Six candidates are vying for three seats on the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education in the November 4, 2025 general election. Find out more about submitting endorsements or statements of support here. Follow Village Green election coverage here.
Anthony Mazzocchi announced the Caplan, Donahue and Rishi campaign in July. This article was updated on October 14, 2025 with a social media post made by Mazzocchi on October 12 explaining his hands-on role in the campaign. Scroll down to read it.
As a former member of the South Orange–Maplewood Board of Education, I have witnessed firsthand both the challenges and opportunities our district faces. Today, the most pressing issue is our looming budget crisis. The numbers are stark, and the decisions ahead will require not only fiscal discipline but also vision, transparency, and a genuine commitment to equity. For these reasons, I strongly endorse Daniel Caplan, Ashley Donahue, and Ashwat Rishi for the Board of Education.
What sets this team apart is their ability to combine financial expertise with a deep respect for the educational mission of our schools. They understand that balancing the budget is not simply an exercise in subtraction but an opportunity to align resources with priorities. Their platform calls for multi-year fiscal planning, careful scrutiny of contracts, and the pursuit of public-private partnerships to bring in new revenue. These are exactly the kinds of solutions our district needs to weather the storm while protecting the core of what makes our schools strong.
Just as important, Caplan, Donahue, and Rishi are committed to transparency and community engagement. A budget is a moral document, and the public deserves to understand not only the numbers but also the rationale behind decisions. This slate has pledged to “open the books,” share real-time updates, and engage the community in honest dialogue. That is how trust is built, and without trust, no district can move forward.
Their platform also recognizes that equity must remain non-negotiable. Far too often, when cuts are made, the burden falls disproportionately on our most vulnerable students. CDR has been clear that they will fight to protect co-teaching models, inclusion services, and support staff. They know that these investments are not luxuries—they are lifelines for many families.
Another reason I support this team is their approach to teachers and staff. Having served on the Board, I know that morale, retention, and professional growth are critical. CDR’s commitment to partnership with educators—through competitive compensation, meaningful engagement, and respect—will help rebuild a positive culture in our schools.
Finally, Caplan, Donahue, and Rishi bring a holistic vision for students. They see education as more than test scores. Their priorities include expanding career and technical education, strengthening academic rigor, and protecting the arts and extracurriculars that shape well-rounded graduates. At the same time, they understand the importance of addressing infrastructure and transportation issues that directly impact daily learning.
Our district is at a crossroads. We cannot afford to lurch from one crisis to another. We need board members who will think long-term, work collaboratively, and keep both students and taxpayers at the center of every decision. Daniel Caplan, Ashley Donahue, and Ashwat Rishi offer that combination of heart and expertise.
I urge my neighbors to join me in supporting them on Election Day.
Sincerely,
Tony Mazzocchi
Former Member, South Orange–Maplewood Board of Education
From Mazzocchi via Facebook:
A response to some of the comments embedded in different posts:
For those claiming there is no transparency around CDR slate’s campaign manager, if people would like me to claim that role I am happy to do so—but it’s a bit of a misnomer. I put together the slate, and they take responsibility for the smooth running of the campaign and all of its components. Same with the BBK slate last year. I assure you it is not because I want to stay secret; I simply think that labeling me as the “campaign manager” is not an honest assessment of my role and would undercut the hard work of the individuals managing the day-to-day organization. But if it makes people feel better to label me as such, I’m happy to accept it. I have said over and over that I am very involved, and I am.
Since it continues to be brought up in comments, I want to share some important context about the recent invitation the slate received from SOMA Action to participate in their Board of Education candidate interview process.
When the slate first received the invitation, there was no mention that one of SOMA Action’s executive/education committee members was also serving as the campaign manager for the opposing slate. We only discovered this connection ourselves after seeing photos from their campaign kickoff. Only when we raised it was it acknowledged, along with the explanation that this person was “recused” from the process. It was only then that this recusal was published on their website, etc.
Even with that recusal, the appearance of a potential conflict of interest was clear, as far as we were concerned. In elections, perception matters just as much as process, and the community deserves full transparency upfront.
In addition, the stated purpose of SOMA Action’s voter guide is not to provide neutral information to the community, but rather to evaluate which candidates will advance SOMA Action’s own committee priorities. Those were the words used SOMA Action used in their video, which I have previously posted.
While advocacy groups certainly have the right to promote their agenda, it is important for voters to understand that this is very different from a neutral voter guide (if that is what it was intended to be).
Finally, we were told directly by SOMA Action that “it would be very, very hard to win any organization’s endorsement when respected leaders have thrown down for the other team. What your participation in our evaluation process could realistically affect is whether we choose to endorse or sit on the sidelines.” In other words, the outcome of the endorsement process was effectively predetermined. At the same time, we were cautioned that declining the interview “does not send a good message” about our willingness to partner — a dynamic that raises additional concerns about fairness.
Our position was simple: all community organizations should be upfront and transparent about conflicts of interest and the goals of their endorsement processes. Community groups play an important role in elections, but they should do so in a way that builds trust and avoids even the appearance of bias.
The NJSBA Code of Ethics that all BOE candidates must recite is clear: “I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups or to use the schools for personal gain or for the gain of friends.”
This has NOTHING to do with the values of any community group and how I/we feel about them and EVERYTHING to do with the perception of a conflict and BOE members’ responsibilities to serve all students. With all due respect, the slate declined to participate. If the community thinks that was a mistake all things considered, I am sure they respect that.
Given that one slate’s campaign is being run by a member of SOMA Action’s executive/education committee, I think it’s fair to ask: will all candidates publicly affirm that they will remain independent of SOMA Action — or any other partisan group — if elected? If the community does not feel that is a fair question to ask, we respect that too, but we think it is an important statement to make.
Our Board of Education should serve every student and taxpayer, not the agenda of any political organization, no matter which organization that is. I really hope we can all agree on that.
For our part, we remain committed to running a campaign based on openness, accountability, and putting students first. Good luck to all the candidates this election season.
