Court Opinion

ID: 9918696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 15:06:11.017215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:31.521247
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        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).
             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.

                                                                         A-3602-21
                                      2
      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.

                                                                             A-3602-21
                                        3
        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 Lyn 1 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.
                                                                          A-3602-21
                                         4
      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.

                                                                        A-3602-21
                                         5
      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

                                                                         A-3602-21
                                       6
   • 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

                                                           A-3602-21
                           7
            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 NOLO 3
            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).

                                                                          A-3602-21
                                        8
              -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 Skowronski 4 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).
                                                                            A-3602-21
                                        9
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

                                                                          A-3602-21
                                      10
"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.

                                                                           A-3602-21
                                     11
      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."

                                                                             A-3602-21
                                       12
      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

                                                                           A-3602-21
                                      13
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

                                                                          A-3602-21
                                      14
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:

                                                                             A-3602-21
                                       15
            (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

                                                                             A-3602-21
                                       16
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 quasi-
            criminal 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

                                                                         A-3602-21
                                       17
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

                                                                           A-3602-21
                                       18
"tentative thoughts, suggestions, and questions are part and parcel of the Board's

overall deliberative process."

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-3602-21
                                       19