the
requirements detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.3.

2
filed exceptions to the Initial Decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4. Complainant did
not file a reply.
At its meeting on August 22, 2023, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on September 26, 2023, the Commission voted to adopt the
Initial Decision’s legal conclusion that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and
N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(f) 	and 	the 	recommended 	penalty 	of 	reprimand. 	Additionally, 	the
Commission voted to adopt the Initial Decision’s legal conclusion that Respondents Stella and
DiFranco did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and to dismiss
the Complaint against them.
II. 	Initial Decision
Spread Love Not Hate (SLNH) was an entity created for a short time to promote a cause
regarding social justice. Initial Decision at 15. An SLNH “Unity Walk” was scheduled for June
28, 2020, at the Middletown North High School that, according to Complainant’s testimony,
“was advertised as ‘no politics, no sides, no finger pointing’ and would strive to ‘erase all lines’
in relation to police and the community.” Id. at 4. Prior to the rally taking place, it was not
discussed in public or approved at a Board meeting, voted on by the Board members, or
submitted for public comment. Id. at 15. According to Respondent Rogers’ testimony, a Board
resolution was “not necessary” since the Superintendent authorized the march on school
property, and the Superintendent asked her to contact the Board members to see if they agreed to
the rally. Id. at 10. Respondent Rogers “polled” four Board members about the rally, and after a
“majority” agreed, she “went ahead and reported to [the Superintendent] that the Board approved
the rally, even though the rest of the Board members were not informed.” Id. at 15.
While it is undisputed that the event was not Board-sponsored, according to Complainant,
the school “promoted” the rally on its website, the Board and teachers “work[ed] the tables and
marched,” and the District paid for security. Id. at 5. Complainant also asserts that Respondent
Rogers promoted the rally on her personal social-media page as a Black Lives Matter (BLM)
rally. Ibid. Respondent Rogers acknowledged that she communicated with the SLNH members
from her Board email account and used her Board Twitter account to promote the rally. Id. at 11.
While it appears that the Superintendent coordinated the event, which included providing
portable toilets and a sound system, Respondent Rogers was involved in the planning of the
substance of the event. Exhibits R-M, R-N, R-Q. Respondent Rogers sent an email from her
Board email account on June 17, 2020, to a Township administrator, requesting volunteers to
speak at the rally, such as the police chief, Mayor, and Superintendent or pastors. Exhibit R-H.
The email also sought donations of the stage, water bottles and a disc jockey. Ibid.
Prior to the rally, Respondent Rogers used her Board email account to write an email on
June 11, 2020, to a contact at a political entity, the Progressive Democrats of New Jersey, to
solicit help with the rally, stating:
Hey, My love! How are you? Just between you and me, there’s a
blm rally in the works for Middletown. Frank Meade (District
resident, sophomore at Seton Hall studying political science and

3
phone banking for the progressive candidate in district 6) is
running it. It’ll be at high school north end of June. I told him I’d
give you his number and maybe you could contact him w advice
about the rally and/or making the dem club at seton hall more
active. Thought you’d be a great mentor for Frank! [cell phone
number]
[Id. at 6, 15-16.]
According to Complainant, about 125 students attended the rally, along with several
adults, including teachers and Board members, and “the speeches ‘were mainly focused on the
belief of police brutality and systemic racism.’” Id. at 4. Following the event, Respondent Rogers
sent an email directing that a staff member “combat the false accusations against the [Board]
members on social media,” further adding, “I don’t have the time to attend to this.” Id. at 16.
Respondent Stella had limited involvement with the rally. Ibid. According to Respondent
Stella, she attended one planning meeting for the rally after Respondent Rogers asked her to
attend in her place. Id. at 12. Respondent Stella testified that she did not engage in promoting the
rally, by sending emails or otherwise. Ibid. Respondent Stella also stated the Board President
(Respondent Rogers) polled the Board members about their approval of a rally, when normally
there would be a vote by the Board as to whether an action requested by the Superintendent
would be approved or not. Id. at 13.
Respondent DiFranco only attended the rally with his family and friends. Id. at 16.
Except for attending the rally, Respondent DiFranco was not involved in the planning of the
rally. Ibid.
With respect to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), the ALJ reiterates that the June 11, 2020, email
that Respondent Rogers sent from her Board email account to her contact at the political entity
demonstrates Respondent Rogers “clearly intended to hide information by virtue of her own
words written in this email [(‘just between you and me’)], and dispels any argument made on her
behalf that she was not politically motivated to assist an organized group.” Id. at 19. The
evidence demonstrates Respondent Rogers “made personal promises or took private action that
might compromise the Board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)”; and therefore, the ALJ
concludes that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Id. at 19-20. On the
contrary, the evidence does not prove that Respondents Stella and DiFranco made personal
promises or took any action that would compromise the Board, and therefore, the ALJ concludes
Respondents Stella and DiFranco did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e). Id. at 20.
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), the ALJ asserts that Complainant has
demonstrated that Respondent Rogers “took action on behalf of … a special-interest group or
persons organized and voluntarily united in opinion when she planned and promoted the rally
and used her official [Board] email in order to accomplish her goals that were outside her
[Board] duties”; and therefore, concludes Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
Ibid. The ALJ further concludes Respondents Stella and DiFranco did not violate N.J.S.A.

