On January 31, 2023 the School Ethics Commission denied Pamela Stanley’s Motion to Dismiss allegations of ethical violations against her stemming from her use of the District’s attorney to file a complaint against a fellow BOE Member.
The Commission found 7 of the 8 allegations against Pamela to be substantial.
Additionally, the Commission adopted a decision finding the Complaint against Pamela to be “not frivolous” and denied her request for sanctions against the parent who filed the Complaint.
The Complaint against Pamela alleges that, in her official capacity as a Board member, specifically her actions and role in filing an ethics complaint against a fellow Board member while using district resources and funds, was unethical.
The substantial Complaint against Pamela, asserts the following;
She demanded/voted to have the Board pay for her legal expenses, but also voted against a motion to strike the clause that included the Board pay off for her expenses for her PERSONAL filing of the ethics compliant;
She had a direct and indirect financial gain that clearly would impair her objectivity and independence of judgment when she acted in her official capacity to create the benefit of having her legal bills paid by the Board;
She used her public office to secure financial gain not generally available to members of the public, by demanding and then voting on the Board funding her personal filing of ethics charges;
Because she represented herself in filing an ethics complaint against another Board member and did not confine her official actions as a Board member to policy making, planning and appraisal when she used Board resources to write up and fund and ethics complaint against another Board member;
Because her private action of filing an ethics complaint against another Board member compromises the Board because she used her position as a Board member for personal gain by demanding and voting on having the Board fund an ethics complaint;
Normal residents who want to file an ethics complaint would have to utilize their own personal funds;
She did not confine her official actions as a Board member to policy making, planning, and appraisal when she disobeyed the Board President and continued to read personal attacks on other Board members and concerned parents.
In response, Pamela requested a fine be levied against the parent filing the complaint to offset the costs of this Complaint being defended by district attorney. This request was denied.
The following ethical codes have been supported by the Commission regarding the significant allegations against Pamela;
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 (b). No school official shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges, advantages or employment for himself, members of his immediate family or others;
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 (c). No school official shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment. No school official shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he or a member of his immediate family has a personal involvement that is or creates some benefit to the school official or member of his immediate family;
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 (e). No school official, or member of his immediate family, or business organization in which he has an interest, shall solicit or accept any gift, favor, loan, political contribution, service, promise of future employment, or other thing of value based upon an understanding that the gift, favor, loan, contribution, service, promise, or other thing of value was given or offered for the purpose of influencing him, directly or indirectly, in the discharge of his official duties. This provision shall not apply to the solicitation or acceptance of contributions to the campaign of an announced candidate for elective public office, if the school official has no knowledge or reason to believe that the campaign contribution, if accepted, was given with the intent to influence the school official in the discharge of his official duties;
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24 (f). No school official shall use, or allow to be used, his public office or employment, or any information, not generally available to the members of the public, which he receives or acquires in the course of and by reason of his office or employment, for the purpose of securing financial gain for himself, any member of his immediate family, or any business organization with which he is associated.
With this latest substantiated claim, the pile of substantiated ethics violations against currently serving Board members is now at 4 cases. When you include the Nepotism investigation against the Superintendent, that’s 5. Add to this the OPRA lawsuits the District has settled on or are underway, you are left with one compelling question:
Where is the accountability?
Decision:
Related Articles:
DR. VARLEY’S NEPOTISM SETTLEMENT AND CONCERNING QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD ATTORNEY
DR. VARLEY’S NEPOTISM INVESTIGATION
DR. VARLEY’S LEGAL TEAM TRIES TO PREVENT RESIDENT FROM ATTENDING HEARING ON NEPOTISM ALLEGATION
2 thoughts on “Pamela Stanley, Ethics and the Gift that Keeps on Giving”