In the Matter of Jeanne Stifelman, Randolph Township Board of Education, Morris County, 1/4/2024, (#8-24SEC)

8-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Jeanne Stifelman,
Randolph Township Board of Education,
Morris County,
Synopsis
This matter arose from a complaint alleging that the respondent, a member of the Randolph
Township Board of Education (Board), violated the School Ethics Act (Act) when she failed to
disclose on her 2019 Personal/Relative and Financial Disclosure Statement that she and her
husband had received monetary payments through a settlement agreement with the Board.
The payments under the settlement agreement constituted tuition reimbursement for their
child’s special education out of district placement. 	Following a hearing in the Office of
Administrative Law, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that, based on prior case law, a
“reasonable member of the public” would not believe that their trust was violated because a
parent kept their child’s special education record confidential, and concluded that respondent
had not violated the Act. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Upon review, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact but rejected
the ALJ’s legal conclusions, finding instead that the respondent did violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 (c)
and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26. However, recognizing the sensitive nature of the information at issue
and the respondent’s well-intended motive to protect her child, the SEC recommended that no
penalty be imposed in this case.
The matter was forwarded to the Commissioner for final determination of the appropriate
penalty. 	Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the SEC that no penalty should be
imposed upon respondent in this case.
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.

8-24
SEC Dkt. No. C37-21
OAL Dkt. No. EEC 01671-22
Agency Dkt. No. 325-11/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of Jeanne Stifelman,
Randolph Township Board of Education,
Morris County.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this matter and the November 28, 2023 decision of
the School Ethics Commission (Commission). The Commission found that respondent Jeanne Stifelman, a
member of the Randolph Township Board of Education (Board), violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) and
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26 of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The Commission recommended that
no penalty be imposed 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
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 Commission that no penalty should be imposed
upon respondent.
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.
January 4, 2024
January 5, 2024

Before the School Ethics Commission
OAL Docket No.: EEC-01671-22
SEC Docket No.: C37-21
Final Decision
I/M/O Jeanne Stifelman,
Randolph Township Board of Education, Morris County,
Respondent
I. 	Procedural History
The above-captioned matter arises from a Complaint that was filed on August 9, 2021, by
Layne 	Broyles 	(Complainant 	Broyles), 	Maria 	Ricupero 	(Complainant 	Ricupero), 	Eliza
Schleifstein 	(Complainant 	Schleifstein), 	and 	Gerlando 	Termini 	(Complainant 	Termini)
(collectively referred to as Complainants), alleging that Jeanne Stifelman (Respondent), a
member of the Randolph Township 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(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26 for failing to include monetary payments
she received in a settlement with the Board on her 2019 Personal/Relative and Financial
Disclosure Statement (Disclosure Statement).
At its meeting on December 14, 2021, and after reviewing Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer (Motion to Dismiss) and allegation of frivolous filing, and
Complainants’ response thereto, the School Ethics Commission (Commission) adopted a
decision denying the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety and directing Respondent to file an
Answer to Complaint (Answer), which she did on January 4, 2022.
Thereafter, at its meeting on February 25, 2022, the Commission voted to find probable
cause for the alleged violations of the Act in the Complaint. Based on its finding of probable
cause, the Commission voted to transmit the within matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a hearing and, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-10.7(b),1 the attorney for the Commission
(Petitioner) was charged with prosecuting the allegations in the Complaint.
Following cross-motions for Summary Decision at the OAL, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ), issued an Initial Decision on August 17, 2023. Petitioner filed exceptions to the
Initial Decision, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and Respondent filed a reply thereto.
At its meeting on October 17, 2023, the Commission considered the full record in this
matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on November 28, 2023, the Commission voted to adopt the
ALJ’s findings of fact but reject the ALJ’s legal conclusions. Instead, the Commission found that
Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26, but recommended that a
penalty should not be imposed.
1 This citation refers to the regulation that was in effect at the time of the probable cause determination.

