## Facts

- William J. Kennedy was elected to the Sea Isle City Board of Education in 2001 and later resigned in June 2003.
- Immediately after resigning, Kennedy and his wife sought a special-education due-process hearing against the Board alleging their son’s IEP violated the IDEA; the dispute settled in April 2004.
- Kennedy was re-elected in April 2004, became Board president, and in March 2005 (while serving) filed a due-process petition and an emergent application claiming the Board materially breached the 2004 settlement.
- The 2005 filings sought enforcement of the settlement, educational services for the child, reimbursement for services provided by Mrs. Kennedy, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Kennedy stated he would recuse himself from Board matters involving his son and the district’s handling of those matters.
- The Board sought a declaratory ruling from the Commissioner of Education that Kennedy’s petitions created a disqualifying conflict of interest requiring removal under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2.

## Issues

1. Whether a sitting school board member’s pursuit of special-education due-process claims (including monetary relief) against the member’s own board constitutes a disqualifying “interest in a claim” under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 requiring removal.
2. Whether, and how, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 must be read together with the School Ethics Act self-representation exemption, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(j).
3. Whether recusal and the nature of the special-education dispute can prevent a finding that continued board service is incompatible with public duty.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and the State Board of Education.
- The Court held that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(j) must be harmonized and are not in irreconcilable conflict.
- The Court rejected a per se rule that any special-education dispute or due-process filing by a board member against the board automatically requires removal.
- Applying a case-specific analysis, the Court concluded Kennedy’s filings, coupled with his recusal from matters involving his child, did not mandate removal under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes addressing the same subject should be construed to avoid implied repeal and to give effect to both when possible.
- N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2’s disqualification for an “interest in a claim against the board” is not automatic in every parent–district dispute; the inquiry is whether the circumstances make continued service incompatible with public duty.
- The School Ethics Act exemption, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(j), permits school officials and immediate family members to represent themselves in proceedings concerning their own interests and must be given practical effect.
- In special-education disputes, the presence of reimbursement or fee demands does not alone establish a disqualifying conflict; context matters, including the claim’s character and the official’s recusal practices.
- Parents of special-education students are not categorically barred from board service merely because they pursue IDEA-related rights against their district.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a board member’s special-education due-process filings against the board do not, without more, create a disqualifying “interest in a claim” requiring removal; the disqualification statute must be read consistently with the School Ethics Act’s self-representation exemption and applied through a fact-specific conflict analysis that accounts for recusal and the nature of the dispute.


Bd. of Educ. of the City of Sea Isle City v. Kennedy, 196 N.J. 1 (2008)