Clearing the Air: Facts Matter More Than Political Narratives and Insinuation in Local Education Debates

Initial note: Patch automatically gives me the byline description "neighbor." I do not live in Fair Lawn but reserve my right here to address the attacks against me by members of your community. ____________

Recently, public comments were made on a Fair Lawn social media page and during the public comment period at a Fair Lawn Board of Education meeting by a recently failed candidate for the board. The social medial posts and the public comment have repeated a series of claims about me, Michael Gottesman, and the New Jersey Public Education Coalition that I founded. These claims range from misunderstandings about organizational structure to broader insinuations about intent, transparency, and advocacy practices.

This response is intended to clarify the record using facts—not speculation.

1. “Dark money” and financial misrepresentation - No “dark money”—just transparent, traceable activity

The claim that the Coalition is funded by “dark money” is not supported by evidence.

Here are the facts:

• The Coalition received a one-time, limited contribution from an individual associated with the founder of the Education Truth Project to help build a website during a period when no funds existed.
• An ActBlue account was used solely as a conduit for small-dollar donations from individual contributors.
• There is no evidence of anonymous institutional funding, hidden PAC structures, or undisclosed major donors.
• Any allegations that the Coalition is being funded by dark money from organizations like the New Jersey Education Association is a lie with absolutely no factual basis, despite the accusations of a right wing organization, the Sunlight Policy Center of New Jersey. In fact, when the conversation started with Sunlight, the Coalition issued a challenge: “We’ll show you our books, you show us yours.” The response was silence and then excuses.

The term “dark money” has a specific meaning in campaign finance law. Applying it to transparent, traceable small-donor activity is inaccurate and misleading.

2. Organizational structure and transparency

The Coalition’s structure has been clearly stated:

• The New Jersey Public Education Coalition is an LLC with no nonprofit or tax-exempt status.
• A second entity, the New Jersey Public Education Coalition 2025, has been formed and is in the process of applying for nonprofit and federal tax-exempt status.
• That second entity has received no funding whatsoever.

This is not hidden or unusual. Many advocacy efforts begin as LLCs or informal entities before transitioning into nonprofit structures. The key point is that the structure has been disclosed when asked.

3. “Like-minded candidate list” and alleged “infiltration” - The “like-minded candidate list” is being mischaracterized

Another claim is that the Coalition’s “like-minded candidate list” was designed to “infiltrate” school boards or influence elections in a non-transparent manner.

This is incorrect.

What the list actually is:

• A standardized set of education policy questions is sent to all Board of Education candidates statewide during election cycles.
• Candidates who choose to respond are evaluated based on their answers and if they are in alignment with the policies of the coalition and the goals of the coalition, they are added to the like-minded list. If they are not, nothing is set at all about them or their candidacy.
• This is not an endorsement list, nor a voter guide disguised as one. This is a list designed to provide information to members of the general public who may not be able to find that information very easily or, candidates may not be so forthcoming with their actual policy positions.
• This list is designed to give candidates the opportunity to be transparent about their public education positions.

Why the full list is not always published:

The Coalition has chosen not to publicly publish the entire dataset for several reasons:

• Some candidates have expressed concern that association with any advocacy organization—regardless of ideology—may lead to political backlash or community tension.
• In recent years, candidates across New Jersey have reported experiences of harassment, intimidation, and targeted online attacks associated with education politics.
• To reduce unnecessary escalation, the Coalition provides information upon request to any resident who asks.

At all times, any member of the public can contact the Coalition directly to request candidate responses.

That is transparency in practice—not secrecy.

4. Allegations about candidate outreach- Outreach to candidates is not misconduct—it is civic engagement

The Fair Lawn Board of Education candidate (unsuccessful in the most recent election cycle) who has been posting comments on Fair Lawn Facebook pages and who spoke up at the public meeting has raised concerns that she was contacted via Facebook Messenger and not by email, suggesting improper conduct.

The facts are straightforward:

• We reached out to every candidate for school board in the state of New Jersey based upon the email addresses they placed on their petitions, so this candidate should have received our email.
• Residents in the community had expressed interest in understanding her positions on education policy So we used an alternative method to contact her since email apparently didn’t work.
• The outreach consisted of standard questions regarding publicly relevant school policy positions.

There is nothing improper about an advocacy organization—or any citizen—asking a candidate for public office where they stand on issues that directly affect the community.

In fact, this is a normal and widely accepted part of civic participation.

Importantly:

• The candidate was not included in the “like-minded” list because she did not respond to the questionnaire, not for any other reason.
• The process applies uniformly to all candidates.

Framing routine civic outreach as misconduct misrepresents how local democracy functions.

5. Allegations of non-transparency

The claim that the Coalition is non-transparent rests on selective interpretation of publicly available information.

In reality:

• Organizational structure has been disclosed when asked.
• Funding sources are limited and traceable.
• Candidate questionnaires are open to all candidates statewide.
• Information is provided upon request.

Transparency does not require publishing every dataset in every format at all times; it requires accessibility—and that standard has been met.

6. A note on timing and motivation

It is also worth noting that the unelected candidate referenced did not raise these concerns during the election cycle but did so months later in public forums and online posts.

While post-election reflection is normal, it is important that public accusations be grounded in evidence rather than frustration over electoral outcomes.

7. Conclusion: disagreement should not become distortion

Local school governance is too important to be clouded by mischaracterizations or insinuations.

If there are concerns, they should be grounded in facts. So far, what’s been presented are assumptions and insinuations—not evidence. We remain committed to transparency and to advocating for New Jersey’s public schools in the open, not in the shadows.”

There are real debates to be had about education policy, funding, and governance in New Jersey. But those debates are best served by accuracy, transparency, and good faith—not by labeling routine civic activity as conspiracy or misconduct.

We remain open to dialogue, open to scrutiny, and committed to engaging publicly on the issues that matter most to families and students in New Jersey.

A Final Note:

I entirely expect this non-elected candidate to try and further engage with me via comments to this post as she apparently claimed that she lost the election based upon the like-minded list created by my organization. The facts are, the policy questions email was sent to her, as it was to every school board candidate using the email indicated on their petitions for election. We received no response to her

We then were asked by members of the Fair Lawn community if we could find out more information about her public education policies. So we reached out to her via private message on Facebook. We heard absolutely nothing back from her.

As a result she was not listed on the like-minded list and it was explained to Fair Lawn residents who reached out to us directly that this was the case because she never answered the question and therefore, we had no information.

Now, some nearly five months later, it appears that she is attempting to scapegoat her loss on me and the New Jersey Public Education Coalition. Nothing could be further than the truth because we never said anything at all about her policies to anyone at all.