2
II. 	Initial Decision
Respondent and her husband entered into a settlement agreement (Settlement) with the
Board in 2018, which included tuition reimbursement for their child’s out of district placement.
Initial Decision at 2.
After previously serving on the Board from 2009 to 2012, Respondent was appointed to
the Board in April 2019 to fill a vacancy. Ibid. Respondent filed her 2019 Disclosure Statement
on or about June 5, 2019, and answered “Not Applicable,” for Section III, question 2, which
directs individuals to “[l]ist the name and address of each source of fees/honorariums or
gifts/reimbursements or prepaid expenses having an aggregate amount exceeding $250 from any
single source, excluding relatives, received by you or an immediate family member.” Ibid. The
question further reminds individuals to “[b]e sure to list any reimbursement you received from
the 	district 	or 	charter 	school 	for 	things 	such 	as 	conference 	attendance, 	tuition/dues
reimbursement, personal appearances, speeches, or writing.” Ibid. Respondent’s 2019 Disclosure
Statement did not disclose the payments she was receiving from the Settlement. Ibid.
The ALJ explains the 2019 Disclosure Statement reflects the finances from the preceding
calendar year, 2018. Id. at 7. While Petitioner argues Respondent knew of her 2018 tuition
reimbursement payments at the time she filed her 2019 Disclosure Statement, and she should
have disclosed them, Respondent contends that this particular Settlement reflects “educational
placement and reimbursement of ‘out-of-pocket expenses that the school district should have
paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it developed a proper IEP.’” Ibid.
The ALJ finds that In the Matter of Lorraine Dunckley, Denville Bd. of Education, SEC
Dkt. No. C37-01 (July 23, 2002) (Dunckley), the Commission excused a board member who was
the parent of a child with special needs from disclosing receipt of tuition reimbursements
pursuant to a settlement agreement on her Disclosure Statement. Initial Decision at 7-8. The ALJ
maintains that the “purpose of disclosing sources of income or reimbursements outside of one’s
regular” employment is to prevent the school official from “receiving unwarranted benefit,” not
to prevent a child from receiving a “(belatedly) free and appropriate public education under the
law.” Id. at 8. Therefore, based on Dunckley, the ALJ in the present matter concludes a
“reasonable member of the public” would not believe that their trust is being violated because a
parent kept their child’s special education record confidential. Ibid. The ALJ also concludes
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Respondent violated the Act, and therefore, orders the
Complaint to be dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 8-9.
III. 	Exceptions
Petitioner’s Exceptions
In its exceptions, Petitioner argues the ALJ “incorrectly found that tuition reimbursement
payments are not required to be disclosed” under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26; therefore, the Initial
Decision should be rejected. Petitioner contends it is undisputed that Respondent did not include
the tuition reimbursement on her 2019 Disclosure Statement and that in 2018 Respondent

