SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3602-21 

MICHAEL SKOWRONSKI, 

 Petitioner-Respondent, 

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION 

OF THE TOWNSHIP OF 

EAST GREENWICH, 

GLOUCESTER COUNTY, 

 Respondent-Appellant. 

________________________

Argued December 13, 2023 – Decided January 16, 2024 

Before Judges Currier, Firko, and Susswein. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of 

Education, Docket No. 92-6/21.

Christopher R. Welgos argued the cause for appellant 

(Weiner Law Group LLP, attorneys; Stephen J. 

Edelstein, of counsel and on the briefs; Christopher R. 

Welgos, on the briefs). 

Benjamin W. Spang argued the cause for respondent 

Michael Skowronski (Dilworth Paxon LLP, attorneys; 

Benjamin W. Spang, on the brief). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-3602-21

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Commissioner of Education (Laurie L.

Fichera, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in 

lieu of brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 Appellant Board of Education of the Township of East Greenwich, 

Gloucester County (the Board) appeals from the June 16, 2022 final decision of 

the Acting New Jersey Commissioner of Education (Acting Commissioner) 

requiring the Board to indemnify respondent Michael Skowronski for his legal 

fees and costs incurred in defending an ethics complaint lodged against him by 

the former superintendent of the Board under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20. We affirm. 

I.

 The underlying facts, as initially found by the School Ethics Commission, 

the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and thereafter adopted by the Acting 

Commissioner, are undisputed. In January 2019, complainant Dr. James J. 

Lynch served as superintendent of the Board. On January 2, 2019, Skowronski 

began service as a Board member. On January 15, 2019, the Board and all of 

its members received a letter sent by email from Lisa Christopher, a teacher 

employed by the East Greenwich School District and the parent of three children 

enrolled in the District. 
3 A-3602-21

 In her letter, Christopher raised concerns about a recent incident at a 

United Parcel Service (UPS) facility in Logan Township involving an individual 

with a handgun who held two hostages in the building in a standoff with law 

enforcement. The suspect was shot by the police after exiting the facility. 

Christopher's letter inquired about what actions, if any, the Board was taking to 

ensure everyone's safety and mentioned some schools had been put on "shelter 

in place" as a precaution. Christopher stated she called the school in the District 

where her children were in attendance and was told "the school [wasn't] doing 

anything" in response to the incident and "we were far enough away and not to 

worry." Christopher expressed her concern to the staff at her children's school 

and was advised that Dr. Lynch would be informed of her safety concerns. 

 According to Christopher, Dr. Lynch asked her to meet with him in his

office. During the meeting, Christopher claimed Dr. Lynch was "highly 

offended" that she questioned his authority. Christopher explained in her letter 

the police officers "were not and are not always present at the entrance of the 

[school] building" and "should have been" on the day of the shooting. 

Christopher expressed to Dr. Lynch at their meeting that she was concerned 

about preschool age children who were dismissed from school at approximately 

the time the incident occurred without officers present. 
4 A-3602-21

Dr. Lynch told Christopher that "he doesn't question" the officers about 

their jobs "just like they don't question him about his job." In her letter, 

Christopher wrote even though she was not the only parent complaining about 

school safety that day, she felt singled out by Dr. Lynch, "communication was 

important," and the Board should have emailed the parents and employees in the 

District to inform them about what was happening that day. 

 On January 16, 2019, Board President Lyn1 McGravey responded to 

Christopher's emailed letter and copied the entire Board. McGravey stated in 

her email that the Board would "collectively review" and discuss the concerns 

raised in Christopher's letter. At a regularly scheduled meeting that day, 

Skowronski moved for an executive session to discuss "[p]ersonnel" and an 

"employer's communication concerning the [d]istrict's response to the incident 

at the UPS in Logan Township." Skowronski claimed he was informed that Dr. 

Lynch was handling the issue. According to Skowronski, he objected during the 

public session to Dr. Lynch handling Christopher's complaint himself. The 

public minutes reflect Christopher's concerns were addressed in the executive 

session. 

