From Accountability to Attrition: The Slow Collapse of New Jersey School Ethics Enforcement

The New Jersey School Ethics Act (NJSEA) was established in April of 1992.  At that time, New Jersey legislators reasoned that it was essential for school officials to maintain public confidence, and stated that the Ethics Act was needed to help school districts avoid conflicts of interest, provide clarity around taxpayer dollars spent, and set clear guidelines.  The Act applies to both school board members and administrators. While the NJSEA is well-intentioned, the reality of the effect this legislation has on districts has developed in ways the original authors likely never intended.  Guidelines lack clarity, and their vague nature is complicating the results of ethics complaint outcomes. Due to both the current usage and the guidelines being rather open to interpretation, ethics cases can take years to be decided.

Why are these cases taking so long? The number of ethics complaints filed each year is increasing.  One argument is that the general language used in the NJSEA means complainants have broader discretion when alleging misbehavior, leading to increases in filings.  In turn, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) – the first governing body to look at submissions – may take longer to make an initial determination on the validity of the complaints.  That same reasoning holds true if the SEC finds the complaint to be valid and chooses to refer it to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where a judge looks at the complaints and the defendant responses.  The OAL can have a backlog of months before a case receives attention.  Even after a finding by the OAL, the decision made by the judge then goes back to the SEC, then on to the Commissioner of Education. And then there are appeals.

An illustration of the problematic nature of the guidelines can be found in the case of Gail Nazarene.  After another school board member filed a complaint alleging Nazarene violated the NJSEA when she asked residents of Salem County their opinion on school tax increases, Nazarene filed a lawsuit against the State Education Commissioner, Kevin Dehmer, on the grounds that the SEC was limiting her rights to speak freely to her constituents. 

The law requires school board members to refrain from making promises on a school board’s behalf and from sharing confidential information, as well as not engaging in actions that result in personal benefit to themselves, among other things.  The law does not specifically bar members from speaking to constituents, but a 2022 opinion by the SEC says school board members who discuss school matters with residents risk violations, even if they add a disclaimer to their statements saying their views are not reflective of the school board.

The case above also shows one of the unintended results of the ethics law.  While it was meant as a way for stakeholders to keep their elected representatives accountable, it is increasingly being used amongst board members to try and silence dissent and disparage each other.  In Monroe Township, the ethics cases being filed by board members and their families were becoming so prevalent that the SEC issued a response to comments made at one of its meetings about “frivolous” ethics complaints originating in Monroe.  They stated, “The commission reminds all members of the public that the commission is not a medium through which vendettas, quarrels, grudges and sour grapes are to be filed. The filing of complaints which are designed solely to ‘settle the score’ unnecessarily delay the processing of other complaints which concern behavior and conduct that may actually violate” the law.

Which brings us to Berkeley Heights School District, where in May of 2022 the majority of the school board, under the direction of former superintendent Melissa Whitfield Varley, very publicly voted not only to file an ethics complaint against one of its members, but to use the board attorney to draft the charges. This action, and subsequent related actions, led to three separate residents filing charges against the board for those actions, the first of them filed in June of 2022.  Those three cases were individually found by the SEC to have merit.  The board attorney’s attempt at a motion to dismiss, and in one case to have it deemed frivolous, was unsuccessful and the cases were referred to the OAL.  After initial hearings and months of waiting, two of the three cases were combined.  The third case was taken over (from the resident who filed) by an attorney from the School Ethics Commission.  Eventually, all three cases were combined.  

In February of 2025, the School Ethics Commission released its decision, finding that the board members were guilty of violating the New Jersey School Ethics Act.  However, it wasn’t over yet. Despite only one of the defendants still having a seat on the board, they chose to pursue an appeal.  The appeal is awaiting a decision, and the case remains active.  

A query about the longest-running ethics case in New Jersey turned up the following: 

There isn’t one single “longest” NJ school ethics case widely publicized, but major, drawn-out issues involve systemic problems like the Latino Action Network v. NJ segregation lawsuit (since 2018, ongoing) and significant individual ethics cases, like the years-long violation confirmations against Berkeley Heights Board of Education members (starting 2022), showing prolonged battles over ethical standards and constitutional rights in NJ schools.As the case in Berkeley Heights drags on, one wonders if it’s worth it.  The original actors, but one, are long past their time on the board.  The remaining board member has not changed behavior, and at one point accused one of the residents who filed of “wasting taxpayer money”, all while choosing to appeal findings by both the SEC and the OAL judge. The guidelines and original intent are being abused.  It may be time to disband or reform the ethics act and, as the SEC itself recommended in Monroe Township’s case, leaving it to the community to determine whether, at the time of election, an individual… should be elected to serve the needs of the district and its students,” adding “the voting members of the community have the power to choose the individuals who they feel are most fit to serve.”  And if the community chooses to vote for the guilty party, then the case becomes one of ‘we get what we deserve’.

View More Articles on Ethics in Government