Rebecca Adams-Paul v. Daniel Dilks, Board of Education of the Township of Tabernacle, Burlington County, 9/12/2022, (#224-22)

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

224-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education Final Decision
Rebecca Adams-Paul,
Complainant, V. Daniel Dilks, Board of Education of the Township of Tabernacle, Burlington County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, a member of the teaching staff in the Tabernacle School District, alleged that respondent, a member of the Tabernacle Board of Education, violated multiple sections of the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1, when he sent an email in which he commented on complainant's conduct while her conduct was under review by district administration. The School Ethics Commission (SEC) determined that the respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members and recommended a penalty of reprimand.
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.

1
SEC Dkt No. C18-21
OAL Dkt. EEC 08798-21
Agency Dkt. No. 197-7/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Rebecca Adams-Paul,
Complainant,
v.
Daniel Dilks, Board of Education of the
Township of Tabernacle, Burlington County,
Respondent.
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
Daniel Dilks, a member of the Tabernacle Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)
and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) 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 Initial Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge and the decision of the Commission, the Commissioner concurs with
224-22
No.

the penalty recommended by the Commission for respondent's violation of the Code in connection with an email in which he commented on complainant's conduct while her conduct was under review by district administration.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
Angelin Gillen MCMillan, d.D. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: September 12, 2022 Date of Mailing: September 12, 2022
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.
2

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-08798-2021
SEC Docket No.: C18-21
Final Decision
Rebecca Adams-Paul,
Complainant
v.
Daniel Dilks,
Tabernacle Board of Education, Burlington County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on June 7, 2021, by
Rebecca Adams-Paul (Complainant), alleging that Daniel Dilks (Respondent), a member of the
Tabernacle Board of Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
21 et seq.1 The Complaint avers that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members (Code) in Count 1, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) of the
Code in Count 4, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) of the Code in Count 6, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(i) of the Code in Count 2 and Count 5, and violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) of the Code in
Count 3.
At its meeting on September 21, 2021, and following a review and discussion of the
parties’ 	pleadings 	at 	a 	previous 	meeting, 	the 	Commission 	adopted 	a 	decision 	granting
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (Motion to Dismiss) as to the violations of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) (Count 4), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) (Count 6), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
24.1(i) (Count 2 and Count 5), and denying the Motion to Dismiss as to the violations of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) (Count 1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) (Count 3). The Commission also adopted
a decision finding the Complaint not frivolous and denying Respondent’s request for sanctions.
Based on its findings, the Commission also directed Respondent to file an Answer to
Complaint (Answer) as to the remaining allegations in the Complaint (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)
(Count 1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) (Count 3)), and advised the parties that, following receipt
of Respondent’s Answer, the within matter would be transmitted to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL).
1 By correspondence dated June 8, 2021, Complainant was notified that the Complaint was deficient, and
required amendment before the School Ethics Commission (Commission) could accept her filing. On
June 9, 2021, Complainant cured all defects and filed an Amended Complaint (Complaint) that was
deemed compliant with the requirements detailed in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.3.

2
The above-captioned matter was filed with the OAL on October 21, 2021, to be heard as
a contested case, and was assigned to the Honorable David M. Fritch, Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ Fritch). Initial Decision at 1-2. While at the OAL, Complainant filed a Motion for
Summary Decision on February 11, 2022, and Respondent filed a response brief and Cross-
Motion for Summary Decision on February 28, 2022. Id. at 2. On March 14, 2022, Complainant
filed a response to Respondent’s Cross-Motion for Summary Decision. Id. at 2-3. Because
neither party requested oral argument nor filed further submissions, the record on the cross-
motions closed on March 14, 2022. Id. at 3.
On April 28, 2022, ALJ Fritch issued an Initial Decision detailing his findings of fact and
legal conclusions on the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Decision. The Commission
acknowledged receipt of ALJ Fritch’s Initial Decision on the date it was issued (April 28, 2022);
therefore, the forty-five (45) day statutory period for the Commission to issue a Final Decision
was June 13, 2022.2 Prior to June 13, 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 July 28, 2022.
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 Fritch’s Initial Decision; to adopt the legal conclusion that, based on
the competent and credible evidence, Complainant met her burden to prove violations of N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(j); 	and 	to 	adopt 	the 	recommended 	penalty 	of
reprimand.
II. 	Initial Decision
In the Initial Decision, ALJ Fritch found that the following facts are undisputed and,
therefore, serve as the findings of fact for his decision:
1. 	Respondent is a Board member, and has a child enrolled in the Tabernacle School
District (District).
2. 	Complainant is employed by the Board as a teaching staff member.
3. 	At a Board meeting on February 16, 2021, the Superintendent spoke about
shifting to full-time, in-person instruction five days per week.
4. 	At the February 16, 2021, Board meeting, Complainant spoke during public
comment regarding health and safety concerns related to COVID-19. More specifically, the
minutes provide the following summary of Complainant’s statement, “… teachers understand the
importance of being back in school. Cannot overlook the CDC guidelines. Health guidelines
2 Forty-five (45) days after April 28, 2022, was, technically, Sunday, June 12, 2022; by rule, the deadline
is therefore extended until the next business day.

