IN THE MATTER OF JOHN TALTY & SHARON KIGHT, BRICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, OCEAN COUNTY, 3/1/06, (#84-06SEC)

#84-06 SEC (SEC Decision: http://www.nj.gov/njded/legal/ethics/2005/c1819-05v.pdf)
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN TALTY 	:
AND SHARON KIGHT, 	:
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BRICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, 	:
DECISION
OCEAN COUNTY. 	:
:
SYNOPSIS
This matter arose from complaints filed against two members of the Brick Township Board of
Education, alleging violations of the School Ethics Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. 	The two
complaints were filed by one individual, Robert Lanzieri, and alleged that both respondents
physically and verbally attacked Mr. Lanzieri at the March 17, 2005 Board Meeting.
Following a hearing and review of 	written 	summations, the School Ethics Commission
(Commission) found that: 	1) Mr. Talty did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (e) of the Code of
Ethics for School Board Members, and 2) Ms. Kight did violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (e); 	the
Commission recommended a sanction of a two-month suspension for Ms. Kight.
Upon a thorough review of the record, the Commissioner, whose decision was restricted solely to
a review of the Commission’s recommended penalty pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c) and
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-9.1, concurred with the Commission’s recommendation. The Commissioner thus
ordered that Sharon Kight be suspended from the Brick Township Board of Education for a
period of two months.
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.
March 1, 2006

AGENCY DKT. NO. 51-1/06
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN TALTY 	:
AND SHARON KIGHT, 	:
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BRICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, 	:
DECISION
OCEAN COUNTY. 	:
:
The record of this matter and the decision of the School Ethics Commission
(“Commission”), including the recommended penalty of a two month suspension, have been
reviewed.
This 	matter 	comes 	before 	the 	Commissioner 	to 	impose 	a 	sanction 	upon
Sharon Kight, member of the Brick Township Board of Education, based upon findings of fact
and conclusions of law by the Commission that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) of the Code
of Ethics for School Board Members in the School Ethics Act when she took private action in
confronting a member of the public in a verbal and physical manner regarding his comments
during the public comment session at the March 17, 2005 Board meeting.1
Upon issuance of the decision of the Commission, the parties were provided
13 days from the mailing of such decision to file written comments on the recommended penalty
for the Commissioner’s consideration. 	Comments on behalf of Ms. Kight and complainant,
Robert Lanzieri, were timely filed by their respective counsel.2 Ms. Kight’s comments profess
that, based on the facts of this matter, a penalty of a two-month suspension is “disproportionately
1 It is noted that at its January 24, 2006 public meeting, the School Ethics Commission found that Mr. Talty did not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and voted to dismiss the complaint against him.
2 Stephen K. Foran, Esq. for Ms. Kight; John G. Koufos Esq. for Mr. Lanzieri
2

severe” in that the Commission’s decision readily admits that there was contradictory testimony
with respect to the interaction which took place with Mr. Lanzieri. 	Moreover, she advances,
there was “no reasonable proof” offered that she either had physical contact with him or that she
used any inappropriate language. 	Although it is true that she was admittedly “upset” with
Mr. Lanzieri, Ms. Kight urges that a board member’s tone of voice and annoyed demeanor are
simply insufficient justification for imposing the draconian penalty of a two-month suspension.
(Ms. Kight’s comments at 1)
Ms. Kight further contends that the Commission’s finding that her actions
intimidated Mr. Lanzieri and made him fearful of addressing the Board in the future are
unfounded. Rather, she points out, the “lengthy diatribes” which he addressed to the Board prior
to this incident continued subsequent to that time. Specifically, she contends, he spoke at length
at Board meetings of July 11, August 25, September 15 and November 17, 2005, wholly
dispelling notions of fear and intimidation. (Id.)
Finally, Ms. Kight cites to three prior Ethics Commission cases which she
proposes evidence the undue harshness of the sanction imposed here, i.e., In the Matter of
Edmund J. Zilinski, Bloomfield Board of Education, Essex County, decided by the Commissioner
November 23, 2005, (Board member organized confidential information containing the names of
suspended students on a spreadsheet and accidentally transmitted the information to other Board
members); 	In 	the Matter 	of 	Bruce Freilich, 	Washington 	Township Board 	of 	Education,
Burlington County, decided by the Commissioner April 4, 2005, (Board member sent an
unauthorized letter to a private donor); and In the Matter of Alphonse A. DeMeo, Bellville Board
of Education, Essex County, decided by the Commissioner November 17, 2004, (Board member
endorsed a municipal council candidate by mailing letters on stationery which could be viewed
3

