In the Matter of Joseph Marolda, Board of Education of the Township of Rochelle Park, Bergen County, 11/21/22, (#318-22)

SEC Dkt. No. T36-21
Agency Dkt. No. 278-10/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Joseph Marolda,
Board of Education of the Township of
Rochelle Park, Bergen County.
The record of this matter and the decision of the School Ethics Commission (SEC) have been
reviewed. The SEC found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33 by failing to timely complete the
required board member training. The SEC’s decision was forwarded pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29 for
the Commissioner’s final determination on the recommended penalty. The SEC advises that the
respondent ultimately completed training after the issuance of the September 14, 2022 Order to Show
Cause but prior to the SEC’s October 17, 2022 meeting; therefore, a penalty of reprimand is
recommended. Respondent did not file exceptions to the recommended penalty, nor was the SEC’s
underlying finding of a violation appealed to the Commissioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:4.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the penalty recommended by the SEC for
respondent’s failure to timely honor an obligation placed upon board members by law. Accordingly, the
respondent is hereby reprimanded as a school official found to have violated the School Ethics Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
318-22
November 21, 2022
November 23, 2022

1
Before the School Ethics Commission
Docket No.: T36-21
Decision for Failure to Complete Mandatory Training
Requirement in a Timely Manner
I/M/O Joseph Marolda,
Rochelle Park Board of Education, Bergen County
I. Procedural History
This matter arises from an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) that was issued by the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) at its special meeting on September 14, 2022, and also served on
September 14, 2022, via electronic mail.1 The OTSC directed Joseph Marolda (Respondent), a
“board member” as defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23 of the School Ethics Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
21 et seq., to show cause as to why the Commission should not find him in violation of the Act, for
failing to complete training as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33 and N.J.A.C. 6A:28-4.1.
In the OTSC served on September 14, 2022, the Commission notified Respondent that he
had twenty (20) days to respond to the OTSC, and further advised that failure to respond would be
deemed an admission of the facts set forth in the OTSC. Respondent was also notified that, upon
receipt of the response or upon expiration of the twenty (20) day time period for so filing, the
Commission may proceed to a determination of a violation on a summary basis (i.e., without a
hearing or further proceedings) in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.6(c), which so permits when
material facts are not in dispute.
II. Analysis
The Act was enacted by the New Jersey State Legislature to ensure and preserve public
confidence in members of local boards of education and local school administrators. N.J.S.A.
18A:12-33 and N.J.A.C. 6A:28-4.1 require every board member to complete a training program
prepared and offered by the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA).
Respondent is a member of the Rochelle Park Board of Education (Board), located in
Bergen County. As a result of his position on the Board, and in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33
and N.J.A.C. 6A:28-4.1, Respondent is required to complete a mandated training program on an
annual basis. For convenience and ease, the training is offered online so any board member may
complete it at any time, from anywhere. Respondent was required to complete the Governance 1
training program by December 31, 2021.
On or about March 11, 2022, NJSBA provided the Commission with the names of those
school officials who failed to complete training by December 31, 2022. On or about April 29, 2022,
NJSBA provided the Commission with an updated list, and the updated list included Respondent.
1 As a result of the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and the implementation of electronic filing,
service of process was effectuated by the Commission through electronic transmission only.

2
Prior to this time, multiple communications about mandated training were sent to Respondent from
NJSBA through a variety of means, including targeted e-mail messages and postings in School
Board Notes. More specific information detailing the outreach efforts of NJSBA to communicate
with Respondent and/or the charter school lead about mandated training is set forth in the attached
Certification from NJSBA. See Exhibit 1. Notwithstanding all of these communications,
Respondent did not complete mandated training.
In light of Respondent’s failure to complete mandated training, an OTSC was issued by the
Commission, and served on Respondent, via electronic mail, on September 14, 2022.
To date, there is no dispute that Respondent did not complete his required training by
December 31, 2021, and did not complete the training prior to the issuance of the Commission’s
OTSC. After having been served with the OTSC, Respondent completed his training requirement on
September 28, 2022, but did not respond to the Commission’s OTSC as to why he did not complete
training by December 31, 2021.
III. Decision/Penalty Recommendation
N.J.A.C. 6A:28-4.2(d) provides that school board members and charter school trustees who
fail to comply with their training mandate shall be considered in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33.
Based on the record as set forth above, at its special meeting on October 17, 2022, the Commission
found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-33 and N.J.A.C. 6A:28-4.1. Respondent received
repeated notifications of his training requirement, and had ample opportunity to complete the
mandated training in a timely fashion; nonetheless, he failed to complete training as required.
Where a violation of the Act is found by the Commission, the Commission may recommend to the
Commissioner of Education that a penalty be imposed. The recommended penalty can include a
reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal of the school official. N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.12.
For the reasons set forth above, and because training is regularly completed annually and
can be completed from any computer or device with an internet connection, the Commission
recommends that the Commissioner of Education impose a 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. Respondent 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.”2 A copy of any comments filed must be
sent to the Commission (school.ethics@doe.nj.gov) and all other parties.
2 An electronic submission may also be sent to controversiesdisputesfilings@doe.nj.gov.

3
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: October 17, 2022