Christine Reese v. Karina Ramos, Millstone Board of Education, Monmouth County, 11/7/25 (#521-25SEC)

521-25SEC
SEC Dkt. No. C85-24
Agency Dkt. No. 324-9/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Christine Reese,
Complainant,
v.
Karina Ramos, Millstone Board of Education,
Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the September 23, 2025
decision of the School Ethics Commission (SEC). The SEC found that respondent Karina Ramos, a
member of the Millstone Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A.
18A:12-25(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4) of the School Ethics Act. 	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 inaccurately completing her 2024 Personal/Relative and Financial
Disclosure Statements.

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: 	November 7, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	November 10, 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
Docket No.: C85-24
Final Decision
Summary Disposition
Christine Reese,
Complainant
v.
Karina Ramos,
Millstone Board of Education, Monmouth County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed with the School
Ethics Commission (Commission) on October 22, 2024, by Christine Reese (Complainant),
alleging that Karina Ramos (Respondent), a member of the Millstone 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:12-25 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26 related to
the annual filing of the Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statements (Disclosure
Statements). Respondent filed a Written Statement on December 16, 2024.
The parties were notified by correspondence dated June 10, 2025, that the above-
captioned matter would be discussed by the Commission at its meeting on June 17, 2025, in
order to make a determination regarding probable cause. Following its discussion on June 17,
2025, the Commission adopted a decision at its meeting on July 22, 2025, finding that there are
sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a
reasonable person 	to 	believe that 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-25(b), 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-25(c), 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-26(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4) were violated as set forth in the Complaint.
Additionally, the Commission voted to decide the above-captioned matter by summary decision,
in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(c), and directed Respondent to file a statement setting
forth the reasons (Statement of Reasons) she should not be found in violation of the Act.
Respondent was advised that if she disputes any of the facts determined by the Commission to be
both material and undisputed, she should set forth the facts with which she disagrees, and why
they are material to the case. Finally, Respondent was advised that the Commission may then
make a determination of a violation on a summary basis. Respondent filed a Statement of
Reasons on August 9, 2025.
Consequently, at its meeting on August 19, 2025, the Commission reviewed the record in
this matter and, at its meeting on September 23, 2025, adopted a decision finding that
Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-25(b), 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-25(c), 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-
26(a)(4) and recommending a penalty of a reprimand for Respondent’s violation of the Act.

2
II. 	Summary of the Pleadings
A. 	The Complaint
According to Complainant, as a Board member, Respondent is required to complete
Disclosure Statements. Complainant maintains that Section III, question 1, of the Disclosure
Statements form requires that the school official provide financial information related to the
school official’s or a member of their immediate family’s source of income, namely whether in
the preceding calendar year, the school official or a member of their immediate family received
income, earned or unearned, in excess of $2,000.00. However, Complainant further maintains
Respondent “fail[ed] to list the business she own[ed]” on her 2024 Disclosure Statements. More
specifically, Complainant asserts that based on the information contained on Respondent’s 2024
Disclosure Statements, Respondent did not list the company she owns with her spouse, Legend
Pest Control, in Section III, question #1, on the Disclosure Statements and also neglected to
include the business as an interest in Section III, question #4. Therefore, Complainant alleges
that Respondent is in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26.
B. 	Written Statement
Respondent admits that she and her spouse own a business and that she “should have
listed [the company] on her” Disclosure Statements, and failing to do so was human error.
Respondent contends that “she did not list the business that she and her husband own and operate
. . . as a source of income under Section III #1 of the 2024 [Disclosure Statements] since the
company’s clients are billed through the business, individuals pay their client fees for services
and receive customer receipts from and through [the company].” Respondent further contends
her “understanding of the instructions led her to believe that the company did not have to be
separately reported as a source of income.” Respondent asserts she “did not know at the time she
filled out the [Disclosure Statements], and still believes at this point in time, that she is not
required to identify the business she and her husband own as a source of income.” In sum,
Respondent admits to her “human error,” and notes she attempted to fix it after it was brought to
her attention by attempting “to file an Amended [Disclosure Statements] with the Department of
Education” and also providing “an updated statement to the District [Business Administrator].”
C. 	Statement of Reasons
Respondent admits that she and her spouse own Legend Pest Control. She concedes that
she should have listed the company as a business organization that she had an interest in on her
Disclosure Statements. However, she states that neither she nor her spouse received income from
the company. She also maintains that she “did not know at the time she signed the disclosure that
she was making an error” and attempted to refile as soon as she was aware of the error.
Respondent notes that she and her spouse each have individual employers unrelated to
Legend Pest Control and have income from those sources which was reported on the Disclosure
Statements.

