Education
NJ Upholds Censure of Pamela Stanley and Five Other BOE Members
New Jersey's education commissioner affirmed ethics findings and censured Pamela Stanley and five other Berkeley Heights board members over their use of board counsel for a complaint against another member.
The New Jersey Commissioner of Education has upheld ethics findings and a public censure against Pamela Stanley and five other members of the Berkeley Heights Board of Education over their handling of a 2022 ethics complaint against another board member.
The 16-page final decision, issued July 22, 2026, affirms the School Ethics Commission's findings against Stanley, Robert Cianciulli, Jordan Hyman, Angela Penna, Michael D'Aquila, and Joy Young. The underlying matters were three consolidated cases identified as School Ethics Commission docket numbers C64-22, C77-22, and C92-22.
What the commissioner decided
The Commissioner found that the School Ethics Commission's decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
The decision upheld findings that Stanley violated three provisions of the School Ethics Act when she participated in votes that gave her taxpayer-funded legal representation for an ethics complaint filed in her name:
- She used her official position to secure an unwarranted privilege.
- She acted in her official capacity on matters in which she had a direct financial involvement.
- She used her public office to secure financial gain in the form of free legal representation.
The Commissioner also upheld findings that all six board members violated three provisions of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members. The decision says they acted beyond the board's policy-making role, took action that had the potential to compromise the board, and used the schools to obtain a benefit for themselves or Stanley. A separate allegation under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) was not sustained.
The conduct at issue
The case arose after the board voted in June 2022 to authorize Stanley to file an ethics complaint against fellow board member Sai Bhargavi Akiri and to have the board's attorney draft and pursue the charges. Stanley also voted against a motion that would have required her to obtain separate counsel.
The board members argued that Stanley was acting as the board's designated representative and that any benefit belonged to the board as a whole. The Commissioner rejected that position.
Under the School Ethics Act, only a "person" may file an ethics complaint. A board of education is not a person under the governing regulation. The Commissioner therefore agreed with the School Ethics Commission that the complaint belonged to Stanley individually, regardless of the board's vote authorizing her to file it.
The decision says Stanley had a direct financial interest in both votes because board counsel would represent her without charge. It concludes that she received a benefit available only because of her board position and that a reasonable member of the public would perceive a conflict of interest.
Why the penalty is censure
An administrative law judge initially recommended a reprimand in November 2024. In February 2025, the School Ethics Commission adopted the legal conclusions but increased the recommended sanction to censure. The Commissioner has now affirmed that more serious penalty.
The board members argued that they relied on advice of counsel. The Commissioner found that the record did not establish that they sought legal advice before the votes or made the full disclosure required for that defense. The decision also says censure would remain appropriate even if advice had been sought because the conduct was public and involved using board counsel in a complaint against another elected board member.
The Commissioner specifically pointed to Stanley's failure to recuse herself from matters in which she had a direct financial interest. The decision concludes that she "used public funds in furtherance of private means."
What happens next
Censure is a formal public sanction. This decision does not itself remove any board member from office, impose a fine, or order repayment of legal fees.
The decision is the final action of the Commissioner of Education. It may be appealed to the Appellate Division of Superior Court within 45 days of its July 22 mailing date.