18A:12-24.1(f) as they did not take action at the request of a special-interest group. Ibid.
Therefore, the charges against Respondents Stella and DiFranco are dismissed. Id. at 21.
The ALJ recommends a penalty of reprimand for Respondent Rogers’ violations of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). Ibid.
III. Exceptions
Respondent Rogers’ Exceptions
In her Exceptions, and as to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), Respondent Rogers
argues that the Commission’s Decision on the Motion to Dismiss determined that if Complainant
could prove that “while acting in their official capacities … Respondents unilaterally authorized
the use of District funds and/or resources …” a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) may be
sustained. However, Respondent Rogers further argues the evidence proves the expenditure of
Board funds is done through the Business Administrator and the Superintendent, with the Board
approving the same after the fact. Respondent notes the ALJ found a violation of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) based on an email that Respondent Rogers sent to a political contact informing
them of the event at the high school and concluded this email was “sufficient by itself” to prove
that Respondent Rogers made personal promises or took private action that might compromise
the Board. Respondent Rogers maintains she did not take any “unilateral actions” such as
authorizing funds as the Commission indicated was necessary, Respondent Rogers’ alleged
political motivation is not “an element” to sustain a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
Furthermore, according to Respondent Rogers, the evidence and witness testimony show that the
SLNH rally had the full support of the administration. Respondent Rogers notes the
Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and the Business Administrator, were in
communication with the rally organizers. Moreover, Respondent contends the evidence
demonstrates that the Superintendent was the “driving force” behind the rally and Respondent
Rogers was “involved, to a degree, in supporting the Administration meet its desired outcome.”
Respondent Rogers argues it was the administration that authorized the spending of District
funds and allowed the SLNH group to use the sound system, not Respondent. According to
Respondent Rogers, the Unity Walk was not a Board sponsored event, so it was not beyond the
scope of Respondent Rogers’ duties to consult with the other Board members about the
appropriateness of such an event. Therefore, Respondent Rogers contends, based on the
arguments above, the ALJ erred in finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
As to a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), Respondent Rogers argues, Complainant did
not provide any evidence to demonstrate that Respondent Rogers “surrendered her independent
judgment to a special interest group … .” Respondent Rogers further argues Complainant did not
present any proof that indicates Respondent Rogers took any action on behalf of, or at the
request of SLNH, or that they used the schools to gain a benefit for themselves or their families.
Respondent Rogers contends despite the numerous emails and social media postings presented
by Complainant alleging that SLNH was given preferential treatment, they do not support the
allegation that Respondent Rogers took any action to effectuate the “supposedly preferential
treatment.” On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the Business Administrator and
Superintendent were the individuals who approved the rally, allowed it to occur in the parking
4

