[brief] The Commission’s Decision Ignores the Objectives of the School Ethics Act to Maintain the People’s Confidence and Trust (Not raised below)  The Commission’s summary dismissal of [...]’s Complaint goes directly against the very purpose of the School Ethics Act.  This law made it clear that it was “essential” that the conduct of school board members “hold the respect and confidence of the people. ”  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22.  School board members “must avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression among the public that such trust is being violated. ”  Id.  “To ensure and preserve public confidence,” the Legislature declared that school board members “should have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct. ”  Id.  The School Ethics Act thus includes a Code of Conduct for School Board Members (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1), which provides in pertinent part as follows:  “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. ”  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).  All of the named Respondents, as Board members at the time, violated that trust and thereby violated their ethical obligations.  The meaning of “private action” under the School Ethics Act is “action taken by a board member that is beyond the scope of his authority and duties as a board member. ”  Persi v. Woska, No. A-6038-11, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2915, *1, *14 (App. Div. Dec. 11, 2013).  This interpretation of “private action” is “consistent with several past agency decisions. ”  Id. (citations omitted).  See also Messner v. Gray, No. A-5418-13T3, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 703, at *1, *11 (App. Div. Mar. 31, 2016) (where a school board member decided “to further her own, purely private purposes” and potentially compromised the board, court affirmed Commission’s decision that she violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e)).  The respondents engaged in “private action” when they decided, as a group and individually, to begin an electioneering campaign and deceive voters about certain aspects of the proposed facilities plans that are at the heart of the Referendum question.  Board members duties do not include promulgating “yes” votes on Referendum questions.  As to how such actions can compromise the Board, there are numerous citations in the original complaint, all of which refer back to *Citizens* reference earlier in this brief.  In *Citizens*, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it improper for Districts to pursue only one side of a Referendum question and spend money only on that direction.  It is clear that all of the Board member Respondents breathlessly electioneered in favor of “yes” votes, and approved the dozens of actions documented in the Complaint that are all in direct violation of *Citizens*.  This electioneering not only runs afoul of *Citizens*, but it also created a vast breach of trust between the District and tax payers who were not in favor of the referendum.  When the Board President himself goes out of his way to insult and alienate anyone who disagrees with his position on a Referendum outcome, clearly that President and his entire Board is violating the spirit of the School Ethics Act.  For this reason, the Motion to Dismiss much be reversed.  **CONCLUSION**