We are thankful to see the New York Times confirm what Sunlight has been saying for a long time: NJEA leadership plans to spend $35 million of teachers’ mandatory, annual dues on a”blank check” for NJEA President Sean Spiller’s run for governor.  Yet NJEA leadership continues to hide this fact from the very teachers whose regular dues are being spent.  Isn’t it time NJEA leadership told teachers the truth?  

In addition, Spiller dodges a question about his conflict of interest, while NJEA spokesman Steve Baker fails to clarify how Spiller’s conflict of interest was avoided.  

The Times article makes several salient points, all of which confirm what Sunlight has reported:

• The NJEA-run, “Spiller for Governor” Super PAC Working New Jersey plans to spend an unprecedented $35 million of teachers’ regular, annual dues backing Spiller.
• Spiller has only raised $183,000 compared to $1 – 3 million for the other Democratic candidates.  As a result, Spiller failed to qualify for matching funds or the two upcoming gubernatorial debates.
• Spiller has no paid campaign manager and his spokesman works for a consulting firm in Washington, DC.
• Spiller does have “a $35 million blank check from a group [Working New Jersey] with close ties to the labor union he leads.”
• Working New Jersey is “a Super PAC funded largely with public schoolteachers’ union dues” via “a political arm of the teachers’ union” [the NJEA’s Super PAC Garden State Forward] that has already sent “at least $17.25 million to Working New Jersey.”
• Leading up to the deadline for matching funds, Spiller’s fundraising appeals “took on an urgent tone:” I’ll be honest with you, we’re not where we need to be.”
• Should he lose, Spiller is “likely to face questions about the wisdom of investing teachers’ dues so heavily” in Spiller’s run.
• In an interview, Spiller “refused to directly address questions about whether he considered it a conflict of interest that he was benefiting so significantly from dues.”
• NJEA spokesman Steve Baker claimed that the NJEA has put in “guardrails and protections” to “ensure that there was not a conflict of interest.” Further, he claimed that Spiller “had no role” in [Garden State Forward] sending “millions to Working New Jersey.”

With regard to Spiller’s conflict of interest, Sunlight’s recent report shows that Spiller has violated the plain language of the NJEA’s conflict of interest policy. Baker claims that the NJEA has guardrails and protections against such a conflict, but he does not say what that are.  Likewise, Baker claims that Spiller had no role in the decision to send millions of dues to Working New Jersey, but does not explain who did make that decision.  If the decision was made by a committee of elected delegates, which would indeed obviate a claim of a conflict, why didn’t Baker say so? And why should anyone, let alone teachers, simply take Baker’s word?

Moreover, it looks as if Baker and the NJEA can’t get their story straight.  After speaking with Spiller, the Star-Ledger concluded that the decisions about funding Spiller’s run were made “behind the scenes by three top executives — one of whom is Spiller himself,” in which case Spiller had a direct role in the decisions.  So which is it, Mr. Baker?

The Star-Ledger described the decision-making process as “completely opaque,” and sadly the Times wasn’t able to make it any clearer. We do know that Spiller dodged the conflict of interest question, and we do know that Baker has not explained who actually made the decisions. Sunlight will stand by our research unless and until NJEA leadership details precisely how these decisions were made.  If it’s all above board and there are no conflicts, then why the continued obfuscation?