Author: Keith Kaplan

2023 Election Results

Keith Kaplan / / Elections

Congratulations to all those who ran for seats on the Board of Education.

Board of Education Results

It appears that the results indicate that the Educational Excellence Slate has won all three seats.
Final Tallies:
Gerald Kirschenbaum: 5392*
David Gruber: 5325*
James Woff: 5299*
Nadia Hosein: 4207
Selene Wong: 4299
Jose Zenon: 4082
For those interested:
  • Excellence Progress Equity (EPE) Slate won in the VBM category (54.8% to 45.2%)
  • Educational Excellence Slate won in the Early Voting (78.3% 21.7%)
  • On Election day, it was fairly even with only 4 votes separating 3rd and 4th place
My spreadsheet will be available on TeaneckToday.com momentarily.
*** Some Votes May Still Be Coming In ***
District:12345678910111213141516171819202122237-NovEarlyMailTotal
Gerald Kirschenbaum575215815452361987330830631637930241082749193100144464316286917757485392
David Gruber54561571524538193703063063133672926108335218898145464515284217647195325
James Wolff55531571504842193723033073123572431106295519194145464315282817537185299
Nadia Hosein117154179130114982106766652659210253971021931081066513017711228384848854207
Selene Wong1141541821401111052157272743070206251981011951171066312417011428845039124299
Jose Zenon112152173131108100202636967265720224892961811111026511816011127464818554082
Personal choice031061400000751402204634949
Mail in per district5676506634118578270995610048665240629770501295935

Teaneck Police: One in Custody after Cedar Lane Assault by Teaneck Juvenile

Keith Kaplan / / Health, Local News, Safety, Sidewalks, Teaneck

Chief of Police Andrew R. McGurr announces that a juvenile actor has been taken into custody and charged on a juvenile delinquency complaint following an aggravated assault that occurred last night.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023, at approximately 8:56 PM, Officers responded to the Seasons Express store, located at 465 Cedar Lane, following several 911 calls reporting an incident. Upon their arrival, they discovered a victim, determined to be a 14-year-old boy from Teaneck, who had suffered a deep laceration to his face and a stab wound to his buttocks. The juvenile victim was transported by the Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps to Hackensack University Medical Center for emergency treatment of non-life threatening injuries sustained during the attack.

As per initial Police Reports, the incident occured on the sidewalk of Garrison Avenue, between Cedar Lane and Beverly Road.

Witnesses provided a description of the suspect, who was apprehended a short time later by Bogota police.  He was reported to be a male who was dressed in dark clothing and wearing a Halloween clown mask.

That individual, identified as a 16-year-old boy from Teaneck, was determined to be the actor and was taken into protective custody. A search of the juvenile actor revealed he was in possession of a utility knife, which was partially covered in blood.

Teaneck Police indicated that “[b]ased upon a preliminary investigation, it does not appear the assault was precipitated by any type of confrontation or problem between the involved persons.”

As a result of the investigation, the juvenile actor was charged on a Juvenile Delinquency complaint with the following offenses;

  • Aggravated Assault 2nd Degree Crime
  • Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon 3rd Degree Crime
  • Possession of a Weapon for Unlawful Purpose 3nd Degree Crime

Chief McGurr states that the charges are merely accusations and all defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Anyone with information about this or other investigations is urged to contact the Teaneck Police Department at 201-837-2600, or Crime Stoppers. Tips can be made anonymously on the group’s website at www.bergencrimestoppers.org or by calling 844-466-6789, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

2023-10-31-Aggravated Assault-Weapon-Juvenile Actor

Following the Money at the BOE: Year After Year, TPS District Bilked Taxpayers for Security, Transportation and More

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Budget, Elections, Teaneck

Where do I vote? Click HERE to find out

A Review of Teaneck Public School Filings Show District Overcharged Taxpayers on Several Budgetary Items, including Transportation and Security

Security

Despite significant security issues (including the removal of security guards and threats against schools), the Teaneck Public School District collected 100% of its security budget from taxpayers… but didn’t spend 25% of it.  Where did it go?

Busing / Transportation

Despite complaints about the cost of busing and the inability to meet required busing needs, records show that the District collected FAR IN EXCESS of what it spent on busing.  In fact, in the last 3 years alone, the District pocketed $3M into “Fund Balance” to use as surplus funds… all from our tax dollars.