3
received 	seven 	separate 	check 	registers 	from 	the 	Board. 	However, 	despite 	these
acknowledgments, Respondent did not disclose the payments. Per Petitioner, the statute must be
interpreted by looking at the plain language and the statute “must be afforded ‘ordinary meaning
and significance.’” In this case, Petitioner maintains Respondent was required to disclose the
payments, which were reimbursements that had an aggregate value over $250. Moreover,
Petitioner notes a finding that “the payments [Respondent] received do not fall within N.J.S.A.
18A:12-26(a)(1) or N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(3) would go against the clear legislative intent of
preserving the public trust.” Petitioner notes the ALJ correctly found, “it is immaterial whether
[Respondent] believed that she was not required to disclose the tuition reimbursement.”
Petitioner 	further 	notes 	if 	Respondent 	was 	uncertain 	whether 	she 	should 	report 	the
reimbursement, “there were several options available to her for consultation” that Respondent
did not use. Therefore, Petitioner maintains Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26.
For the same reasons noted above, Petitioner asserts the ALJ erred in determining that a
violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) was not established. Petitioner further asserts Respondent
knew about the payments because she was receiving them, and in turn, was aware of the
payments at the time she completed her Disclosure Statement. Petitioner notes the Commission
has “definitively rejected the position that any form of intent is needed to prove a violation of
any provision of the Act.” Moreover, Petitioner argues “omitting material information required
under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25 defeats the purpose of the disclosure forms, which is to allow the
public access to information to ensure that school officials do not violate the public trust.”
Petitioner 	maintains 	the 	ALJ’s 	determination 	that 	“payments 	stemming 	from 	tuition
reimbursement of special education disputes are not required to be disclosed” is flawed. Per
Petitioner, “there are no listed exceptions to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25, or
elsewhere in the [Act]” and Dunckley does not address this issue. Petitioner further maintains the
ALJ’s determination that the “public’s trust is [not] being violated by a parent keeping their
child’s 	special 	education 	records 	confidential” 	is 	unsupported. 	Moreover, 	the 	Disclosure
Statement does not require the disclosure of confidential student records, nor does it require that
Respondent divulge the contents of the settlement agreement or the reason why she is receiving
the reimbursement. Petitioner maintains Respondent merely had to disclose receipt of a
reimbursement.
As to the ALJ’s reliance on Dunckley, Petitioner notes there is “no such finding” in the
case that payments resulting from tuition reimbursement of special education disputes are not
required to be disclosed. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the ALJ’s suggestion that because
Dunckley received a reprimand for the actions described in that decision, Respondent should not
receive a penalty at all, is off the mark. Petitioner argues, on the contrary, the penalty in
Dunckley, was a censure.
Petitioner contends Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25, the
ALJ’s decision should be rejected, and a penalty of censure should be imposed.
Respondent’s Exceptions
Respondent initially argues that Petitioner reiterates “the arguments expressed in its
original brief which were rejected by the” ALJ instead of directly responding to the ALJ’s

4
findings, and therefore, should not be considered. Respondent contends Petitioner’s argument
that Respondent could have included the reimbursement on her Disclosure Statement without
revealing the confidential matter involving her child, “is belied by the documents upon which he
relies.” According to Respondent, that claim “is debunked” because the Complaint was based
“upon the dogged efforts of a political rival after discovering that [Respondent] and her
husband’s names were inadvertently (and improperly) not redacted from a check register from
the” Board and this led Complainant to believe that this “must have been due to their [child’s]
out of district placement especially as [Respondent] was not a Board [m]ember when those
checks were issued.” Respondent notes that requiring school officials to denote a payment for
special education services that would be published for the public to see would likely deter
individuals who have a child with special needs from running for a seat on the Board.
Respondent maintains the ALJ correctly found that she did not violate the Act by keeping
the reimbursement for her child’s out of district placement confidential. Respondent further
maintains 	the 	ALJ’s 	decision 	should 	be 	affirmed, 	the 	Commission 	should 	uphold 	the
determination that Respondent did not violate the Act, and a penalty should not be imposed.
IV. 	Analysis
Upon a careful, thorough, and independent review of the record, the Commission adopts
the ALJ’s findings of fact, rejects the ALJ’s legal conclusions, finds that Respondent violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26, but recommends that a penalty not be imposed.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(3), school officials are required to annually file a
Disclosure Statement with the Commission, which includes the “source of gifts, reimbursements
or prepaid expenses having an aggregate value of $250 from any single source excluding
relatives, received by the school official or a member of his immediate family during the
preceding calendar year.” A school official who files a Disclosure Statement “containing
information which the school official knows to be false” shall be subject to a penalty of
reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c).
The 2019 Disclosure Statement specified that filers should “[b]e sure to list any
reimbursement received from the district or charter school for things such as conference
attendance, tuition/dues reimbursement, personal appearances, speeches, or writing.” (emphasis
added). While it is undisputed that Respondent received reimbursement from the Board in 2018
related to her child’s out of district placement, she did not include this on her 2019 Disclosure
Statement.
When interpreting a statute, the goal is to discern the legislative intent, which can be
gleaned from the plain meaning of the language. Board of Education of the City of Sea Isle City
v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1, 12 (2008). N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26(a)(3) unambiguously requires the
disclosure of the source of reimbursements. The payments that Respondent received from the
Board reflected reimbursement for money spent on her child’s educational placement, and were
therefore required to be disclosed. While the Commission is sensitive to Respondent’s argument
that special education matters are confidential, the Commission notes that the disclosure form
does not require disclosure of the amount of reimbursement or the purpose of payment. By