3
III. 	Findings of Fact
Based on its thorough and independent review of the record, the Commission finds the
following facts to be undisputed:
1. 	Respondent has been a Board member in Millstone Township (District) since
January 2024. Statement of Reasons at page 1.
2. 	As a Board member, Respondent was required to file Disclosure Statements.
Statement of Reasons at page 1.
3. 	Respondent submitted her 2024 FDS on or about March 21, 2024. Statement of
Reasons at page 2.
4. 	Respondent and her spouse own Legend Pest Control. Statement of Reasons at
page 2.
5. 	Respondent did not disclose Legend Pest Control as a business organization in
which she and her spouse have an interest in on her 2024 Disclosure Statements.
Statement of Interest at page 4.
6. 	Respondent and her spouse received income from other sources which she
disclosed on the 2024 Disclosure Statements. Statement of Interest at page 3.
IV. 	Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Complainant 	alleges 	that 	Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-25(b) 	and 	N.J.S.A.
18A:12-25(c), and these provisions provide:
b. 	Each statement shall be signed by the school official filing it, and the
school official’s signature shall constitute a representation of the accuracy
of the contents of the statement.
c. 	A school official who fails to file a statement or who files a statement
containing information which the school official knows to be false shall be
subject to reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal pursuant to the
procedures established in section 9 of P.L.1991, c.393 (C.18A:12-29).
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent or limit criminal
prosecution.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4), which provides:
Each school official shall annually file a financial disclosure statement
with the School Ethics Commission. 	All financial disclosure statements
filed pursuant to this act shall include the following information which
shall specify, where applicable, the name and address of each source and
the school official’s position:

4
(1) 	Each source of income, earned or unearned, exceeding $2,000 received by
the school official or a member of his immediate family during the
preceding calendar year. 	Individual client fees, customer receipts or
commissions on transactions received through a business organization
need not be separately reported as sources of income. If a publicly traded
security or interest derived from a financial institution is the source of
income, the security or interest derived from a financial institution need
not be reported unless the school official or member of his immediate
family has an interest in the business organization or financial institution;
…..
(4) 	The name and address of all business organizations in which the school
official or a member of his immediate family had an interest during the
preceding calendar year.
The Commission finds that Respondent inaccurately completed her 2024 Disclosure
Statements when she did not include a business organization in which she and her spouse have
an interest, and therefore, she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b). As for N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c),
Respondent knew or should have known that her Disclosure Statements were inaccurate when
they were submitted, and therefore, the Commission finds that she has violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
25(c). As to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4), the Commission finds that Respondent did not include a
business organization (Legend Pest Control) in which both she and her spouse had an interest on
her 2024 Disclosure Statements, and therefore, she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4).
However, the Commission finds that there is no evidence that Respondent or her spouse
received income from Legend Pest Control in 2023, and therefore, does not find a violation of
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(1).
V. 	Recommended Penalty
Having found that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c),
and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4), the Commission is authorized to recommend to the Commissioner
of Education (Commissioner) an appropriate penalty, which may range from reprimand to
removal. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c).
In its review, the Commission finds that a reprimand is the most appropriate penalty. The
Commission takes into account that it was Respondent’s first time filing the Disclosure
Statements and she acknowledges that the business organization in which she has an interest
should have been disclosed on her Disclosure Statements. For all of these reasons, the
Commission finds a reprimand to be warranted in this matter.
VI. 	Decision
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission recommends that the Commissioner
impose a penalty of reprimand for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-
25(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4).

5
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 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 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 a 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. 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 in the appellant’s briefs on appeal.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
Mailing Date: September 23, 2025

6
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C85-24
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	August 	19, 	2025, 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission) 	considered 	the 	Complaint, 	Written 	Statement, 	and 	Statement 	of 	Reasons
submitted by Respondent, in this matter; and
Whereas, at its meeting on August 19, 2025, the Commission discussed finding a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4); and
Whereas, at its meeting on August 19, 2025, the Commission discussed recommending a
penalty of reprimand for the violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c), and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(4); and
Whereas, at its meeting on September 23, 2025, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
August 19, 2025; and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Commission hereby adopts the decision and
directs its staff to notify all parties to this action of its decision herein.
Robert W. Bender, Chairperson
I hereby certify that the Resolution was duly
adopted by the School Ethics Commission at
its meeting on September 23, 2025.
_____________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission