New York City Superintendent Josephine Van-Ess was fined $5,000 after an ethics finding determined that a company co-owned by her husband received purchase orders from schools within districts she supervised.
Editorial Note
This article examines an enforcement action by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board and related reporting about New York City Public Schools contracts.
The official finding establishes a conflict-of-interest violation and a civil fine. It does not establish that Josephine Van-Ess committed bribery, fraud, theft or another criminal offense. The article also distinguishes the amount involved in the confirmed violation from the company’s broader reported business with New York City schools.
What Happened?
A New York City public-school superintendent has been fined after a company connected to her family received work from schools within districts covered by an ethics restriction.
Josephine Van-Ess, superintendent of Queens South high schools, was fined $5,000 by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.
The Board determined that Excellence in Every Thread, a company co-owned by Van-Ess’s husband, received purchase orders totaling $32,525.16 from three New York City public schools in districts 27 and 28 during 2024.
Those districts were within Van-Ess’s supervisory area and were specifically covered by restrictions imposed when she was previously permitted to retain a financial interest connected to the company.
The finding raises broader questions about school contracting, ethics enforcement and whether purchasing systems are sufficiently designed to prevent prohibited transactions involving senior officials.
The Company and Van-Ess’s Financial Interest
Excellence in Every Thread has provided mentoring and personal-development programming to New York City schools, including services associated with a program known as The Modern Day Man.
Van-Ess’s husband reportedly owns 50 percent of the company.
Under New York City conflict-of-interest rules, certain financial interests held by a public employee’s spouse may also be attributed, or imputed, to the employee. The city therefore treated Van-Ess as having an ownership interest in the company.
Having that financial interest was not, by itself, the violation.
The central issue was that the company obtained business from schools in districts where it had been prohibited from operating because of Van-Ess’s official responsibilities.
The Earlier Ethics Waiver Had Clear Restrictions
In 2023, the Conflicts of Interest Board allowed Van-Ess to retain her imputed ownership interest in the company, but the approval included specific conditions.
Van-Ess was required to remain separated from company activities and from Department of Education decisions involving the business.
The company was also prohibited from soliciting or conducting business with schools in districts 27, 28 and 29. Those districts fell within the geographical area connected to Van-Ess’s supervisory authority.
The waiver was therefore not unrestricted permission for the business to operate throughout the school system.
It allowed Van-Ess to retain the financial interest while creating boundaries intended to separate her public authority from the company’s private business.
The Board later determined that Excellence in Every Thread obtained purchase orders from three schools in districts 27 and 28 despite those restrictions.
Understanding the $32,525 and $1.53 Million Figures
Two different financial figures have appeared in coverage of the case, and they should not be confused.
The $32,525.16 figure represents purchase orders obtained from three schools in districts 27 and 28 during 2024. Those transactions formed the basis of the ethics violation described by the Conflicts of Interest Board.
Separate reporting based on public contracting records says Excellence in Every Thread and its related programming received approximately $1.53 million in total business from New York City schools beginning in 2023.
The larger figure reportedly includes work across the broader school system.
The ethics finding did not declare that all $1.53 million was improperly awarded. It focused on the company doing business with schools in districts covered by the restrictions placed on Van-Ess.
Presenting the entire amount as illegal, fraudulent or part of the confirmed violation would go beyond the available finding.
Why the Conflict Matters
A superintendent holds significant authority within a public-school system.
Superintendents supervise school leaders, communicate district priorities, evaluate administrators and influence how initiatives and outside programs are perceived within the schools they oversee.
Even when a superintendent does not personally approve a purchase order, a family-connected company operating within that superintendent’s territory can create concerns about influence and impartiality.
A principal may reasonably wonder whether accepting or rejecting the company’s services could affect the principal’s relationship with the superintendent. Other employees may assume that the business has the support of district leadership because of the family connection.
Conflict-of-interest rules are intended to address those risks before officials are required to prove that direct pressure or favoritism occurred.
Public confidence depends not only on whether a contract provides a useful service, but also on whether the vendor was selected through a fair and independent process.
This Was an Ethics Finding, Not a Criminal Conviction
The public action against Van-Ess was a civil ethics-enforcement matter.
The Conflicts of Interest Board found that restrictions connected to her financial interest had been violated and imposed a $5,000 fine.
The finding does not, by itself, establish bribery, fraud, theft or another criminal offense. No criminal conviction was identified in the publicly reported enforcement action.
That distinction does not make the violation insignificant.
Ethics rules are designed to prevent public officials from entering situations where private financial interests overlap with public responsibilities, even when there is no proven exchange of favors or intentional theft of public money.
The confirmed issue is that a family-connected business received school purchase orders in districts where it had been expressly prohibited from doing business.
Was the $5,000 Fine Sufficient?
The size of the fine has become one of the central questions surrounding the case.
Critics cited in news reporting argued that a $5,000 penalty was too small given Van-Ess’s senior position and the amount of business the company reportedly conducted with the school system.
Those statements represent criticism and opinion. They are not additional findings by the Conflicts of Interest Board.
Still, the criticism raises a legitimate policy question: How large must a penalty be to discourage senior officials from violating conditions attached to an ethics waiver?
A civil fine does not necessarily need to equal the value of the contracts involved. However, it should be substantial enough to demonstrate that violating conflict-of-interest restrictions carries meaningful consequences.
The effectiveness of the penalty will also depend on whether New York City Public Schools takes additional administrative or contracting action.
Questions Remain About the School System’s Response
New York City Public Schools said it had reviewed the Board’s findings and was taking appropriate steps to ensure continued compliance with ethics requirements.
The school system did not publicly identify the three schools involved in the restricted purchase orders. It also did not clearly state whether Excellence in Every Thread would continue receiving work from other New York City schools.
Two questions remain especially important.
First, were the schools that issued the purchase orders aware that the company was prohibited from conducting business within their districts?
Second, what controls will be introduced to prevent a restricted vendor from receiving another purchase order?
Answering those questions would help determine whether the violation resulted from an individual failure to follow the waiver or from a broader weakness in the school system’s purchasing controls.
What School Districts Can Learn
School districts should treat conflicts of interest as an ongoing compliance responsibility rather than a disclosure completed once and placed in an employee file.
When an administrator has a financial connection to a vendor, the district should document where that company may operate, who may approve its services and which officials must remain outside the selection process.
Schools and purchasing employees should also receive clear notice of vendor restrictions. Principals cannot be expected to follow a restriction they have never been told exists.
Technology should provide another level of protection.
If a vendor is prohibited from working in particular districts, the purchasing system should automatically flag or block orders submitted by schools in those locations. The restriction should not depend solely on employees remembering the conditions of an individual ethics waiver.
Districts should also periodically review contracts involving companies connected to senior officials, even when those companies are permitted to perform work elsewhere in the system.
A waiver has little value when its restrictions are not monitored.
New To Education Analysis
The value of the company’s mentoring program is not the central issue.
A service may provide benefits to students and still be obtained through a process that creates an unacceptable conflict of interest.
Educational leaders regularly emphasize integrity, accountability and compliance with established procedures. Those expectations must apply most strongly to officials who hold the greatest authority.
Van-Ess had already received permission to retain the financial interest connected to the company. That permission came with clear boundaries intended to protect the independence of school contracting decisions.
The company’s later receipt of purchase orders from schools within the restricted districts demonstrates why ethics waivers require active enforcement rather than reliance on trust alone.
New York City Public Schools should explain how the purchase orders were approved, whether the schools knew about the restrictions and what purchasing safeguards will be implemented.
Without those answers, the public has confirmation that a violation occurred but only a limited explanation of how the system allowed it to happen.
Key Takeaways
New York City Superintendent Josephine Van-Ess was fined $5,000 after the Conflicts of Interest Board found that restrictions connected to a family business had been violated.
Excellence in Every Thread received purchase orders totaling $32,525.16 from three schools in districts 27 and 28 during 2024.
The company had been prohibited from doing business with schools in districts 27, 28 and 29 because those districts were connected to Van-Ess’s supervisory authority.
Separate reporting says the company and its related programming received approximately $1.53 million in broader New York City school business. The ethics finding did not declare that entire amount improper.
The enforcement action was a civil ethics matter, not a criminal conviction.
The case highlights the need for stronger purchasing controls, clear disclosure procedures and consistent accountability for senior education officials.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Josephine Van-Ess?
Josephine Van-Ess is the superintendent responsible for Queens South high schools within New York City Public Schools.
What company was involved?
The company was Excellence in Every Thread, which has provided mentoring and personal-development programming to schools. Van-Ess’s husband reportedly owns 50 percent of the company.
How much business was involved in the violation?
The ethics finding identified $32,525.16 in purchase orders from three schools located in districts where the company was prohibited from operating.
Why are reports also mentioning $1.53 million?
Public-record reporting says the company and its related programming received approximately $1.53 million in total business from New York City schools. The larger amount includes work outside the three purchase orders identified in the ethics finding.
What penalty was imposed?
The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board imposed a $5,000 fine.
Was Van-Ess convicted of a crime?
No criminal conviction was identified in the enforcement action. The matter involved a civil conflict-of-interest finding.
Was the company prohibited from working with every NYC school?
No. The restrictions specifically prohibited the company from soliciting or conducting business with schools in districts 27, 28 and 29.
Final Thoughts
Public education leaders are entrusted with authority over employees, programs and taxpayer money.
That authority carries a responsibility to ensure that personal and family financial interests remain separate from official duties.
The ethics finding confirms that the restrictions established in this case were violated. The remaining question is whether the $5,000 fine and the school system’s response will be sufficient to prevent similar conduct.
Accountability requires more than identifying a violation after public money has already been committed.
It requires transparent contracting procedures and purchasing controls capable of preventing prohibited transactions before they occur.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, school leadership, public accountability and policies affecting students, educators and communities.
Readers can support this work by sharing the article, subscribing to New To Education updates, joining the community, exploring our educational and professional services or using the support options available through the website.
Learn more about New To Education
Related Articles
NYC Council Threatens Subpoena Over Nearly $13 Billion in Education Contracts
NYC Teacher Says Administrators Changed a Student’s Failing Grade and Retaliated When She Objected
Sources
New York City Conflicts of Interest Board — Enforcement Dispositions and Fines
New York City Conflicts of Interest Board — Decisions and Fines
New York City Public Schools — District Leadership