3
should remain in the forefront. Criticism on social media are [sic] installing fear. Spoke in
support of assistants.”
5. 	Another parent (Ms. O’Hara) who was in favor of the District returning to full-
time, in-person instruction also provided a public statement.
6. 	On February 17, 2021, Respondent received an email from a parent who
forwarded screen shots from Complainant’s Facebook page (July 23, 2020), indicating that she
(Complainant) was traveling to Cancun, Mexico, as well as a posting from March 13, 2020,
which “tagged” Complainant “in a photo of four Corona beers.” The email also addressed
Complainant’s 	comments 	at 	the Board 	meeting (on 	February 16, 	2021), 	claiming those
comments were “disingenuous” and “very contradictory of actions they have taken outside of the
school over the past year.”
7. 	On February 17, 2021, Respondent emailed the Superintendent and forwarded the
February 17, 2021, email he received (from the parent) regarding “specific concerns about what
is now perceived to be the disingenuous nature of certain comments from staff about the health,
safety, willingness, or ability to bring more kids back” at the Board meeting in “contradiction in
what was stated and what the reality had been for these individuals, outside of the educational
setting of our district” based on their images “posted on social media” about “vacations and
taking flights out of the country, during the peak infectivity periods” and having “celebratory
beer, in a local bar” on a date that “corresponds to the last full day of instruction last year.”
Respondent further added that he anticipated 	that the Superintendent “would be having
discussion with [his] administrative team on this matter, and then collectively determine how to
address from there.”
8. 	On May 7, 2021, Ms. O’Hara sent an email to the Board (including Respondent),
using their Board email addresses, which stated, in part: 	“ … many of the teachers just don’t
want to do what is in the best interest of the kids by putting them in school 5 full days this year
… I’d like to bring to your attention another situation concerning a specific teacher who feels
entitled enough to taunt the very people who pay her salary … This specific teacher decided to
pull on the heart strings of everyone on the Jan[uary] [Board] meeting by saying that she and
many other teachers had stress and anxiety about coming back to school … It’s the same teacher
who was so scared to be back in school, yet supposedly didn’t have any anxiety about getting on
a plane and going to Mexico for vacation (in the very beginning of the pandemic) … Same one
who supposedly had drinks in the bar with some co-workers … .”
9. 	Respondent acknowledges that the “specific teacher” referred to in Ms. O’Hara’s
email is Complainant.
10. 	The posts that Ms. O’Hara referred to (in her email) were Complainant’s
Facebook posts dated July 23, 2020 and March 13, 2020. These were the same posts that were
attached to the February 17, 2021, email that Respondent received (from a parent) and then
forwarded to the Superintendent.

4
11. 	During this same time, Complainant made a post on her personal Facebook page
stating, in part: “I haven’t been active on here in a while for a reason … Community members
have screenshots of past Facebook posts from a year and more ago from my page that have been
sent to my [Board] and [S]uperintendent … So, I had a drink in a bar outside of school hours
with friends before [COVID] was a thing. I also went to Mexico last summer. … Too bad I have
tenure so you can’t get rid of me that easily! So sad how pathetic and hateful some people are …
.”
12. 	On May 7, 2021, Respondent replied to Ms. O’Hara’s email (via his Board email
account), in relevant part: “… As a parent of a child in this [D]istrict, I too am appalled at the
flippant and hypocritical communication put forth by certain [D]istrict staff … As a [Board]
member, I am equally frustrated, but I also recognize that any action taken by staff is ultimately
the responsibility of the Superintendent/administration. I have also received these reports into my
[Board] account, and being duty bound, have previously provided them to the admin team for
their attention and follow up. This will be for [the Superintendent] to investigate and resolve …
my 	expectation 	would 	be 	that 	you 	would 	receive 	an 	appropriate 	response 	from 	[the
Superintendent].”
13. 	Respondent acknowledges that, in his email to Ms. O’Hara, he was referring to
Complainant and Facebook posts and statements she made.
Id. at 3-8.
In the “Legal Discussion” section of his Initial Decision, ALJ Fritch concludes that,
based on the standards set forth in Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 523
(1995), the above-captioned matter is appropriate/ripe for summary disposition because, “The
facts, as set forth by the parties in their respective motions, are supported by tangible, undisputed
evidence, and there does not appear to be any dispute of the material facts on the record
regarding the material facts at issue … .” Id. at 10.
The remaining contentions in the Complaint are enumerated in Count 3, and include
alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j). 	These provisions of
the Code provide:
e. 	I will recognize that authority rests with the board of education and
will make no personal promises nor take any private action that may compromise
the board.
j. 	I will refer all complaints to the chief administrative officer and
will 	act 	on 	the 	complaints 	at 	public 	meetings 	only 	after 	failure 	of 	an
administrative solution.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(j) need to be supported by certain factual evidence, namely:

5
5. 	Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) shall include
evidence that Respondent made personal promises or took action beyond the
scope of his duties such that, by its nature, had the potential to compromise the
board.
10. 	Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) shall include
evidence that the respondent(s) acted on or attempted to resolve a complaint, or
conducted an investigation or inquiry related to a complaint:
i. 	Prior to referral to the chief administrative officer; or
ii. 	At a time or place other than a public meeting and prior to the
failure of an administrative solution.
Regarding 	the 	violation 	of 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(e), 	ALJ 	Fritch 	concludes 	that
Respondent’s May 7, 2021, email to Ms. O’Hara “constituted an action taken by [Respondent] in
his capacity as a member of the … Board.” Id. at 14. In support of this conclusion, ALJ Fritch
notes that Respondent was responding to an email from a District parent that was addressed to
the Superintendent and to Board members; the email was sent to Respondent’s Board email
address; the email (from Ms. O’Hara) was seeking a response from the Board and the
administration, not the input of Board members as fellow parents; Ms. O’Hara’s email asked
questions about an issue “within the Board/administration’s direct purview; and although
Respondent attempted to “employ qualifiers by prefacing sections of his response,” those
“disclaimers are ineffective in attempting to disclaim [Respondent’s] email response as anything
other than a response given in his capacity as a Board member.” Id. at 11-14.
As to whether Respondent’s actions had the potential to compromise the Board, ALJ
Fritch additionally concludes that Respondent’s “email comments, made in his capacity as a
Board member, in response to a complaint about actions of a District employee, when those
actions were under investigation by the school administration, which had not yet taken action on
those complaints, was an action beyond the scope of his Board duties that had the potential to
compromise the Board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).” Id. at 15-16. In support of this
conclusion, ALJ Fritch notes that, although the administration was aware of the issues expressed
in Ms. O’Hara’s communication, “it is uncontested that the issue had not been resolved by the
school administration by the time [Respondent] sent his email response to [Ms.] O’Hara on May
7, 2021”; despite Respondent’s knowledge, based on the contents of his response to Ms. O’Hara,
that the issues raised in her (Ms. O’Hara’s) email were pending with the administration, “he
nonetheless took action on [Ms.] O’Hara’s email in his capacity as a Board member”; the
response to Ms. O’Hara did not just inform her that the Superintendent would be addressing her
complaint, it also “made a number of conclusory statements regarding the issues raised,”
including 	characterizing 	Complainant’s 	communications 	as 	“flippant 	and 	hypocritical,”
“inflammatory,” and “not in line with the code of conduct we all, as parents, try to instill in our
children,” and as “being the source of embarrassment in the District”; the response “contained a
number 	of 	statements 	as 	a 	Board 	member 	expressly 	condemning” 	Complainant’s
communications, even though same was still being reviewed by the administration; the response
commits to Ms. O’Hara receiving an “appropriate response” from the Superintendent; and the