5
listing the Board as a response to Section III, question 2 on her 2019 Disclosure Statement,
Respondent 	would 	only 	be indicating 	that 	the Board 	was 	a source of 	either 	a gift, 	a
reimbursement or a prepaid expense having an aggregate value of $250 during the preceding
calendar year. Such a response would not reveal the reason for the reimbursement, nor that
Respondent entered into a settlement with the Board. To the contrary, board members often list
boards of education as the source of gifts or reimbursement, given the frequency that boards of
education pay for board members to attend conferences or events, or for their membership dues
to board member organizations.
The Commission finds the ALJ’s reliance on Dunckley is misplaced. The respondent in
Dunckley was censured for not disclosing the source of prepaid expenses for her conference
attendance, and for voting on a bill list that included a reimbursement to her and her husband and
for voting on a tuition payment to the school where her husband was employed. Dunckley, SEC
Dkt. No. C37-01, at 7. Dunckley does not address whether tuition reimbursements for out of
district placements need to be disclosed on Disclosure Statements. While it appears the
respondent in Dunckley received reimbursement for the cost of her child’s tuition, the case
addressed her vote to approve the board’s payment of those funds, and not whether she disclosed
the payments on her Disclosure Statement. Id. at 6-7. In Dunckley, the respondent’s violation
involving failure to disclose information on her Disclosure Statement stemmed from her
attendance at a conference, and not from reimbursement for her child’s tuition. Id. at 5-6. As
such, Dunckley is not applicable to the present matter, and the Commission finds that
Respondent violated the Act by failing to disclose reimbursement that she received from the
Board.
Despite 	the 	Commission’s 	determination 	that 	Respondent 	violated 	the 	Act, 	the
Commission recognizes the sensitive nature of the information at issue and Respondent’s well-
intended motive to protect her child. As such, the Commission recommends that a penalty not be
imposed on Respondent.
V. 	Decision
For the aforementioned reasons, the Commission adopts the ALJ’s findings of fact,
rejects the legal conclusions, finds that Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) and N.J.S.A.
18A:12-26, but recommends that a penalty not be imposed.
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
the parties, as indicated below. Such exceptions must be forwarded to: Commissioner of

6
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: November 28, 2023

7
Resolution Adopting Decision
in Connection with C37-21
Whereas, 	at 	its 	meeting 	on 	February 	25, 	2022, 	the 	School 	Ethics 	Commission
(Commission) voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a hearing; and
Whereas, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision dated August
17, 2023; and
Whereas, the ALJ found that Respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(c) and/or
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26, and ordered the dismissal of the above-referenced matter; and
Whereas, Petitioner filed exceptions to the Initial Decision and Respondent filed a reply;
and
Whereas, at its meeting on October 17, 2023, the Commission reviewed the record in this
matter and discussed adopting the ALJ’s findings of fact, rejecting the ALJ’s legal conclusions,
finding 	that 	Respondent 	violated 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-25(c) 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-26, 	but
recommending that a penalty not be imposed; and
Whereas, at its meeting on November 28, 2023, the Commission reviewed and voted to
approve the within decision as accurately memorializing its actions/findings from its meeting on
October 17, 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 November 28, 2023.
________________________________
Brigid C. Martens, Director
School Ethics Commission