5
lot, ensured that security was present and allowed the group to proceed without insurance.
Therefore, based on the testimony and evidence, Respondent Rogers asserts the ALJ incorrectly
found that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f). As such, Respondent contends
the Complaint against her should be dismissed.
IV. Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission agrees
with the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f) and the recommended penalty of reprimand. The Commission also concurs with
the ALJ that Respondent Stella and Respondent DiFranco did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(e) and/or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and the Complaint against them should therefore be
dismissed.
Pursuant to 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. Respondent Rogers sent a June 11, 2020, email from her Board
email account to her contact at a known political entity, the Progressive Democrats of New
Jersey. Within that email Respondent Rogers states, “just between you and me, there’s a blm
rally in the works for Middletown.” Respondent Rogers misrepresents that there will be a BLM
rally at the District, rather than a SLNH rally, which was advertised as “no politics.” The
wording of the email – “just between you and me” – demonstrates that Respondent Rogers is
hiding information and/or attempting to hide information regarding the purpose of the rally. And
the Commission agrees with the ALJ that the contents of Respondent’s email sent from her
Board email address suggest that Respondent was politically motivated in promoting the event.
Initial Decision, at 15-16. Further, as Respondent Rogers sent this email from her Board email
address, it gives the impression that her statements were on behalf of the Board, despite the
representations that the event was not Board-sponsored, potentially comprising the Board.
Additionally, Respondent Rogers’ involvement in planning the Unity Walk, specifically the
substance of the event, such as scheduling speakers and seeking donations – while using her
Board email address, even though the event was not District-sponsored or approved by the Board
– further compromises the Board because it appears as though the Board is sponsoring the event,
requesting speakers, and asking for donations. The Commission is not convinced by Respondent
Rogers’ arguments in her exceptions that the Superintendent and Business Administrator were
the driving force behind the event and her involvement was limited; the involvement of the
Superintendent and Business Administrator are not the subject of this matter, and Respondent
Rogers’ involvement in planning the rally, an event that was not a Board-sponsored event,
through the use of her Board email, was inappropriate. Moreover, the Commission will defer to
the ALJ’s credibility findings in which the ALJ found that Respondent was not “always
straightforward, 	and 	at 	times 	provided 	elusive 	responses.” 	Id. 	at 	14. 	In 	making 	those
observations, the ALJ found that, “Respondent reluctantly acknowledged, after persistent
questioning by the complainant, that she sent emails from her BOE email to public officials and
rally organizers before and after the rally” and “tried to excuse her behavior” by claiming she
was 	complying 	with 	the 	Superintendent’s 	wishes. 	Ibid. 	Clearly, 	the 	ALJ 	did 	not 	find
Respondent’s explanation plausible, and the Commission accepts that finding. For these reasons,
the Commission finds Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).

6
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) prohibits Board members from surrendering their judgment to
special interest or partisan political groups or using the schools for personal gain or for the gain
of friends. Respondent Rogers’ June 11, 2020, email to her contact at the Progressive Democrats
of New Jersey, alerted the political group of the event, claimed that there was going to be a BLM
rally when it was not advertised as a BLM rally, and sought to connect the political entity with
an SLNH organizer for advice and mentorship. The ALJ correctly found, and the Commission
accepts, there is no question that Respondent Rogers was politically motivated in sending the
email. She did not extend the invitation to all political groups or organizations, but rather only to
one side. Respondent Rogers attempted to coordinate two aligned political groups for a common
cause, while using her Board email account to do so. The Commission finds this conduct violates
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
The Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent Stella and Respondent DiFranco
were not involved in the planning of the SLNH Rally as Respondent Stella went to one meeting
at the request of Respondent Rogers, and Respondent DiFranco only attended the event;
therefore, Respondents Stella and DiFranco did not N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and/or N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(f).
The Commission further agrees with the ALJ that a reprimand is the appropriate penalty
for Respondent Rogers’ violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f).
Respondent Rogers’ behavior in sending a politically motivated email and involving herself in
the planning of an event that was not Board-sponsored, through the continued use of her Board
email, is inappropriate behavior that cannot be condoned. However, it appears as though this is
Respondent Rogers’ first violation, and as such the Commission finds that a penalty of
reprimand is appropriate.
IV. 	Decision
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the Initial Decision of the
OAL, which concludes that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and 18A:12-
24.1(f), and adopts the recommended penalty of reprimand for the violations. The Commission
also adopts the Initial Decision’s conclusion that Respondent Stella and Respondent DiFranco
did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) 	and/or 18A:12-24.1(f), 	and 	the dismissal of the
Complaint against them.
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

7
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
(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: September 26, 2023

8
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C59-20
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	February 	23, 	2022, 	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 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision dated July 12,
2023; and
Whereas, the ALJ found that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and recommended that Respondent Rogers be reprimanded, but also
found that Respondents Stella and DiFranco did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and/or
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and dismissed the Complaint against them; and
Whereas, Respondent Rogers filed exceptions to the Initial Decision, but Complainant
did not file a reply to Respondent Rogers’ exceptions; and
Whereas, at its meeting on August 22, 2023, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter, and discussed adopting the ALJ’s conclusion that Respondent Rogers violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), the recommended penalty of reprimand, the
conclusion that Respondents Stella and DiFranco did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and/or
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), and the dismissal of the Complaint against them.
Whereas, at its meeting on September 26, 2023, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
August 22, 2023; 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
regularly scheduled meeting on September 26, 2023.
________________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Acting Director
School Ethics Commission