6
“qualifier that [the Superintendent’s] response will be ‘appropriate’ when read in light of
[Respondent’s] 	clear 	view 	of 	[Complainant’s] 	communications 	… 	clearly 	indicate 	that
[Respondent] is expecting that [the Superintendent’s] eventual ‘appropriate’ response will not
likely to [(sic)] be favorable for [Complainant] despite the investigation into the conduct in
question still being an ongoing one.” Id. at 14-15. In short, Respondent’s response to Ms. O’Hara
“potentially compromised the Board by expressing, in writing, the unequivocal judgment of a
sitting Board member on a matter that was still pending administrative investigation and action.”
Id. at 15.
Regarding 	the 	violation 	of 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-24.1(j), 	ALJ 	Fritch 	concludes 	that
Respondent acted on Ms. O’Hara’s complaint by sending a response to her on May 7, 2021. Id.
at 17. The basis for ALJ Fritch’s determination is that, “The email that [Respondent] sent in
response to [Ms.] O’Hara’s complaint, however, was not merely forwarding the complaint to the
… administration for action, it was a response to the parent expressing [Respondent’s] views on
the matter and noting that he expected the administration to provide an ‘appropriate response’ to
[Ms.] O’Hara.” Id.
ALJ Fritch additionally concludes that Respondent’s May 7, 2021, response to Ms.
O’Hara constituted action at a time or place other than a public board meeting and prior to the
failure of an administrative solution. Id. at 17-18. In support of this conclusion, ALJ Fritch notes
that while the Superintendent was copied on Ms. O’Hara’s email, “there is no indication that
[Ms. O’Hara’s] email complaint was specifically referred to [the] Superintendent … for action
prior to [Respondent’s] email to [Ms.] O’Hara on May 7, 2021,” and, even if the Superintendent
was aware of the issue concerning Complainant’s communication, before Ms. O’Hara’s email
was received, “it is undisputed that the administration had not taken action on this matter” at the
time Respondent’s response was sent, or that an administrative solution had failed. As such, ALJ
Fritch concludes Complainant met her burden to prove, by a preponderance of the competent
and credible evidence, that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j). Id.
Turning to the issue of penalty, ALJ Fritch notes that Complainant “seeks to recommend
a penalty of ‘no less than six months if Respondent is at any time a member of the Board and
censure if he is not a member of the Board.” Id. at 18. However, based on a review of the
circumstances in which the Commission has recommended “serious penalties,” ALJ Fritch
concludes that, because “this is the first violation by … [R]espondent”; “the communication in
question was a one-time act and did not improperly convey any confidential or otherwise
inaccurate information about [Complainant] which would justify more serious sanctions”; and
was a “one-time discreet act which inappropriately conveyed the [R]espondent’s personal
opinions in his capacity as a Board member in an email to a concerned parent on a matter
involving a Board employee that was pending investigation and action by the [D]istrict’s
administration,” a penalty of reprimand is appropriate. Id. at 18-19.
III. 	Exceptions
Neither Complainant nor Respondent filed Exceptions to the Initial Decision.

7
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
ALJ Fritch’s findings of fact, and adopts the legal conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A.
18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
In finding a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), ALJ Fritch correctly determined that,
given the means through which he received the complaint, and regardless of his attempt to
qualify the capacity in which he was responding to Ms. O’Hara’s email, Respondent’s email
response to Ms. O’Hara on May 7, 2021, “constituted an action taken by [Respondent] in his
capacity as a member of the … Board.” Moreover, because Respondent offered his personal
opinion (in his capacity as a Board member) on a matter that was being reviewed by the
administration, and characterized Complainant’s conduct in a way which seemed to suggest that
the Superintendent would, like Ms. O’Hara and Respondent, regard Complainant’s behavior as
inappropriate, his email response to Ms. O’Hara on May 7, 2021, also had the potential to
compromise the Board.
In addition, the Commission agrees that by responding to Ms. O’Hara’s email at a time
when the subject of her (Ms. O’Hara’s) complaint was actively pending with the administration
and a final determination had not yet been rendered, Respondent acted on Ms. O’Hara’s
complaint at a time or place other than a public board meeting and prior to the failure of an
administrative solution in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j).
V. 	Decision
The Commission adopts the findings of fact from the Initial Decision, adopts the legal
conclusion that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j), and
agrees that the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(j) are supported
by a preponderance of the competent and credible evidence.
VI. 	Penalty
For the reasons relied upon by ALJ Fritch in his Initial Decision, namely that “this is the
first violation by … [R]espondent”; “the communication in question was a one-time act and did
not improperly convey any confidential or otherwise inaccurate information about [Complainant]
which 	would 	justify 	more 	serious 	sanctions”; 	and 	was 	a 	“one-time 	discreet 	act 	which
inappropriately conveyed the [R]espondent’s personal opinions in his capacity as a Board
member in an email to a concerned parent on a matter involving a Board employee that was
pending investigation and action by the [D]istrict’s administration,” the Commission adopts the
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.

8
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
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