Orlando Mercado vs Keith Gibbons
In March of 2025, a formal ethics complaint was filed against me with the New Jersey School Ethics Commission. It was filed by Orlando Mercado, the sitting President of Gloucester Township Council and, separately, the Human Resources Supervisor for the Gloucester Township Public School District. I, Keith Gibbons, am a Board Member of this same school district.
Last month, the School Ethics Commission issued its final decision.
The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
One count was thrown out as untimely. The remaining allegations failed because there were insufficient facts to lead any reasonable person to believe the School Ethics Act had been violated. C25-25 SEC Decision on PC
This Was Never a Private Dispute
This was not a disagreement handled between private citizens. This was not a lawsuit where one party chose to spend their own money to pursue a claim. Every step of this process was paid for by the public.
The attorneys involved.
The Commission staff.
The time spent reviewing filings, scheduling hearings, issuing decisions.
None of it was free. None of it was abstract.
The taxpaying public paid for all of it. Orlando Mercado knows that.
As a longtime elected official, he understands exactly how these processes are funded. He understands that filing an ethics complaint does not come out of his pocket. It comes out of yours, the taxpayers.
This matters, because it removes any pretense that the complaint was costless or symbolic. It was a deliberate decision to trigger a taxpayer-funded enforcement process in response to criticism of him as Council President that he did not like.
A Complaint That Failed — but Didn’t Disappear
At least one additional ethics allegation by someone other than Mercado, but closely tied to the same circles, still not ruled upon, has already been treated in public discourse as if it were a finding rather than an accusation. That unresolved matter had been repeatedly referenced as proof of misconduct, rather than what it actually was/is: an open process with no determination.
Although the Commission dismissed the case, and while I can’t prove the connection, the complaint itself took on a second life.
This is how reputations are damaged without ever proving anything.
File first.
Amplify later.
Let the process itself do the work.
Who Filed the Complaint, and Why the Context Cannot Be Ignored
The complaint was filed by a public actor who has held office for more than two decades. It was not filed by someone unfamiliar with public scrutiny. It was filed by someone who routinely votes on budgets, contracts, and legal expenditures.
It was also filed by someone who occupies two public roles at once. President of the Township Council. Human Resources Supervisor for the school district.
The speech he objected to concerned his conduct as Council President. Public meetings. Public behavior. Public controversy. None of it involved confidential school matters. None of it involved school board deliberations. None of it involved internal personnel records.
The only reason the School Ethics Act was invoked at all is because he also works for the school district.
That employment relationship, in my opinion, was used as leverage to pull municipal political speech into a school ethics forum, at public expense.
What He Claimed, Reduced to Its Essentials
The complaint focused on two podcast episodes.
One involved criticism of how council meetings are run, including Mr. Mercado’s practice of demanding residents provide their home addresses before he would respond to them. The word “creepy” was used by the co-host, not myself. That was presented as an ethics violation.
The second involved an explanation for why he skipped a council meeting to attend a school board meeting where employee contracts were on the agenda. That explanation was framed as disclosing confidential information and undermining his role as a school employee. Note that under the law, agendas must be posted publicly before a meeting even takes place.
That second allegation was filed nearly ten months after the podcast aired.
The School Ethics Commission has a 180-day filing deadline for a reason. This complaint missed it by a wide margin. The Commission dismissed that count outright as untimely. Not only that, the Commission took the extra time and effort to make sure it clearly noted it had every right to override that statute of limitations should the complaint be an actual offense. C25-25 SEC Decision on PC
That delay alone should have ended the matter early. It did not.
What the Commission Actually Found
The Commission’s decision is clear and unsparing.
It found no evidence that I surrendered my independent judgment to any political group.
No evidence that I used the schools for personal gain.
No evidence that I disclosed confidential information.
No evidence that I undermined school personnel in the performance of their duties.
It explicitly recognized that school board members are entitled to personal political views, and that expressing opinion about a public official does not become unethical simply because that official finds it offensive. Having a position in a school does not shield a public actor from being publicly criticized.
The Commission concluded that no reasonable person could believe the School Ethics Act was violated based on the facts presented. C25-25 SEC Decision on PC
That is not rhetoric. That is the governing body’s finding. There was no probable cause.
The Real Cost of This Complaint
Even though the complaint failed, the public still paid for it.
Taxpayer-funded attorneys reviewed it.
Taxpayer-funded staff processed it.
Taxpayer-funded commissioners deliberated it.
All of that occurred because one public official, Orlando Mercado, chose to respond to criticism by invoking an ethics enforcement mechanism instead of engaging with or ignoring commentary he disliked.
The Commission declined to label the complaint frivolous. That is its discretion, and I respect the ruling.
But let’s be honest about what this was.
In my opinion, this was an attempt to use a taxpayer-funded ethics process as a pressure tool against speech protected by the First Amendment. It did not succeed, but it consumed public resources anyway.
That should trouble anyone who believes ethics laws exist to protect the public, not to insulate public officials from criticism.
Why This Is Being Published
I am publishing this because sunlight matters, and because the public deserves to know how their money is used when elected officials decide to pursue personal grievances through public enforcement systems.
The complaint failed on the law.
It failed on timing.
It failed on facts.
What it did not fail to do was cost taxpayers time and money.
This deserves to be on the record for the public.
Primary Documents
Click to Read:
Original School Ethics Complaint, filed by Orlando Mercado March 2025
Respondent’s (Keith’s) Written Statement and defenses, filed May 2025
Complainant’s (Orlando’s) reply to the allegation of frivolous filing, filed June 2025
Final Decision of the School Ethics Commission dismissing the complaint, December 16, 2025