“Following its discussion on May 20, 2025, the Commission adopted a decision at its meeting on June 17, 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:12-24.1(a) (Counts 1, 2, and 4) were violated as set forth in the Complaint” (page 1)
“The Commission also adopted a decision finding the Complaint not frivolous, and denying Respondents’ request for sanctions.” (page 2)
“Based on its finding of probable cause, the Commission voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a plenary hearing where Complainants shall carry the burden to prove the remaining allegations that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Counts 1, 2, and 4.”
On June 17, 2025, the School Ethics Commission decided a complaint filed against some members of the Teaneck Board of Education.
This complaint was brought by Keith Kaplan, Danielle Feuer, Suzanne Griffin Garcia, Adam Gussen, and Carl Jackson, who alleged that eleven Board members—Clara Williams, Kassandra Reyes, Sebastian Rodriguez, Victoria Fisher, David Gruber, Edward Ha, Nadia Hosein, Gerald Kirshenbaum, Dennis Klein, Jonathan Rodriguez, and Denise Sanders—violated the School Ethics Act.
The Board members had contended that the complaint was frivolous and requested that penalties be issued against the Complainants.
The Commission decided there was enough evidence to suggest that the Board members might have violated certain ethics rules related to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the complaint. However, they found insufficient evidence for Count 3 because the Judge did not specifically include the dates for that count in the decision.
The Commission also ruled that their complaint was not baseless, and they denied the Board members’ request to issue penalties against the Complainants.
What’s This All About?
The core of the complaint revolves around a section of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). This rule essentially states that school board members must uphold and enforce all state laws, rules from the State Board of Education, and court orders related to schools. It also says that any changes desired should only be made through legal and ethical means.
In order to prevail on this type of claim, a complainant must include a decision from a Court of Law in the State of NJ that says a violation of the law took place.
Here’s a breakdown of the specific allegations reviewed by the Ethics Commission:
- Count 1: The Complainants presented a court decision showing that the Board failed to follow state laws and court orders, particularly concerning the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). They highlighted that a court found the Board had a “longstanding consistent failing” and a “pattern” of not properly announcing meetings on December 21, 2023, and January 3, 2024.
- Count 2: Similar to Count 1, the Complainants claimed the Board again failed to meet OPMA requirements for a meeting on January 17, 2024. The court also found that the District didn’t publish an annual meeting list by January 10th as required, making proper notice impossible.
- Count 3: This count alleged that the Board held meetings between January 14, 2024, and July 17, 2024, without providing proper agenda notices, which is also an OPMA violation.
- Count 4: Despite previous court rulings and an order to strictly follow OPMA, the Complainants stated that the Board’s August 21, 2024, meeting still lacked adequate notice and an agenda.
What the Commission Decided
The School Ethics Commission’s role is specifically to enforce the School Ethics Act. They clarified that while the complaint mentioned violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the Commission itself isn’t the body that rules on OPMA violations. Those types of claims need to be pursued in a different legal forum (the Superior Court already ruled on those issues).
However, when it came to whether the Board members upheld their ethical duty to follow court orders (as outlined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a)), the Commission looked for specific evidence: a final court decision showing that the Board members failed to enforce laws or court orders.
Here’s what they found:
- For Counts 1, 2, and 4: The Commission found enough evidence because court orders were provided that stated the Board had not complied with OPMA for the meetings on December 21, 2023, January 3, 2024, January 17, 2024, and August 21, 2024.
If it can be proven that the Board members failed to correct these issues, then a violation of the ethics rule could be confirmed. - For Count 3: The Commission dismissed this part of the complaint. This was because while the Judge determined that the failure to notice meetings existed for all meetings in 2024, the Complainants did not provide a final court decision or administrative agency ruling specifically about the alleged OPMA violations for the meeting dates between January 14, 2024, and July 17, 2024.
What Happens Next?
Because there’s enough evidence for Counts 1, 2, and 4, these parts of the complaint will now move to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a full hearing.
At this hearing, the Complainants will need to present their case and prove that the Board members indeed violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). Because a Court decision already indicates that they violated the law, this part should move fairly quickly.
The OAL will notify all parties involved of the hearing dates.
Decision (page 6):
In accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(b), and for the reasons detailed herein, the Commission hereby notifies Complainants and Respondents 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:12-24.1(a) was violated in Counts 1, 2, and 4, but insufficient facts and circumstances to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Count 3 was violated. The Commission further advises the parties that, following its review, it voted to find that the Complaint is not frivolous, and to deny Respondents’ request for sanctions.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(a)(3), the Commission transmits the above-captioned matter to the OAL for a plenary hearing, Complainants shall carry the burden to factually establish that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). In order to prevail, Complainants must satisfy the burden of proof as articulated in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), specifically:1. Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) shall include a copy of a final decision from any court of law or administrative agency of this State demonstrating that Respondents failed to enforce all laws, rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, and/or court orders pertaining to schools or that Respondents brought about changes through illegal or unethical procedures.
The plenary hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the OAL. N.J.A.C. 1:1 et seq. The OAL will notify the parties when the remaining allegations in this matter will be heard.
Previous posts here:
C69-24 PC Decision