$90 million Roselle referendum faces vocal opposition, politicians’ support

Residents have strong reasons to question the Roselle Board of Education, which is asking for voter approval of a measure that would add $90 million to the debt burden of homeowners.

An audit delivered to the school board last year found that the district owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) $680,359 after failing to make required federal tax deposits, file quarterly Form 941 and pay amounts due.

Questions about Roselle’s financial management are mounting as Superintendent Dr. Nathan L. Fisher seeks another raise after his annual salary climbed to $220,000 during six years at the district’s helm.

The district has also experienced repeated turnover in its top financial post: School Business Administrator Stephen Lewis arrived with a history of ethics complaints and mass layoffs, Anthony Juskiewicz served from at least 2020 through 2023, Emidio D’Andrea succeeded him, and Irene Gray took over by the 2024-25 fiscal year.

The recent history of financial chaos is not building confidence among voters, and several informed citizens are raising more pointed objections.

“Woodbridge serves 14,000 students against our 3,000. They spent $51 million for a much bigger school,” said former Roselle school board President Erick Cedano, a senior technology consultant at GraphiCore and the owner of Fast Photo Plus. “Homeowners in Roselle can not afford this project.”

A prominent Roselle educator and homeowner who has been speaking out for several weeks made her closing argument this week against a $90 million school construction referendum, urging voters to separate the district’s educational needs from the financial burden the proposed solution would place on households.

Dr. Marie Dupont, a longtime figure in local education, in a statement posted to the “Real Roselle” community forum, argued that while the need for additional classroom space is real, the $87,044,201 price tag raises legitimate questions about affordability and whether the plan represents a wasteful endeavor at the children’s expense.

“The referendum before Roselle voters totals $87,044,201,” Dupont wrote. “Those are significant numbers. Asking how they were developed is not the same as saying children do not deserve investment.”

The two-question bond referendum, set for a special election Tuesday, would fund a new Pre-K through second grade school at an estimated cost of $79.7 million, with a second question adding $7.4 million for districtwide improvements including security vestibules and auditorium renovations. If both questions pass, the district projects approximately $9.2 million in state aid.

Roselle Schools Superintendent Nathan L. Fisher issued a statement saying that the Board of Education is not encouraging voters to support the proposed plan to borrow $90 million.

“While school construction projects provide much-needed improvements for students, they also often come with a hefty price tag, which can often make bond referendums a tough sell to voters,” said the New Jersey School Boards Association. “However, board members must be careful not to use their official positions to convince school district residents to vote yes or no.”

Dupont’s opposition comes amid broader skepticism about the proposal and growing concerns about fiscal management in the borough, where a series of controversies have eroded public trust in local government.

The educator has previously raised questions about the district’s financial oversight and the proposed appointment of a business administrator with a troubled employment record, concerns that echo long-standing complaints about transparency in Roselle’s governance.

Roselle’s political landscape has been plagued by allegations of corruption and patronage, fueling taxpayer skepticism about major spending proposals.

Mayor Donald Shaw, a convicted drug dealer who served time at Rikers Island for selling heroin, has faced repeated calls for resignation and criticism over questionable appointments.

Earlier this year, Shaw appointed former Councilwoman-at-Large Denise Wilkerson — who was resoundingly rejected by voters in the November election by a margin of more than 5,000 votes — to a dual role as Borough Deputy Municipal Manager and Executive Director of the Roselle First Community Development Corporation, carrying a salary of $130,000.

The appointment raised questions about qualifications and fiscal responsibility, particularly given that the CDC’s most recent federal filings reported gross receipts of no more than $50,000 per year.

The borough’s administrative offices have also seen a revolving door of occupants, with the current Acting Borough Administrator being Fire Chief Christopher Laba, a Republican who resides in Ocean County, miles from the community he helps administer.

In this environment of heightened scrutiny, Dupont emphasized that the ability to pay a tax increase is personal and varies widely among residents with similar property assessments.

“Two homeowners can have similar tax bills and completely different financial circumstances,” she wrote. “One may be working full time. Another may be retired and living primarily on Social Security. The fact that one resident can afford an increase does not establish that another resident can.”

She also raised concerns about how property tax relief programs for seniors are often described in public discussions. Dupont noted that New Jersey’s Senior Freeze program is a reimbursement program, meaning eligible homeowners may still see tax bills increase before receiving reimbursement.

“For a household living on a fixed income, eventual reimbursement is not necessarily the same thing as experiencing no financial impact when the tax obligation comes due,” she wrote. “That distinction matters.”

The broader political situation has amplified skepticism among taxpayers who are reluctant to borrow $90 million amid national economic uncertainty and high inflation. Dupont’s arguments have resonated with residents who point to the borough’s history of fiscal mismanagement as reason for caution.

Dupont argued residents deserve granular financial details before committing to the debt, warning that the proposal could prove wasteful without greater transparency.

“Residents should be able to understand the project’s gross square footage, construction cost per square foot, hard and soft costs, site work, contingency, escalation, furniture and equipment, design capacity, enrollment projections, comparable school projects, debt service, interest, state assistance, and alternatives considered,” she wrote. “Those questions are not attacks on children. They are part of responsible public decision-making.”

She stressed that supporting the referendum and questioning it should not be treated as mutually exclusive positions.

“Supporting the referendum does not mean someone is indifferent to taxpayers,” Dupont wrote. “Questioning the referendum does not mean someone does not value children or education. Two things can be true at the same time.”

The district estimates the tax impact for the average assessed Roselle property of $122,763 at approximately $60 per month for Question 1 and another $4 per month for Question 2.

Officials did not respond to questions about the money owed to the IRS — $287,807 in unpaid employee tax withholdings, $268,658 in penalties and $123,894 in interest — or whether those penalties were abated.

Dupont closed her argument by returning to the theme of household stability.

“A school building provides children with a place to learn,” she wrote. “Their families still need a place for them to come home to. Every child needs both things: a place to learn and a place to call home.”