{"id":24154,"date":"2025-06-17T16:46:03","date_gmt":"2025-06-17T20:46:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/?p=24154"},"modified":"2025-06-17T16:46:03","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T20:46:03","slug":"decision-before-the-school-ethics-commission-kaplan-v-teaneck-board-of-education","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/board-of-education\/decision-before-the-school-ethics-commission-kaplan-v-teaneck-board-of-education\/","title":{"rendered":"[DECISION] Before the School Ethics Commission: Kaplan v. Teaneck Board of Education"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

“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<\/strong> and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to believe that<\/strong> N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) (Counts 1, 2, and 4) were violated<\/strong> as set forth in the Complaint” (page 1<\/a>)<\/p>\n

“The Commission also adopted a decision finding the Complaint not frivolous<\/strong>, and denying Respondents\u2019 request for sanctions.” (page 2<\/a>)<\/p>\n

“Based on its finding of probable cause, the Commission voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)<\/strong> 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.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On June 17, 2025, the School Ethics Commission decided a complaint filed against some members of the Teaneck Board of Education<\/span>.<\/p>\n

This complaint was brought by Keith Kaplan, Danielle Feuer, Suzanne Griffin Garcia, Adam Gussen, and Carl Jackson, who alleged that eleven Board members\u2014Clara Williams, Kassandra Reyes, Sebastian Rodriguez, Victoria Fisher, David Gruber, Edward Ha, Nadia Hosein, Gerald Kirshenbaum, Dennis Klein, Jonathan Rodriguez, and Denise Sanders\u2014violated the School Ethics Act<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Board members had contended that the complaint was frivolous<\/em><\/span>\u00a0and requested that penalties be issued against the Complainants.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Commission decided there was enough evidence to suggest that the Board members might have violated certain ethics rules<\/strong> related to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the complaint<\/span>. However, they found insufficient evidence for Count 3 because the Judge did not specifically include the dates for that count in the decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Commission also ruled that their complaint was not baseless, and they denied the Board members’ request to issue penalties against the Complainants<\/span>.<\/p>\n

What’s This All About?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The core of the complaint revolves around a section of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members<\/a>, specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a)<\/span>. 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<\/span>. It also says that any changes desired should only be made through legal and ethical means<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In order to prevail on this type of claim, a complainant must include a decision<\/a> from a Court of Law in the State of NJ that says a violation of the law<\/a> took place.<\/p>\n

Transparency WON: Kaplan v. Teaneck BOE<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n