The recent announcement that former New Jersey Education Association president Sean Spiller has launched a campaign for leadership within the National Education Association comes at a moment when questions about union transparency and accountability are gaining renewed attention in New Jersey.
Spiller’s move to a national stage is newsworthy. It also provides an important opportunity to revisit the unresolved issues surrounding how union dues have been handled in recent years and why so many educators and watchdog groups have raised concerns about political spending and oversight.
Most notably, a pair of New Jersey teachers have filed suit against the NJEA and its former leadership, alleging that millions of dollars in mandatory dues were used for political activities—including a nearly $50 million governor’s race—without meaningful member consent. These allegations are serious. They speak not only to how decisions were made, but to whether educators had clear information about how their own money was being deployed.
At the same time, the New Jersey Policy Institute has filed complaints with both the IRS and the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, asking regulators to examine whether the union’s funding structures and political accounts complied with federal and state rules. These complaints point to the same underlying concern raised by the teachers’ lawsuit: a system in which major financial and political decisions may have been made without adequate transparency.
None of this commentary is about who should or should not lead a national union. That is a decision for NEA delegates alone. But the timing of the announcement underscores why these unresolved questions matter—not because of any election, but because of what they reveal about how powerful institutions handle public-facing responsibilities.
The lawsuit and complaints now unfolding in New Jersey provide an opportunity to examine these issues openly. They raise essential questions:
- How should mandatory dues be governed?
- What level of transparency do union members deserve?
- What safeguards should exist to prevent political spending that members neither anticipate nor approve?
- How do we ensure that public-sector organizations remain accountable to the people whose labor and money sustain them?
These questions are not partisan. They are not about personalities. And they are certainly not about any particular candidate for any particular office. They are about ensuring that educators—who enter the profession to serve students, not political machines—can trust that their voices, and their dollars, are treated with respect and honesty.
As Spiller embarks on a new chapter in his professional life, the parallel story unfolding in New Jersey should not be ignored. The lawsuits brought by teachers and the regulatory complaints filed by NJPI reflect deeper structural concerns that predate any campaign and will remain long after it is over.
This moment should serve as an inflection point—not for politics, but for reform. It is a reminder that transparency is not optional in public-facing institutions, and that accountability is a necessary condition for trust.
For the sake of teachers, students, and the integrity of the education system, these issues deserve serious attention—regardless of who is seeking which title or where their ambitions may lead.
