OPINION: The School Ethics Complaint That Exposed More Than It Intended To

By Eliza Schleifstein

When former Randolph Board of Education President Ron Conti filed an ethics complaint against Board member Sheldon Epstein, he likely expected the public conversation to focus on Epstein.

Instead, the documents attached to that complaint tell a very different story.

Earlier this month, I obtained through an OPRA request the complete file for School Ethics Commission matter Conti v. Epstein (C65-25). The complaint was dismissed in its entirety by the School Ethics Commission on February 24, 2026, for failure to state a violation of the New Jersey School Ethics Act.

What makes the file remarkable is not the complaint itself. It is the collection of emails and exhibits attached to it.

At first glance, this may appear to be a uniquely Randolph story. It is not.

Every school district in New Jersey has board members who ask difficult questions. Every district has administrators who face scrutiny from elected officials. Every district relies on a delicate balance between governance and administration.

That is why these documents deserve attention beyond Randolph’s borders. The issues they raise are universal: How should dissent be handled? What happens when oversight is viewed as an inconvenience? What protections exist when elected officials are marginalized for doing the job voters sent them to do?

Residents across New Jersey should read this story not as an isolated local controversy but as a case study in what can happen when transparency, accountability, and healthy disagreement begin to erode.

Taken together, the documents paint a troubling picture of how dissent appears to have been treated within the Randolph Board of Education. They reveal discussions among then-Board President Ron Conti, then-Vice President Amanda Adams, Superintendent Jennifer Fano, and Board Attorney Marc Zitomer regarding how to deal with fellow Board member Sheldon Epstein, a member whose apparent offense was asking questions, requesting documents, and seeking information necessary to perform his duties as an elected official.

The most disturbing revelation is not a disagreement over policy. Healthy disagreement is part of good governance.

The disturbing revelation is the apparent effort to isolate, marginalize, and silence a sitting board member, who was elected by the voters of Randolph.

One email from Amanda Adams states: “I’m thinking that we ignore him as much as we can and offer him minimal responses to his questions in public.”

She then added: “My plan is to suffocate him with my silence.”

Even more troubling was Superintendent Jennifer Fano’s response: “I completely agree.”

Those statements should concern every taxpayer, regardless of how they feel about Sheldon Epstein.

A board member’s job is to ask questions. A board member’s responsibility is to seek information before voting on budgets, contracts, and district policies. The proper response to questions is answers, not silence.

The emails suggest that requests for information were repeatedly characterized as “harassment,” while efforts to obtain supporting documentation were portrayed as burdensome rather than necessary.

That raises a fundamental question: If asking questions becomes grounds for retaliation, how can any board member effectively perform their oversight responsibilities?

The question extends far beyond Randolph.

In every district, taxpayers depend on board members to challenge assumptions, scrutinize spending, and demand supporting information before casting votes. Communities should be far more concerned about board members who never ask questions than those who ask too many.

When questioning is discouraged, oversight weakens. When oversight weakens, public confidence follows. And when public confidence erodes, the entire governance structure suffers.

That is why the issues revealed in these emails matter to every school community, not just Randolph.

The documents also reveal a troubling blurring of governance roles.

The Superintendent works for the Board of Education. Every member of the Board.

Not just the president.

Not just board leadership.

Not just members who agree with district administration.

Every board member has equal authority and equal responsibility under the law.

Yet the emails show the Superintendent repeatedly weighing in on disputes involving one particular board member and advising leadership on how to respond to him. Rather than encouraging transparency and communication, the correspondence frequently reflects support for limiting engagement.

At one point, after Epstein sought information about filing a complaint involving the Superintendent, Fano described herself as feeling threatened and requested that the Board provide “protection” from him while also asking that evidence of his alleged conduct be preserved.

That response raises serious concerns about accountability.

An elected board member seeking information about complaint procedures should not be viewed as a threat. Oversight is not harassment. Accountability is not intimidation.

The broader issue extends beyond any one individual.

The emails reveal what appears to be a culture in which disagreement is viewed as disloyalty, questioning is treated as misconduct, and transparency is seen as a problem to be managed rather than a principle to be embraced.

What cannot be disputed is that the appearance created by these emails is damaging.

Public trust depends on the belief that elected officials can ask difficult questions without fear of retaliation.

It depends on the belief that all board members receive equal access to information.

It depends on the belief that administrators answer to the Board, not the other way around.

Most importantly, it depends on the belief that transparency is valued rather than feared.

The Civility Paradox

There is another lesson here that extends far beyond Randolph.

Recently, the New Jersey School Board Association has devoted significant attention to its Civility Starts with Us Initiative, encouraging boards across the state to adopt civility resolutions and pledges designed to promote respectful discourse, constructive disagreement, and public trust.

The very existence of the initiative is telling.

The NJSBA would not have created an entire statewide civility campaign if it did not recognize that many boards are struggling with conflict, factionalism, personal animosity, and deteriorating public trust. The organization clearly understands that civility has become a growing challenge in school governance.

But civility is often misunderstood.

True civility does not mean avoiding difficult questions.

It does not mean demanding unanimity.

It does not mean silencing dissenting voices in the name of harmony.

And it certainly does not mean “suffocating” a colleague with silence.

Real civility means respecting the right of elected officials to ask questions, seek information, challenge assumptions, and disagree without fear of retaliation or exclusion.

That is why the emails revealed in this case are so troubling. They suggest a culture in which disagreement itself became the problem rather than a necessary component of effective governance.

The broader question for school boards across New Jersey is this:

If a board is unwilling to publicly commit itself to the principles embodied in the NJSBA Civility Initiative, why not?

What is it about transparency, respectful disagreement, accountability, and open dialogue that some boards find uncomfortable?

Taxpayers should pay close attention to the answer.

Because communities often discover governance problems only after internal communications become public. The Randolph Board of Education emails provide a rare glimpse behind the curtain. They reveal conversations that residents were never supposed to see and attitudes that were never intended to be publicly scrutinized.

Ironically, the person who made these documents public was a former Board president himself. By attaching them to his ethics complaint, he created a public record that reveals far more about the culture of governance in Randolph than about the board member he sought to criticize.

The School Ethics Commission dismissed the complaint against Epstein.  But the emails attached to that complaint leave a far larger question unanswered.

If a board member can be ignored, marginalized, or portrayed as a problem simply for asking questions, what does that say about the state of governance in Randolph Township Schools?

More importantly, what does it say about governance anywhere such behavior is tolerated?

Because this story is not ultimately about Sheldon Epstein, Ron Conti, Amanda Adams, Jennifer Fano, or even Randolph.

It is about whether school boards exist to encourage independent oversight or enforce conformity.   It is about whether transparency is a genuine value or merely a slogan.

And it is about whether elected officials can fulfill their responsibilities without fear of retaliation when they ask difficult questions.

Randolph residents should pay attention to what these documents reveal.

So should every taxpayer, parent, board member, superintendent, and school administrator in New Jersey.

Because Randolph may simply be the district where the curtain was pulled back.

The uncomfortable reality is that similar dynamics may exist elsewhere.  Not because Randolph is unique – but because it may not be.

Email Chain

Submitted directly by the author; content reflects their own views