as an endorsement made in the Board member’s capacity as Board President). 	Ms. Kight
submits that, unlike the situation here which the Commission concedes is based on unclear and
disputed facts, each of the cited cases was based on uncontested facts and the penalty imposed
was only a reprimand. 	Ms. Kight argues that, under these circumstances and in light of the
nature of her offense, logic dictates a lesser not more severe penalty be imposed. 	(Ms. Kight’s
comments at 2)
Mr. Lanzieri’s comments urge the Commissioner to uphold the Commission’s
recommended penalty arguing that it is entirely appropriate “given Ms. Kight’s unprofessional,
irrational and violent behavior which has a chilling effect on how others may exercise their right
to public comment in the future.” (Mr. Lanzieri’s comments at 1)
Initially, it must be emphasized that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(c) and
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-9.1, the determination of the Commission as to violation of the School Ethics Act
is not reviewable by the Commissioner herein. Only the Commission may determine whether
a violation of the School Ethics Act occurred. 	The Commissioner’s jurisdiction is limited to
reviewing the sanction to be imposed following a finding of a violation by the Commission.
Therefore, this decision is restricted solely to a review of the Commission’s recommended
penalty.
Upon a thorough review of the record, the Commissioner finds Ms. Kight’s
arguments in support of mitigation of penalty unpersuasive. Notwithstanding the Commission’s
recognition of the existence of contradictory evidence as to exactly what transpired in the
Kight/Lanzieri interaction, it specifically found:
[t]he weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Kight approached
Mr. Lanzieri 	in 	an 	aggressive 	manner, 	screamed 	at 	him 	and
threatened him. 	There is also evidence to show that she made
some type of physical contact with Mr. Lanzieri. 	The evidence
4

also 	shows 	that 	her 	actions 	have 	had 	an 	impact 	on 	both
Mr. Lanzieri and Mr. Dubrosky, who do not feel comfortable
speaking at Board meetings. 	The Commission finds that such
aggressive actions had the potential to compromise the Board
because the actions hurt the integrity of the Board and intimidated
the public from coming forward and addressing the Board.
(Ethics Commission Decision at 5)
It cannot reasonably be disputed that a Board member’s loss of control with a member of the
public does a disservice to her Board, which relies upon her to conduct herself properly and
appropriately in fulfilling her responsibilities, and that such an interaction could have deleterious
effects on not only Mr. Lanzieri and Mr. Dubrosky but other members of the public viewing the
altercation and, therefore, must be viewed as serious in nature.3 The Commissioner’s review
persuades her that, in recommending a penalty for this violation, the Commission fully
considered the nature of the offense and weighed the effects of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. 	Consequently, the Commissioner finds no cause to disturb the Commission’s
recommended penalty in this matter.
Accordingly, IT IS hereby ORDERED that Sharon Kight be suspended from the
Brick Township Board of Education for a period of two months4
IT IS SO ORDERED.5
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 1, 2006
Date of Mailing: 	March 1, 2006
3 It is noted that none of the cases advanced by Ms. Kight in support of her position is similar enough in nature or
factual circumstances to the instant matter so as to provide precedential support for her position.
4 Such suspension shall be effective beginning three days after the issuance of this decision.
5 This decision, as the Commissioner’s final determination regarding penalty in the instant matter, may be appealed
to the State Board of Education pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-27 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1.1 et seq., within 30 days
of its filing. Commissioner decisions are deemed filed three days after the date of mailing to the parties.
5