1

 Also referred to as "Evelyn" in the record. 
5 A-3602-21

 On January 19, 2019, McGravey sent an email to Christopher and copied 

the entire Board informing Christopher that the Board discussed the concerns 

raised in her letter during its executive session: 

After receiving your letter, the Board discussed the 

points and questions you raised during our executive 

session held on January 16, 201[9], including, but not 

limited [to], the actual decision[-]making process,

communication, safety protocols and the use of the 

expertise of the East Greenwich Police Department 

[EGPD] to assist in making both immediate decisions 

regarding an incident and short and long term school 

safety plans and measures. While it is always easier for 

us to review, analyze, and sometimes second guess a

course of action after the fact, the Board concurs that 

the safety of the students was not in jeopardy on 

Monday and reliance on the expertise of the EGPD was 

properly placed. Please know that the Board recognizes 

and is committed to ensuring the safety of both students 

and staff is of utmost importance and has empowered

the District leadership team to make decisions 

regarding school safety that protect everyone without 

causing undue panic. 

In response, Christopher sent another letter via email to the Board that 

same day again raising concerns about her interaction with Lynch and the 

Board's handling of it. On January 22, 2019, McGravey responded to 

Christopher via email and indicated she felt the Board had addressed her 

concerns. 
6 A-3602-21

 On January 22, 2019, Skowronski sent an email to the entire Board 

expressing his concerns about how the Board was handling Christopher's 

complaints and his recommendations on how to proceed. Skowronski's email 

stated: 

Good morning fellow [B]oard members. I did see 

[McGravey's] most recent response, but in regards to 

Ms. Christopher's letters . . . This whole situation has 

weighed heavily on me since our last meeting. And I 

thought long and hard as to whether I should send my 

own email in these past few days. Since we received 

this second communication, I feel compelled to suggest 

we revisit this, or "re-handle" this, if not only via email

as a group. And PLEASE, indicate to me what I may 

be missing here . . . But I do not feel we really 

addressed this (and the very specific concerns outlined) 

adequately. I don't think having Dr. Lynch handle a 

complaint about Dr. Lynch is how we really want to 

handle this. Again, PLEASE indicate to me what I may 

be missing here. May be there is an aspect of this

situation I am not understanding or aware of. But the 

concerns in the communications are serious, and 

specific. I believe the 4 points are (harassment, safety, 

communication, and fear of retaliation), but her 

communication additionally includes the following: 

First letter 

• Was called out of her classroom 

• Singled out and was called to the office 

• Children dismissed without officers present 

• No officer at entrance of building 

• Dr. Lynch doesn't question them about their jobs 
7 A-3602-21

• No community member, parent, or employee 

should be made to feel wrong for questioning the 

safety 

• Email should have been sent informing parents 

[and] staff we were aware 

Second letter: 

• Communication as a whole seems to be an 

underlying problem in our [D]istrict 

• Why couldn't an email still go out to alleviate any

concerns 

• Board thinks its acceptable for the superintendent 

to not only berate a parent for expressing a 

concern but to also tell that parent they shouldn't

question his authority and for the superintendent 

to intimidate them at work 

• I was under the impression that as a parent and a 

taxpayer I have a right to ask questions 

• I was very uncomfortable writing the first letter 

• Fear of retaliation for herself, children, and 

family 

• Putting my faith in the [Board]. 

Employers are nervous when faced with safety, 

discrimination, and harassment complaints, and so 

should we. Such complaints lead to workplace tension, 

government investigations, and costly legal battles. If 

the complaint is mishandled, even if unintentionally, 

we may unwittingly put ourselves and our stakeholders 

at risk. 

If we take the complaint seriously however, we can 

reduce the likelihood of a lawsuit and even improve

employee/parent/guardian relations in the process. I 
8 A-3602-21

would suggest either "[R]icing"2 those we need to talk 

to, not in a "you're in trouble" sort of way, but rather in 

a due-diligence sort of way. Alternatively, we can look 

at it as an opportunity to review or discuss best 

practices in-house. Not in an accusatory manner, but as 

an exercise in how we must treat these situations, our 

staff, and to mitigate risk. 