What is happening within the Teaneck Public School Budgets?

25% of the District Security budget went to discretionary fund balance?

Over $3M in local taxes set aside for busing students, instead went to discretionary fund balance over the past 3 years?

2022/23: Teaneck Schools – $6.94M ALLOCATED  for Transportation
2022/23: Teaneck Schools – $5.73M ACTUALLY SPENT for Transportation
2023/24: Teaneck Schools – $7.67M, a 10.46% RAISE to the Transportation Tax Levy, for an unprecedented $7.67M bill to taxpayers.

You read that right — after pocketing $3M in local tax levy funds from residents that we were told would be used for busing & transportation,  the line item for busing in 2023-24 WENT UP AGAIN by 10.46% to $7.67M according to the 2023-24 Final Budget presentation,

How could that be possible?

A few days after scores of parents attended a Board of Education meeting asking about the lack of security, I found myself asking these questions to the Teaneck School District Business Administrator.

The ACFR (Annual Comprehensive Financial Report)

The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is a set of U.S. government financial statements comprising the financial report of a state, municipal or other governmental entity that complies with the accounting requirements promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

“Exhibit C” of the ACFR contains “Budgetary Comparison Schedules”.

These schedules indicate the:

  1. Final amount of the budgeted line item
  2. Actual amount spent for the budgeted line item
  3. Variance, or difference in the final amount budgeted and what was actually spent

Here are some examples from the ACFR”

Final BudgetActual SpentVariance (Difference)Year
Total Student Transportation Services$6,069,994

$4,489,077

$1,580,917

2021
Total Student Transportation Services$6,499,755

$5,736,648

$763,107

2022
Total Student Transportation Services$5,706,667

$4,975,660

$731,007

2020
Total:$18,276,416

$9,464,737

$3,075,031
Final BudgetActual SpentVariance (Difference)Year
Total Security Budget$1,134,695

$855,873

$278,822

2022
Total Security Budget$383,161

$383,161

$0

2020
Total Security Budget$548,073

545,723

$2,350

2021

ACFR Data (available on NJ State Website):

Confirmation

I reached out to the District’s Business Administrator to confirm these findings.

My email appears below:

While the difference between Final Budget and Actual is fairly small for many categories (e.g. Total instruction, which comes in at 5%), other categories seem to have a very different variance betweenfinal budget and actual expenditures.
As an example….
Security:
The original budget is listed as $516,101.00
The final budget is listed as $1,134,695.00 with $618,594.00 under “transfers”
The actual is listed as $855,873.00, leaving a variance of $278,822.00
The variance would appear to be 25% of the final budget amount.
If that’s the case, did the variance go to fund balance?
Am I missing something here?
Appreciate any feedback you can provide.
Keith

The response from the Business Administrator came on 10/19/2023:

Haqquisha Taylor <htaylor@teaneckschools.org>
Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:45 PM
To: Keith Kaplan <keith@teanecktoday.com>
Cc: Andre Spencer <aspencer@teaneckschools.org>
Good Day,
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan, for your patience and for your follow up. The answer to your question regarding the variance listed in the 2021-2022 ACFR for Security is yes, the variance goes to fund balance. For Capital, $388,328 of the variance goes to fund balance. The remaining $18,600 of variance, relating to Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services, is returned to the Capital Reserves.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Where did the money GO?

This is a tricky question, as once you put massive amounts of money into “surplus”, it can be spent in a discretionary manner across different expense categories.

Obviously, as per the Business Administrator, we can see that the 25% of last year’s “Security Budget” which went unused was disbursed as follows:

  1. $388,328.00 to “Capital”
  2. $18,600.00 to “Facilities Acquisition and Construction [sic] Services”

 

If you recall, Teaneck Schools spent $5.35M for Renovation of a Kindergarten Building (from Eugene Field School office space to the current Lacey School) & Admin Offices by Thomas Jefferson Middle School.

Where did an “extra” $5,300,000.00 come from without bonding?  Now you know.

Let’s start with some basic facts:

  • Value of all land in Teaneck (as of 10/01/2020): $5,188,972,400
  • Value of Average Residential Assessment: $387,405
    • Percentage of total land value: .007466%

(stats from “User-Friendly budget” available on Township website)

Share of each $5.35M project for the average homeowner = $399.43

The $399.43 can be paid through the tax levy (all at once) or bonded (at near-zero interest) to be paid back over decades.

Bonding a project or paying for it through direct levy is a policy and financial decision that affects YOU!

So what would you prefer? Pay it all now or $19.97 a year for 20 years?

This is NOT how schools are supposed to operate.  Here’s why:

If you were to move out of Teaneck today, you would have paid 100% of your share of the $5,300,000.00.  But had this been bonded, at historically low rates over 30 years, you would only pay a share of the amount that corresponded with your time living in Teaneck.

The new resident moving in would continue to pay their fair share.

That’s how bonding – which is sometimes called “generational equity” – works.

But to do that, the Schools would have to go to the public with a bonding referendum on a ballot.  And the fear is that the public would vote down a bonding referendum because they think the schools ALREADY have enough money.  So rather than chance a defeat (which also acts as a barometer on resident satisfaction with the district), they inflate certain line items, year after year after year, in order to have you, the taxpayer pay MORE THAN YOU NEED to ensure a free and appropriate public education.

This is NOT how schools should function and the public should be incensed at how they are treating us at the Teaneck BOE.

“I’m Shoot Up the School” found scrawled in BF Middle School bathroom

Keith Kaplan / / Local News

Update (10/6/23 11am): Teaneck Police Chief Andrew McGurr has issued a statement, which has been added below.

10/5/23: In an email sent to parents of students at Benjamin Franklin Middle School (BFMS) this afternoon, School Superintendent Dr. André Spencer indicated that a report was made of “graffiti that was discovered on the wall of a girl’s restroom”.

The graffiti stated, “I’m Shoot Up the School”.

The school is working in coordination with law enforcement to determine if further actions are needed.

Superintendent Spencer says “it has been determined that there is no imminent threat to our scholars or staff”, but “there will be an increased law enforcement presence in the area”.

This event comes on the heels of several Board of Education meetings where parents have raised questions regarding security concerns.

I have reached out to Chief McGurr for comment.

Further information, as it becomes available, will be added to the story.

Email from the district appears below: Continue reading ““I’m Shoot Up the School” found scrawled in BF Middle School bathroom”

Teaneck Cannabis Survey: Why Haven’t Results Been Released?

Keith Kaplan / / Development, Elections, Health, Ordinances, Teaneck

Until today, results from the survey conducted by the Cannabis Subcommittee have never been published.

  • Who created the Cannabis Survey and sent it out to residents?
  • Who created the Cannabis Forum at the Rodda Center?
  • Who directed employees to attend/work at the event?

The answers matter because the Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of the council formed to discuss issues)

“It is the intention of this article that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager… The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.”
source: NJ Rev Stat § 40:69A-91

Sebastian Castillo

On April 5, 2022, Mr. Sebastian Castillo appeared before Council to give a presentation as to why the Township should grant him a letter authorizing him to apply for a license to open a Cannabis Dispensary in Teaneck. [video]

In Resolution 106-2022, the Council granted Mr. Castillo local support for the granting of a license to his company, Galaxy Express NJ, LLC.

Mr. Castillo continued coming to council meetings through December, requesting zoning expansion (beyond Alfred Avenue) for Cannabis dispensaries.

Then, after the new Council was seated in January, Mr. Castillo wrote to the Cannabis Subcommittee indicating that he created a google form, which they could use to determine whether the residents were willing to see an expansion of Cannabis zoning for retail stores.

Through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, you can see he email below.  The link for the form is still active and is available on archive.org.

The Survey and the Forum

As you may be aware, the council sent out this survey earlier this year, seeking resident comments regarding cannabis zoning in Teaneck.
(Note: The original municipal page with the survey has been deleted from the Township website, but is available here via archive.org)
The survey link indicates it is no longer open or available:

“The form Township of Teaneck | Cannabis Zoning Survey | January 2023 is no longer accepting responses.”

That survey had raised many questions (see our former Mayor Dunleavy’s post here), and Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests seeking to find the derivation of the survey have thus far gone unanswered (the post will be updated if any additional responses are received).

Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee promoted the forum as well as the survey

Cannabis Survey Results (obtained via OPRA):

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:Yes325No638
33.7%66.3%
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
32.9%67.1%
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
32.7%67.3%
For Distribution:Yes331No632
34.4%65.6%
For Retail:Yes376No587
39.0%61.0%
For Delivery:Yes354No609
36.8%63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
70.3%29.7%

So what happened to the survey?

Residents questioned the validity of the survey and forum held by the township.  Some sought information about cannabis zoning/council actions on Facebook.  In response, the husband of Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee indicated:

“Just to be clear, only Mayor Pagan, CW Goldberg, and CW Belcher along with the Manager etc were involved in planning this forum.”
(source)

This again raised several questions, namely:

  1. Who planned the forum?
  2. Did the Subcommittee take action outside of a council meeting?
  3. Who directed town personnel to hold the forum?
  4. Was the Council involved in the decision to hold the forum?

 

The clerk’s office responded:

“This was discussed at the Jan. 10, 2023 Meeting. The subcommittee report and accompanying minutes may be found here: http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx
This the record responsive to this portion of the request.”

The minutes for the first three meetings held this year did not indicate any vote for the survey, its language, or the forum (page 24 of the minutes from the 1/10 meeting indicates it was already scheduled).  So who is running the show?

An email from Councilwoman Goldberg states:

“The current cannabis subcommittee planned and executedthe successful Town Hall which tookplace on January 25th at the Rodda Center, with more than 100 attendees in person andonline, marking the first such event held by the township in several years. Thank you again toDean, Tom Rowe, Doug, Ronn Goodman, MIS, and the panelists and participants for all of thehard work that went into planning and executing the event.” (emphasis added)

also from the Goldberg email:

“Additionally, a google doc survey was created by the cannabis subcommittee and shared with residents.  Several
hundred people submitted their responses and the results are still being collected and reviewed by the subcommittee.
The feedback we have received from the town hall, the survey, comments at good and welfare, conversations andemails from residents and stakeholders, as well as consultation with experts including our planner and the explorationof retaining legal counsel will all be used to determine next steps.” (emphasis added)

and

[W]e have asked the attorney to draft an ordinance to limit publicconsumption of cannabis in public spaces.”

The subcommittee, apparently through some authority has:

  1. Planned and executed events on behalf of the municipality including the direction of township personnel
  2. Created documents sent and shared with residents
  3. Directed the town attorney to draft ordinances

 

SIX MONTHS LATER: Where are the survey results?

Teaneck Today submitted an OPRA request and received the survey results (which included some data on the individuals filling out the survey).  Using emails and IP address info, along with a review of responses, it appears that several people submitted the survey results multiple times, making any assertions from the survey’s results, problematic.

Council Minutes from August 8, 2023, indicate “Cannabis” was a closed-session discussion topic.

 

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:Yes325No638
33.7%66.3%
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
32.9%67.1%
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
32.7%67.3%
For Distribution:Yes331No632
34.4%65.6%
For Retail:Yes376No587
39.0%61.0%
For Delivery:Yes354No609
36.8%63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
70.3%29.7%
Percentage
Total Number of Responses981
Unique Responses963
Individuals Identified40642.16%
Individuals Not Identified55557.63%
Number of ResponsesPercentage
District 163.20%0.80%
District 263.20%0.80%
District 3137.00%1.80%
District 4137.00%1.80%
District 521.10%0.30%
District 652.70%0.70%
District 7115.90%1.50%
District 8126.50%1.60%
District 91910.20%2.60%
District 10168.60%2.20%
District 11147.50%1.90%
District 12147.50%1.90%
District 1321.10%0.30%
District 1410.50%0.10%
District 1563.20%0.80%
District 1600.00%0.00%
District 1742.20%0.50%
District 18158.10%2.00%
District 1994.80%1.20%
District 2084.30%1.10%
District 2131.60%0.40%
District 2273.80%0.90%
District 2300.00%0.00%
Unknown55574.90%
Totals
Township of Teaneck Cannabis Survey Jan. 2023 Results(1)(1)_Redacted_Redacted

Councilwoman Requested Teaneck Today’s Press Credentials Be Rescinded

Keith Kaplan / / Lawsuits, Teaneck

The request to bar particular media from equal access is a frontal assault on a core American value. It should interest the whole country.

  • 3/6/23: Hillary Goldberg is sued (in her individual capacity) for defamation [docket here].
  • 5/30/23: Teaneck Today reported that Goldberg’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was denied.
  • 6/1/23: Thirty-five hours after Teaneck Today posted the news about her case, Councilwoman Goldberg demanded Township ‘Press Releases’ stop flowing to Teaneck Today.

Was this an ‘official’ act of retaliation against unfavorable press?

On May 30th, 2023, Teaneck Today reported that Bergen County Superior Court Judge Anthony R. Suarez had denied a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Wayne Puppies against Hillary Goldberg.

The news story contained the opinion by Judge Suarez denying a motion by Hillary Zaer Goldberg to dismiss the charges that Goldberg defamed Wayne Puppies.

Shortly after, she sent multiple emails to the Township Manager (Dean Kazinci), cc’ing the Town’s Mayor (Michael Pagan), Deputy Mayor (Danielle Gee), and Township Attorney (Scott Salmon), requesting the Township turn off the spigot for official information sent to press.  In her initial email, she called Teaneck Today “a toxic Facebook group”.

A note for the sake of transparency: Goldberg is a member of the Facebook group

Kazinci declined to comment on the story.  Township attorney Scott Salmon, who started working for the Township on May 23 (a week prior), indicated he would not be commenting on this piece or answering whether legal questions about the issues were discussed.

I reached out to the plaintiff’s attorney in the Wayne Puppies defamation action but did not get a response.

Requests for comment to Pagan, Gee, and Goldberg have gone unanswered (if responses come in after publication, they will be appended to the story).

The first email

On June 1st, at 5:06 AM [35 hours after the story about Wayne Puppies], Councilwoman Hillary Zaer Goldberg emailed the Township Manager:

“Dean why is Teaneck Today on the list for press releases??! That is a toxic Facebook group, not a news source that should be on a press release distribution group.”

Why would a sitting member of the governing body try to prevent residents from knowing what is happening in their town?

That’s the question I sought to answer when I discovered, within Open Public Record Act (OPRA) requests, that Councilwoman Hillary Goldberg was actively using her position on Council to interfere with timely public information getting to Teaneck Today.

It wouldn’t be the first time someone found a local council member was abusing her position to attempt to coerce employees into acting contrary to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, her oath of office, and in contravention of the law–but Teaneck Today had been on the Press Release list for months (see request to join from 2022).  The Press Releases have been shared with tens of thousands, in the Facebook group (where Goldberg is herself, a member) and beyond.  Goldberg had been in office for five months and cc’d on many such releases.

Why now?

Local news is a tough gig.  There aren’t a lot of companies willing to devote enough journalistic resources to cover local news.  As a consequence, so many stories that may matter to you and a few neighbors, often go unreported.

Teaneck Today

Teaneck Today was created in May of 2016.  As its name implies, it’s a place for residents, neighbors, and friends to post issues, chat about the state of Teaneck and communicate what they are doing–today.  At times, pols (including the current Mayor and several members of the Council) have used the forum to disseminate information.

Some posts range from the mundane (potholes, leaves, and snow complaints), and some are deeply personal (cuts by BOE for special-ed classes) and some are just politically fraught (Council removal of individuals from boards) with proponents and detractors commenting to and at each other.  It’s a common occurrence to hear people claim it’s an echo chamber (an ironic thing that true echo chambers typically don’t exhibit).

At current, there are approximately 9k+ members, with more going to sources on the web (TeaneckToday.com) and signing up for the mailing list.

I (Keith Kaplan) run the group and I’ve long been a fan of getting as much information as possible (including source materials) out to the public–through whatever means are available.

As many know, I post to Facebook (via the Teaneck Today group), I email information (sign up here) and I post on the web.

A simple philosophy: The answer to censorship and bad speech is not more of the same

Those who regularly read my columns know that my answer to “bad” or “wrong” speech is more speech, better speech.  For those reasons, I discuss issues, I post source documents, and I attempt to explain what happens behind the closed doors of government.

The OPRA request (Open Public Records Act)

To that end, I’ll often submit requests to “OPRA” on various topics, such as Cannabis (we never saw the town release the results of the town-wide poll, why is that?) or Zoning (new AirBNB legislation just went into effect, which will cost residents more money to offer homes for use).  I’ll also request information regarding litigation.

As Gerard DeMarco wrote in the Daily Voice last week:

“Keith Kaplan, a former councilman himself, has rigorously kept township residents and business owners informed for more than five years through his “Teaneck Today” blog.

“Teaneck Today” also has a Facebook group with more than 8,900 members.

Combined, both have been invaluable resources, reporting and providing information on elections, building in town, school calendars, roadwork, COVID developments and more in much the way a weekly newspaper would.

Like most bloggers, Kaplan has his causes, as well as his targets.

One of those targets, Councilwoman Hilary Goldberg, was part of a three-woman slate that bounced him from office in last November’s election.

After Goldberg was sued by a pet store hoping to set up shop in Teaneck, Kaplan provided blow-by-blow accounts and published legal filings without editorializing about it.”

You can read that article here:

Wayne Puppies took Hillary Goldberg to Court. What happened next might shock you…

I had requested back in 2022, to be added to the Teaneck Police Department list for Public News Releases.  The list is public, any news org can join (there are scores of emails on the list at present) and when I receive news releases, I share them with you, the public.

Hillary Goldberg ran on a platform of transparency, but in private, she is trying to prevent access.

Ironically, obtaining information from Government actors that they are trying to hide via OPRA, was the subject of a campaign video from Goldberg, herself.

State Law Requirements and Teaneck’s Form of Government

Teaneck operates under the Council-Manager form of Government as created in the Faulkner Act.  Under our somewhat unique form of government, the members of the Township Council act solely as a body, and any requests/demands must be made by the body to the Manager.   As the Manager is the executive office of the municipality, and the authority of the Council is solely as a body, there’s a specific requirement to guard against incursions to the manager’s authority in State Statute.

It is the intention of this article 1 that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager, or any other officer, or for the council or any of its members to direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office;  or to interfere in any way with the performance by such officers of their duties.  The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.  Nothing herein contained shall prevent the municipal council from appointing committees or commissions of its own members or of citizens to conduct investigations into the conduct of any officer or department, or any matter relating to the welfare of the municipality, and delegating to such committees or commissions such powers of inquiry as the municipal council may deem necessary.  Any council member violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof in a court of competent jurisdiction, be disqualified as a council member.
NJSA 40 § 69A-91

Timeline:

  • May 26, 2023: Judge Suarez denies Goldberg’s motion to dismiss the defamation claims against her in her individual capacity
  • May 30, 2023: Teaneck Today reports the result of the Motion to Dismiss and publishes the opinion from Judge Suarez
  • June 1, 2023: Councilwoman Goldberg, in her official capacity attempts to have news@teanecktoday.com removed from the Teaneck Police Department PR listing.

“Dean why is Teaneck Today on the list for press releases??! That is a toxic Facebook group, not a news source that should be on a press release distribution group. Please either remove Keith- he can opra like everyone else.”

  • June 1, 2023: Manager Kazinci responds to Councilwoman Goldberg that the Police Department maintains the list, but if she wishes, others can be added (e.g. Teaneck Voices)

    “Hillary:I do not send press releases to Teaneck Today. I receive them from the police department. They maintain the email list.I can have the Chief add Teaneck Voices if that’s helpful.”

  • June 1, 2023: Township attorney responds with [redacted] legal advice to the Manager.

 

At this point, the matter should be settled.  But Councilwoman Goldberg is not done.

  • June 1, 2023:Councilwoman Goldberg asks the manager:

“Do we know how Keith got himself on that list? If Keith is on there so should Bill Orr, Chuck, Alan and Stephen Gruber.”

This begs the question as to why those others “should be” on the list.  Anyone may request to be added to a Press Release list.  The Appellate Division in In re January 11, 2013 Subpoena by the Grand Jury of Union Cnty., N.J. discussed the statutory factors regarding who may receive the benefit of press-shield laws, and such, but assuming they meet the generally accepted criteria, anyone requesting, should have been added to the PR list.

Did they ever request to be on the list and find themselves denied?  No.  A request for information to the municipality found no one was denied.

Is it acceptable for a Government agent to request certain “news” orgs be added to a list?

For the sake of clarity –  all should agree that if those organizations meet the criteria, and request to join, they should be added.

The question is whether or not organizations that are “favored” by one pol can be added for access at that pol’s request.

And what is it about those particular individuals Goldberg mentions that merit their inclusion on the release list, even as Councilwoman Goldberg seeks to have Teaneck Today removed?

Is it because Goldberg considered Teaneck Today a “toxic Facebook group, not a news source”, while she views those other outlets differently?

Content-Based Distinctions by Government Actors

In REED et al. v. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA, et al., the US Supreme Court stated:

Because content-based laws target speech based on its communicative content, they are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. E.g., R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377 . Speech regulation is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed. E.g., