Ethics Commission: Ex- board member violated no policies
OCEAN CITY — The New Jersey School Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint against former Ocean City Board of Education member Robin Shaffer.
The complaint revolved around comments Shaffer made in an interview with the Sentinel regarding former Superintendent of Schools Matthew Friedman.
Carl Tripician, a nonvoting school board member from Longport, filed the complaint in May 2023, alleging Shaffer violated various sections of the School Ethics Act by commenting to the newspaper about Friedman’s performance in his brief tenure in the school district.
“Obviously, with this decision, I’m pleased that the Ethics Commission ruled that a board member may exercise his First Amendment right to free speech,” Shaffer told the Sentinel. “I found it ironic that I was even put in this position by a fellow board member. Arguably, the point of having ethics rules is to instill public trust in government and in government officials. Bringing frivolous ethics charges does the complete opposite — it undermines the transparency, accountability and credibility in our public institutions and has a chilling effect on free expression.”
Shaffer added he believes the ethics charges were meant to “silence” him as a board member.
Shaffer was elected in November 2022 to fill an unexpired term on the school board, running as a slate with Catherine Panico and Liz Nicoletti, who ran for and won full terms on the board.
In the November 2023 election, Shaffer lost an extremely close race in his bid for re-election. He was running with two other candidates, who also lost their bids for seats on the board.
Friedman was hired as superintendent during the 2022-23 school year, but began looking for a new position about halfway through his tenure. He accepted a job in the Quakertown (Pa.) school district in the spring, but finished the school year in Ocean City.
There have been two interim superintendents this school year because the Board of Education was unable to come up with a permanent superintendent after its search last summer and into the fall.
Friedman had been criticized by citizens group Fairness in Taxes about the substantial amount of time he spent out of the district — more than 43 days — in training, at conferences and teleworking, arriving at school late because of his daily commute from Pennsylvania, and being paid for other work outside the district, which they argued distracted him for his duties inside the district.
In an article in the Sentinel on May 17, 2023, in which FIT members criticized the superintendent and Friedman responded to the allegations, Shaffer also weighed in with comments.
“I find it extremely troubling the amount of time [the superintendent] spent outside our school district in training, at conferences and teleworking,” Shaffer told the newspaper while saying he was unaware of the lengthy commute and outside work, noting, “[w]hen I saw the information provided by [FIT], I wasn’t aware he was working three other jobs… I question how much any person could legitimately attend to a job as demanding as superintendent, when you’re working three other jobs and you’re out of the district that often.”
Later in the article, commenting about the search for a new superintendent, Shaffer called what happened a “teachable moment … when mistakes can be openly acknowledged and learned from, I believe. After all, as an educator, I believe that’s what learning is all about and is also what leadership ought to be about.”
Shaffer continued that he was “going to do everything I can to support a superintendent candidate who possesses the decisiveness, temperament and judgment to give our district the leadership it deserves. … We need to identify a candidate who is as committed to us as we are to her or him. We’re going to need to find a candidate who cares about Ocean City schools, who cares about our children, who cares about our teachers, staff and taxpayers as much as we care about them.”
Following a discussion at its meeting Dec. 12, 2023, the School Ethics Commission adopted a decision Jan. 23, 2024, finding there were insufficient facts to sustain Tripician’s multifaceted complaint against Shaffer.
The complaint on one count alleged Shaffer violated the Ethics Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c)) in part because when making the comments to the newspaper he did not include a disclaimer that he was speaking for himself rather than in his position as a board member, which meant he was not confining his actions to policy making.
On a second count, Tripician alleged Shaffer violated the Ethics Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d)) because he “failed to provide a disclaimer and that the comments ‘may appear to pressure and influence either Board members or the public to make changes to matters that affect personnel or hiring decisions with respect to a new superintendent.’”
The third count alleged violation of the Ethics Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)), because Shaffer’s comments “are beyond the scope of his duties of a Board member and Respondent’s actions constitute private action which may compromise the Board because “[a]ttacking a superintendent may intimidate the public from coming forward and addressing the board.”
The fourth count alleged he violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because the comments were “not backed by evidence or accurate information.”
The fifth count was that Shaffer violated a section of the act (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)) because he implied in the article the superintendent was not performing his job and the comments “undermine and compromise the performance of the [S]uperintendent, are inflammatory and harm the reputation of the Superintendent and his ability to perform his duties.”
When Shaffer responded to the complaint, he did not deny making the comments and said because he was being interviewed by a reporter “nothing he said would indicate he was making an official statement,” according to the Ethics Commission decision.
He also argued that “Board members do not surrender their ability to express their opinion respecting the performance of school employees simply by virtue of their position.”
In the decision, the Ethics Commission looked at the provisions of the code that provide:
“c. I will confine my board action to policy making, planning, and appraisal, and I will help to frame policies and plans only after the board has consulted those who will be affected by them.
“d. I will carry out my responsibility, not to administer the schools, but, together with my fellow board members, to see that they are well run.
“e. I will recognize that authority rests with the board of education and will make no personal promises nor take any private action that may compromise the board.
“g. I will hold confidential all matters pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the schools. In all other matters, I will provide accurate information and, in concert with my fellow board members, interpret to the staff the aspirations of the community for its school.
“i. I will support and protect school personnel in proper performance of their duties.”
The Ethics Commission decided “a reasonable person would not believe that (Shaffer’s) statements were made in his official capacity.”
It decided Shaffer did not take board actions related to the comments, did not give orders to school personnel or get involved in functions related to administration of the district, that his actions “did not compromise the board,” didn’t disclose confidential information and did not cause harm to the superintendent because Friedman already was leaving the district.
Shaffer said “several activists” decided to go after him through the Ethics Commission even before he took office in January 2023, using the commission as a “weapon” because of his endorsement by the conservative group Moms for Liberty “as well as my vocal support for parental rights, common sense and classical education in our schools motivated the attacks.”
There is another ethics complaint, filed by district parent Christine Stanford, that remains pending.
“While I cannot comment on that complaint at this time, the fact is the ethics charges against me were weaponized to silence and distract me from my duties as a board member last year,” Shaffer told the Sentinel. “They were also used by activists and other (Board of Education) candidates as a means to undermine my campaign for re-election last fall.
“As was well documented by Christine Stanford in her letter published in the Sentinel, the ethics charges against me (including the one she filed) cost our school district thousands of dollars in legal services and many hours of lost productivity.”
By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff