Board rules against residency challenge
Member tells colleagues she lives in the home she sold to daughter
BY MICHAEL ACKER
Staff Writer

MONROE - The Board of Education resolved Monday that one of its members can remain on the board and seek re-election in spite of a resident's claim that her primary residence is outside the township.

The board took the 8-1 vote during a special meeting held Monday to review a formal objection to the nominating petition of longtime board member Amy Speizer, who is running for re-election.

Resident Jennifer Dressel alleged that Speizer misrepresented her place of residency in order to be eligible for re-election. Dressel said Speizer sold her home in Monroe last year and purchased a home in Lumberton, Burlington County, which Dressel said is listed as Speizer's primary place of residence in mortgage documents.

Speizer said she continues to live in Monroe in the home she sold to her daughter and intends to buy a new home in the township for herself. She said the Lumberton home was an investment.

Board member Joseph Homoki told the Sentinel that Speizer provided ample documentation proving her residency in Monroe.

"The evidence is overwhelming that she is a resident of this township," Homoki said. "She presented 18 documents to the board."

Speizer, who is employed by the Monroe Township Police Department, showed the board her earnings statement, digital driver's license, vehicle insurance and registration, firearms identification, library card, voter registration, credit cards and more documentation bearing her Monroe street address.

"I have been living for the last 23 years in Monroe Township," Speizer said. "In March, my daughter and her fiancé talked to me about purchasing the home in Monroe that I am living in."

Speizer said she sold the home on Namsan Drive to her daughter with the understanding that she would reside there until she purchased a condominium elsewhere in Monroe.

In Dressel's formal complaint to the board, submitted Friday to School Business Administrator Wayne Holliday, she alleged that Speizer's primary residence is her home in Lumberton.

Since state statute requires that board members reside in the district they serve for one year preceding their election, Dressel argued that Speizer is not eligible to run for the board again this year.

"In addition to the fact that Ms. Speizer is ineligible to run for the

Board of Education, New Jersey law requires that a board member who moves out of the district relinquish their seat immediately," Dressel wrote. "Ms. Speizer should thus have been removed from the board immediately upon purchasing a primary residence out of the district."

Dressel also raised questions about Board Attorney Bertram Busch's role in witnessing Speizer's mortgage and handling a personal legal matter for a board member.

Dressel asked what the board would do about what she called an "inherent conflict of the board attorney doing personal work for the board members and Mr. Busch's failure to report this to the board."

Speizer said she does not live in the Lumberton residence and that it is an investment property.

"My mortgage company is well aware of where I live," Speizer said.

Speizer, who has been on the board for 15 years, did not vote in light of her personal interest in the outcome, and the only member to vote against keeping Speizer's eligibility was Kathy Leonard.

Leonard, who participated in the meeting via cell phone, said that she remained confused as to why Speizer signed a mortgage document declaring the Lumberton home as her primary residence.

Speizer responded that she never lived in the house in Lumberton and only went there occasionally.

"I may have thought for a brief time that I would move down there," Speizer said, "but I knew that I would never leave Monroe."

Board member Rita Ostrager, who said she works in the mortgage industry, asked Speizer if she had any riders attached to the contract for the investment property.

"I had no idea [that] I had to fill out such a form," Speizer responded, adding that the matter before the board was about her residency, not her mortgage.

After the board voted to deny Dressel's objection, Speizer handed Dressel court papers, dated Monday, stating that Dressel would have to appear in Superior Court March 13 to show cause as to why Speizer's municipality of residence should not be determined as Monroe.

Dressel later told the Sentinel that Speizer since withdrew the order. Speizer did not return a phone call from the Sentinel.

Dressel said she was not surprised by the board's decision in Speizer's favor.

"She got away with it," Dressel said. "She doesn't pay taxes for the town, why would anybody vote for the Board of Education when they don't pay taxes in the town? That is totally bizarre."