We answered Ms. Christopher's original message 

saying we discussed it as a [B]oard. But I don't know 

that it would have even happened had I not called the 

[executive session] . . . , and that both worries and 

saddens me . . . I feel we have a fiduciary 

responsibility to address these specific concerns as a 

group, including Dr. Lynch. Ms. Christopher is correct, 

changes aren't made by keeping silent and sweeping 

things under the carpet. This seemed poignant to me in 

light of the MLK Holiday yesterday. 

I attached some best practice suggestions from NOLO3

to this email if anyone wants to take a look. 

I look forward to hearing others' opinions on this as 

well. 

Thank you all! 

2

 Presumably, the reference to "Ricing" in the email refers to a Rice notice. A 

Rice notice refers to the right of a public employee to receive notice of the 

intention of the Board of Education to consider personnel matters related to 

them. Rice v. Union Cnty. Reg'l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 155 N.J. Super. 64, 74 

(App. Div. 1977). 

3

 NOLO is a free legal website that amalgamates information from various 

websites, offers resources such as an encyclopedia of legal articles, online 

forms, software, books, and e-Guides, and connects users to attorneys. About 

Us, NOLO, https://www.nolo.com/about/about.html (last visited Jan. 9, 2024).
9 A-3602-21

-Mike 

Skowronski inadvertently included Christopher—who was not a member of the 

Board—on his email by hitting "reply all." Another Board member copied on 

Skowronski's email forwarded it to Dr. Lynch. On February 20, 2019, Dr. Lynch 

filed a three-count complaint against Skowronski4 before the School Ethics 

Commission (Commission) alleging violations of the Open Public Meetings Act, 

N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21 (count one); violations of the confidentiality of executive 

sessions, N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 (count two); and violations of the Code of Ethics for 

School Board members, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g). 

 On June 19, 2019, Skowronski moved to dismiss the three-count 

complaint in lieu of filing an answer. The Commission granted his motion in 

part, dismissing counts one and two, leaving the remaining third count: that 

Skowronski "wrote an email to the entire [B]oard with a copy to a member of 

the public in which there are negative comments on [D]istrict personnel, 

specifically the [s]uperintendent," in violation of N.J.S.A. 12-24.1(g). 

 The Commission held that "[i]f [c]omplainant can additionally prove that 

certain/specific information in the email message was confidential (e.g. specific 

issues/matters discussed in executive session that are not (yet) public), and can 

4

 Lynch v. Skowronski, No. EEC 10213-19, 2020 WL 12175787 (Jan. 25, 2020). 
10 A-3602-21

cite to the authority/basis for the confidential nature of that information, 

[c]omplainant may be able to establish a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)." 

The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. 

 On March 6, 2019, Skowronski's attorney sent a letter to the Board's 

attorney and demanded indemnification from the Board for legal fees and costs 

to defend the allegations in the complaint. The Board's attorney responded that 

Skowronski's request would be considered at the conclusion of the matter. 

 On November 20, 2019, the ALJ conducted a one-day hearing. At the 

hearing, Skowronski testified that the inclusion of Christopher, a non-Board 

member, on his January 22, 2019 email was an inadvertent mistake, as he only 

intended to send the email to his fellow Board members. McGravey testified 

that no confidential information was disclosed in Skowronski's email, however, 

the opinions expressed in his email "did not reflect the [B]oard's official 

position." McGravey stated parts of Skowronski's email were "critical of the 

Board's actions by conveying the impression that the Board did not do enough 

to address Christopher's concerns." 

On February 25, 2020, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that 

Skowronski had not violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and dismissing the third 

count of the complaint. The ALJ determined that Skowronski testified 
11 A-3602-21

"credibly" that the inclusion of Christopher on his January 22, 2019 email was 

"an inadvertent mistake." The ALJ noted Christopher's letters were not derived 

from the closed Board session as Dr. Lynch alleged and "were not confidential 

or otherwise not previously known to any of the recipients of Skowronski's 

email." The ALJ found it was "undisputed" that the Board's discussion of 

Christopher's letters was conducted during an executive session on January 16, 

2019, and the Board's deliberations held in executive session are entitled to 

confidentiality. 

However, the ALJ determined "[t]he fact that Christopher's 

communications were discussed in executive session that evening, by itself, is 

not confidential information within the purview of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)." 

The ALJ added that McGravey's email to Christopher on January 19, 2019, 

updating her on the status of the Board's actions in response to her letters 

undermined the confidentiality of the information regarding Christopher. 

Dr. Lynch filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision, essentially contending 

the email contained a complaint about him "berating a parent," "intimidating 

someone at work," at least one Board member felt the Board might be faced with 

a "harassment" complaint based on his actions, and all of this information was 

derived from the closed executive session. 
12 A-3602-21

On May 19, 2020, the Commission disagreed with the ALJ's initial 

decision, issued a final decision determining that Skowronski had violated 

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), and recommended a penalty of reprimand. The 

Commission determined the information disclosed in Skowronski's email to 

Christopher was confidential. In addition, the Commission found Skowronski's 

email contained "new" information that had never been discussed by the Board, 

such as how the Board was handling or should handle Christopher's concerns 

and the "potential legal ramifications" for not doing so. Skowronski appealed 

to the Commissioner. 

On December 15, 2020, the Acting Commissioner affirmed the 

Commission's decision and the recommended penalty. Skowronski filed a 

motion for reconsideration, which the Acting Commissioner denied. On 

February 25, 2021, Skowronski's attorney sent another letter to the Board's 

attorney seeking indemnification since the matter had concluded. On March 22, 

2021, the Board's attorney sent a letter to Skowronski's attorney denying the 

request for indemnification stating Skowronski did not have "approval to 

disclose the Board's deliberative process" and therefore "did not act in the course 

of performing his duties as a [B]oard member." 
13 A-3602-21

 On May 27, 2021, Skowronski filed a petition with the Commissioner 

seeking to compel the Board to indemnify him for the costs of his defense of the 

School Ethics charge pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, which requires a Board 

to indemnify Board members for all costs in defending against civil actions, 

including ethics complaints. Skowronski alleged he incurred over $38,000 in 

legal fees and costs in defending the ethics complaint. The Board filed an 

answer and affirmative defenses asserting Skowronski's petition should be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 

Skowronski moved for partial summary decision, and the Board moved for 

summary decision under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 

On May 5, 2022, a second ALJ issued an initial summary decision finding 

that Skowronski was entitled to indemnification by the Board for legal fees and 

costs he incurred in defending the ethics allegations brought against him by the 

District superintendent. The ALJ concluded Skowronski's conduct that resulted 

in the filing of the ethics complaint "arose out of and in the performance of his 

duties as a member of the Board." 

The ALJ found Skowronski sent the email using his Board email account 

in direct response to an email from the Board's president, regarding a matter 

pending before the Board. The ALJ highlighted that the Commissioner 
14 A-3602-21

previously found Skowronski's email was part of the Board's deliberative 

process. The ALJ concluded that Skowronski was entitled to indemnification 

under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, because his conduct arose out of the performance of 

his duties as a member of the Board and defending school ethics allegations 

brought against him by the District superintendent. The ALJ found 

Skowronski's conduct resulted in "a civil administrative action for violation of 

the School Ethics Act." The Board filed exceptions to the initial summary 

decision. 

 On June 16, 2022, the Acting Commissioner issued a final decision 

upholding the ALJ's initial summary decision and ordering the Board to 

reimburse Skowronski for reasonable legal fees and costs in connection with the 

matter. Relying on Quick v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Old Bridge, Middlesex 

Cnty., 308 N.J. Super. 338, 342 (App. Div. 1998), the Acting Commissioner

noted "the outcome of the action is irrelevant," and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, 

"protects both successful and unsuccessful litigants." The Acting Commissioner 

found the fact that Skowronski disclosed confidential information did not 

preclude indemnification. The Acting Commissioner determined the 

Commission's decision is "supported by sufficient, credible evidence," and 
15 A-3602-21

Lynch failed to establish that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary 

to law," under N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1.1(a). This appeal followed. 

