ORANGE -- A Superior Court judge has ruled that a question posed to voters last November was poorly worded and voided the overwhelmingly approved change to the makeup of the school board.
Judge Thomas Vena granted on April 13 an injunction filed by the City of Orange Township Board of Education to reverse a November 2016 referendum in which 77 percent of voters chose to switch from an appointed to elected board.
The judge agreed with the current appointed board that the referendum question - which was crafted and put on the ballot by the Orange city council - did not explain to voters all of the implications of the switch.
"No one can argue that the citizens of the City of Orange Township voted overwhelmingly to change from an appointed district to an elected district on the information which was made available to them when they went to the polls on Nov. 8, 2016," Vena wrote in the decision.
"The point here is that these same citizens should have been exposed to more information prior to voting. Nothing can be more integral to the electoral system, especially when that system directly bears upon the well-being of students, than an informed vote."
The referendum question the council wrote asked voters if they wanted to switch from one type of board to the other, but didn't explain all of the repercussions of the vote, the board argued. Those implications included the way the district would fund capital projects.
Under the appointed board, there is a Board of Estimate that passes bonds for capital improvements based on the city's credit. Under an elected board, capital expenditures need to be put up to a referendum vote, and bonding would be based on the district's credit.
After last year's referendum, the city council erroneously passed a $2.5 million bond for a slew of school building improvements. The council only later realized the bond was void under the new district type.
In his decision, Vena blasted the council.
City residents, the judge wrote, "were entitled to know how the financial process would work in light of their vote. It is clear to the court they did not know how the vote would impact the district's financial process. Apparently City Council was not aware either, as they attempted to pass an ordinance that they did not have the authority to pass."
Vena's decision undoes the referendum vote, and a special election held in March that would have added two new members to the board. It also reinstates the bond ordinance passed by the council.
Stephen Edelstein, the attorney representing the board of education, said the judge's decision made sense because the council's process was flawed.
He said the public was "deprived of the opportunity to cast a vote as they intended."
Robert Tarver, the council's attorney, said last week the council is considering an appeal.
"We are exploring several options at this point, but it's a possibility," Tarver said. "No judge in N.J. has ever overturned the results of an election under these circumstances."
Cristina Mateo, the board's president, has held that the board was not against changing to an elected body. She said this week she anticipates the council will try to get a revised version of the referendum vote on the ballot, possibly this November.
Mateo, who has said the board did not know of the referendum question until election day, said she'd "like to see this done in a more fair way. ...I'd like to see them have a protocol in terms of dealing with the Board of Education."
In the meantime, she called Vena's decision, and the reinstatement of the bond, "a victory for the children of the city of Orange."
Jessica Mazzola may be reached at jmazzola@njadvancemedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @JessMazzola. Find NJ.com on Facebook.