Alloway school board member Gale Nazarene in a new lawsuit says state policy improperly bars her from commenting on matters of public concern. (Photo courtesy of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression)
By Nikita Biryukov
Reprinted with permission
New Jersey State Monitor
An Alloway school board member sued state Education Commissioner Kevin Dehmer and members of the School Ethics Commission, alleging they impermissibly limited her freedom of speech by interpreting a state ethics law to bar board members from discussing school matters with their constituents.
Gail Nazarene filed the lawsuit after another member of the Salem County township’s school board filed an ethics complaint over Nazarene’s Facebook posts that asked constituents’ opinions on school tax increases. The complaint alleged the posts had created confusion and concern among the public, and had “conveyed the impression that Ms. Nazarene was speaking on behalf of the Board without authorization.”
“I didn’t join the school board to be told to shut up,” Nazarene said in a statement. “New Jersey officials claim the authority to punish me simply for asking folks questions about important issues, particularly when it affects their wallets. I should be free to communicate with constituents and get their views without being censored by state officials.”
Voters first elected Nazarene to the Alloway school board in November 2024 for a term that ends in 2027.
The root of the dispute lies in the School Ethics Commission’s interpretation of the School Ethics Act. That law bars school board members from making promises on a school board’s behalf, requires that they keep confidential information private, and forces them to avoid conflicts of interest, among other things.
One of Gail Nazarene's Facebook posts.The law’s text does not explicitly bar individual school board members from discussing school matters with their constituents, but a 2022 advisory opinion issued by the commission says school board members who discuss school matters with stakeholders risk ethics violations even if they appended a disclaimer declaring their statements are theirs alone, and not the views of the board they sit on.
Even posting links to already public information could expose a board member to an ethics complaint, the advisory opinion says. School board members found in violation of the law could face sanctions ranging from a reprimand to removal from office.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Attorney General, which typically represents state bodies in court, did not return a request for comment. A Department of Education spokesman declined to comment.
Nazarene’s attorneys said that advisory opinion had impermissibly chilled her speech, noting she had stopped reaching out to constituents or commenting publicly for fear of sanctions, including on a school regionalization plan she fears will limit Alloway’s control over its schools.
“Americans deserve to know what their elected officials think about important issues,” said Daniel Zahn, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is representing Nazarene. “New Jersey is muzzling elected officials and preventing them from talking with their community, the very people they were elected to represent.”
The state could face a high bar to maintain its limits on school board members’ speech. The commission’s interpretation of the law imposes a content-based speech restriction because it specifically targets statements related to schools, Nazarene’s attorneys argue.
Such restrictions draw the highest level of scrutiny, and the government must prove they are not unconstitutional.
To do so, the government must show a legitimate interest in limiting speech — perjury statutes that help ensure people tell the truth in court are constitutional, for example — and use the least restrictive methods available to achieve their end.
“The state has no compelling interest — and not even a legitimate interest — in prohibiting elected representatives from communicating with constituents,” Nazarene’s attorneys said in their complaint.
Nazarene’s attorneys asked the court to declare the commission’s interpretation of the School Ethics Act unconstitutional and requested injunctions to block the body from limiting speech under that interpretation.
