NJSBA field representative briefs Flemington-Raritan board on ethics rules, recusal and social media

Patricia Reese, a field representative for the New Jersey School Boards Association, reviewed the School Ethics Act and recent advisory opinions for the Flemington-Raritan Regional School District Board of Education during the board meeting.

Reese summarized who enforces the law, what the School Ethics Commission can and cannot do, and practical steps board members must take to avoid conflicts of interest. She said the commission issues advisory opinions requested by sitting board members, and cautioned that acting contrary to an advisory opinion can lead to harsher penalties. "If you go ahead and do the action... the chances are that the penalty will be harsher than had you just done it," Reese said.

The presentation outlined the range of possible penalties — reprimand, censure (which requires a local resolution), suspension and recommended removal — and described the evidence a complainant must provide. Reese emphasized that ethics findings are fact-specific and pointed attendees to linked advisory opinions and decisions for examples.

Reese explained differences between an abstention and a recusal, noting that a recusal signals a legal conflict and changes how votes are tallied. "A recusal signifies that you feel that you have a legal conflict," she said. She recommended consulting board counsel when members are unsure whether a conflict is legal in nature.

The field representative also addressed common sources of complaints: family relationships, employment of relatives, collective-bargaining participation and use of endorsements or campaign contributions. On volunteering in schools, she said board members may participate in limited, infrequent activities but should not take on supervisory duties, handle school money, or otherwise give the appearance of administering day-to-day operations.

Reese devoted significant time to social media guidance. She said the School Ethics Commission evaluates posts by content, substance and context and applies a "reasonable member of the public" standard: if a reasonable member of the public could mistake a post for an official board position, the post risks violating the code. She recommended use of a disclaimer for personal social posts — but cautioned it is not a "get out of jail free card." "If what you posted can't be confused with board positions and is not related to board business, it likely won't be found to be in violation," Reese said.

The presentation included illustrative advisory opinions, referenced case numbers and linked resources. Board members were told how to request advisory opinions, the timelines for mandatory training (first-year governance training within 90 days of swearing in, follow-up governance modules in years two and three and a legal update in the first year after reelection), and where to find the commission's decisions.

The board thanked Reese for the overview and said the presentation and accompanying materials would be shared publicly. The session concluded with an offer to answer follow-up questions by phone or email.