 The Board raises two arguments for our consideration: 

(1) the Acting Commissioner erred when she failed to 

review the time, place, and subject matter of 

Skowronski's actions; and 

(2) the Acting Commissioner erred when she found 

Skowronski was entitled to indemnification. 

We disagree. 

II. 

"Judicial review of agency determinations is limited." Allstars Auto Grp., 

Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (citing Russo v. 

Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). An agency 

decision will be upheld unless "there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Russo, 

206 N.J. at 27 (quoting In re Herrmann, 193 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)). "The burden 

of demonstrating that the agency's action is arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable rests upon the party challenging the administrative action." 

Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 166 (2014) (quoting In re J.S., 431 N.J. Super. 

321, 329 (App. Div. 2013)). 

Our role in reviewing administrative action is limited to three inquires: 
16 A-3602-21

(1) whether the agency's action violates express or 

implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency 

follow the law; 

(2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to 

support the findings on which the agency based its 

action; and 

(3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the 

facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion 

that could not reasonably have been made on a showing 

of the relevant factors. 

Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 

(2011)). If the criteria are met, then a court owes substantial deference to the 

agency's decision, even if the court would have come to a different decision. In 

re Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28. However, reviewing courts are not bound by an 

agency's interpretation of statute or law. Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 158; 

see Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992) (finding 

that, "[a]gencies . . . have no superior ability to resolve purely legal questions, 

and that a court is not bound by an agency's determination of a legal issue is 

well established"). Thus, our analysis is guided by these standards. 

With the enactment of the School Ethics Act, the Legislature has declared 

that school board members must conduct themselves to "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." N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22. The 
17 A-3602-21

Legislature has further declared that public confidence in school board members 

is preserved through "specific standards to guide their conduct." Ibid. Those 

standards include a Code of Ethics for School Board Members, embodied in 

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1. Subsection (g) provides: 

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 [B]oard members, interpret to the staff the 

aspirations of the community for its school. 

N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 entitles members of Boards of Education to be 

indemnified for the cost of defense of a civil or criminal action: 

Whenever a civil , administrative, criminal or quasicriminal action or other legal proceeding has been or 

shall be brought against any person for any act or 

omission arising out of and in the course of the 

performance of his [or her] duties as a member of a

[B]oard of [E]ducation, and in the case of a criminal 

or quasi-criminal action such action results in final 

disposition in favor of such person, the [B]oard of 

[E]ducation shall defray all costs of defending such 

action, including reasonable counsel fees and 

expenses, together with costs of appeal, if any, and shall 

save harmless and protect such person from any 

financial loss resulting therefrom. 

[(emphasis added).] 

And in a civil proceeding, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, must be "construed liberally to 

promote a diversity of views on educational issues and policy and encourage 
18 A-3602-21

members of local [B]oards of [E]ducation to express their views freely, without 

fear of intimidation." Castriotta v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Roxbury, 427 N.J. 

Super. 592, 602 (App. Div. 2012) (citing Quick, 308 N.J. Super. at 342). 

 We are satisfied the Acting Commissioner's affirmance of the 

Commission's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and is 

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Consequently, the 

Board's challenge has no merit. The Acting Commissioner applied the correct 

legal standard under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, entitling Skowronski to 

indemnification because his actions in sending his subject email arose out of or 

were in the course of performance of his duties as a Board member. 

 The Acting Commissioner acknowledged the Commission's finding that 

Skowronski violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g), for two reasons: (1) his email 

was pre-decisional; and (2) deliberative in nature. She noted the Board had just 

received Christopher's email, and the Board had not yet determined how to 

respond, making it pre-decisional. The Acting Commissioner held Skowronski's 

email is deliberative in nature because he "expressed concern that mishandling 

the complaint could put the Board and its stakeholders at risk," recommended 

the Board issue a "Rice notice," and "opined on the Board's fiduciary 

responsibilities." Moreover, the Acting Commissioner found these types of 
19 A-3602-21

"tentative thoughts, suggestions, and questions are part and parcel of the Board's 

overall deliberative process." 

 Affirmed.