School Ethics Commission Upholds OAL Ruling and Recommends Harsher Penalty for Stanley, Cianculli, Hyman, D’Aquila, Penna and Young
In May of 2022, Berkeley Heights board of education members Robert Ciancuilli, Pamela Stanley, Angela Penna, Michael D’Aquila, Joy Young and Jordan Hyman kicked off a series of decisions that would lead to three separate complaints of ethics violations being filed by residents. Over the course of nearly three years, these cases worked their way from the New Jersey School Ethics Commission (SEC), to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where they were combined, and back to the SEC. Both the OAL, and the SEC, have found the board members listed above to be in violation of the School Ethics Act and the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The next step is for the SEC to send its findings, which are based in part on the decisions by a judge at OAL, to the Commissioner of Education for review of the SEC’s recommended sanctions of the board members.
If the remaining member of this party, Pamela Stanley, wants to put students and educators first, she will accept the decision, rather than continue this failed strategy and appeal. The ball is in her court (and that of the former board members – but one would assume they are more than ready to leave this all behind). The recommendation of the OAL judge was one of reprimand which, in layman’s terms, means telling the board members they were wrong. The SEC, however, found that due to the seriousness of the violations, a sanction of censure is more appropriate. The difference is that when board members are censured, the decision must be announced publicly at a board meeting. This is an important distinction, which will be covered later in this article.
From the SEC decision:
“At its meeting on January 28, 2025, the Commission considered the full record in this matter. Thereafter, at its meeting on February 18, 2025, the Commission voted [to] adopt the legal conclusions that Respondent Stanley violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(f), and all Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), voted to modify the legal conclusions to find that Respondents did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and voted to modify the recommended penalty of reprimand in favor of censure.”
A sampling of the findings is illustrated in the following paragraph which details the violations of Item B in the code:
“N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) prohibits a school official from using or attempting to use her official position to secure unwarranted privileges, advantages or employment for herself, members of her immediate family or others. The Commission finds that Respondent Stanley used her position as a Board member to secure the privilege and advantage of using Board counsel to represent her in an ethics proceeding that she filed. Despite Respondents’ argument that Respondent Stanley simply filed the ethics complaint on behalf of the Board and did not seek counsel on her own behalf, the Act makes clear that only “[a] person” may file an ethics complaint with the Commission. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(a). The Commission has consistently held the belief that whether a Board votes to approve and/or adopts a resolution authorizing a Board member to file an ethics complaint with the Commission, the fact remains that the individual, and the individual alone, is the named Complainant, and thus, it is his or her own complaint, and not the Board’s. In this circumstance, to make matters worse, the Board, including Respondent Stanley, authorized the use of taxpayer funds by way of Board counsel to file an ethics complaint against another duly elected Board member. The use of the Board’s resources to provide Respondent Stanley with representation in filing ethics charges constitutes a clear privilege or advantage that she received solely because of her position as a Board member. As such, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that Respondent Stanley violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).”
Further along in the decision, the SEC details actions that highlight why Mrs. Stanley and her supporters on the board must stop the behavior that is a continuation of what led to this entire mess. The decision states,
“While Respondents argue that the action was “board action,” the Commission notes that the Board was not permitted to take any action, and Respondents simply sought to turn their personal motives into a Board matter by improperly authorizing the filing of ethics charges. The Commission further finds that Respondents’ actions certainly had the potential to compromise the Board, as they initiated legal proceedings against another sitting Board member, and authorized Board counsel to file the ethics charges, which will cost the Board money in legal bills.” As a reminder, in the decision by the OAL judge it was noted that the Commission has “clearly” stated that “a board member ‘is free to, among other things, ask questions, make requests, offer a statement or opinion, make inquiries about Board issues/matters, and to raise issues regarding business of the Board.”
The actions of the former board were found to be sparked by personal motives. Current board member Pamela Stanley continues to engage in this behavior – trying to paint other board members in the most negative light, to the point that she is issuing false and inaccurate statements. One can watch the end of the January board meeting to see examples of this behavior.
In the SEC analysis and decision on an appropriate penalty, they highlight the following:
“With respect to the appropriate penalty, the Commission modifies the recommended penalty of reprimand to censure for all Respondents. Respondents unquestionably weaponized the Board to file legal proceedings against a fellow Board member and went so far as to authorize the use of Board counsel to support their cause. Such actions are highly inappropriate and deserve a more severe sanction than reprimand, especially given that the Commission’s statute, which has remained unchanged, indicates that only individuals can file ethics charges, not boards of education. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(a). Additionally, while individuals may file ethics charges against other Board members, voting at a public meeting to file ethics charges against another Board member (when ethics charges would otherwise be held confidential pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.6(g)) and using Board counsel to facilitate the filings against another duly-elected Board member, when a Board is not authorized to take such action, has the potential to compromise the Board, as Respondents improperly used the Board and its resources to support their own goals.”
It has been years now. It is well past time for Mrs. Stanley to realize that those who have differing opinions are not trying to hurt our students, and that they are not morally wrong because her opinion differs. This article will close with one more statement from the SEC’s decision.
“Voting in public to authorize the filing of ethics charges against another Board member, and asking counsel to handle the matter, deserves a heightened and public remedy of censure, not the private remedy of reprimand. If members of the public were at the Board meeting or have read the meeting minutes of the public meeting when the improper and unauthorized votes took place, they deserve to learn the outcome that Respondents acted inappropriately and witness the public censure. Respondents made this an issue of public interest when they sought to make the alleged ethical violations of a fellow Board member known to the public by discussing it and voting on filing an ethics complaint at a public meeting; therefore, the general public now has a right to be informed of the sanction publicly.”