Dr. Marc Gaswirth, a retired public school administrator, has written extensively for more than 40 years about public sector bargaining and school human resources.

Only political insiders know how misleading and deceitful their actions can be, not that that necessarily bothers them or changes their behavior. 

They keep a largely apathetic public in the dark, unaware that critical decisions are being made behind closed doors, which are hidden from an unengaged and uninformed electorate and which are largely free from inquiry from a diminished statewide media that should be shining a bright light on these actions. 

A case in point: 

For some unknown and baffling reason, Governor Murphy avoided until recently making appointments to the New Jersey State Board of Education (SBOE) even though he has been in office more than six years. This has allowed holdover appointees from previous administrations, including many selected by former Governor Christie, to continue to serve after their terms have long expired.

A strong message in recent months from the president of the New Jersey Education Association, the governor’s most prominent education ally, roundly criticized the current board and probably prompted Murphy’s decision to change the appointed body’s composition. 

Given its prior influence over the governor’s actions, the state union, unsurprisingly, probably vetted and approved the governor’s state board nominees before their names were even submitted for approval. 

In apparent response, the governor has been busy discharging his constitutional duty to appoint new members to the state board, which promulgates education policy for the state’s education department and to which, significantly, the education commissioner reports. Several new members have already been sworn in, and others will soon follow in the months ahead.

Since the Democrats overwhelmingly control the state legislature, expect the upper house—the state Senate—to routinely approve these appointees especially when the governor himself is a member of the same political party.

Requirements to serve on the state board are uncomplicated. Individuals must be citizens of the state and reside in it for at least five years immediately preceding their appointment. The 13-member board must have no fewer than three women, and no more than one individual from any one county may serve on the board, ensuring that at least a majority of the state’s counties are represented. 

Individuals nominated by the governor are expected to share the state’s chief executive’s education policy and priorities and act accordingly. 

Perhaps, that may explain why in the past year the legislature and governor, not the SBOE, have been so active enacting a series of laws seeking to address the teacher shortage, a responsibility normally tasked to the SBOE.

There may be a plausible explanation why the governor, in the twilight of his second term and with less than two years remaining in office, has now been announcing his picks to serve on the board—to ensure that his education legacy through the SDOE decisions will be preserved beyond the end of his administration into the next decade

The math involved is simple. Since recent and most future SBOE nominees will be serving a prescribed six-year term, his appointees will still be serving at least four years after the governor leaves Trenton. 

The math is also troubling for several reasons and may have unforeseen consequences. First, a new governor will have no opportunity to make any SBOE appointment unless any sitting member resigns. Second, SBOE members appointed by the current governor may have limited or no loyalty to a future governor—Democrat or Republican—or his/her education agenda. Third, a reconstituted SBOE can block reforms advocated by a new governor taking office in less than two years, frustrating the voters’ desire to see changes in education priorities. Finally, even though education commissioners are also gubernatorial appointees, future ones selected by a different chief executive perhaps of a different political party will still be reporting to, and held accountable by, a political body selected by the current governor, creating the potential for future tension and conflict between the department’s chief administrator and its policy-making body. 

In today’s heated political environment, this is yet another example of the nature of this state‘s politics and the way one administration can protect its prerogatives even after it has left office.   

Voters choosing a new governor next year who are upset with the current direction of education policy and who wish to see parts or much of it altered may have to wait beyond the next governor’s term to see any significant changes made. Through his actions, Murphy may have frozen in place the current education policy environment, for better or worse, for the next six years.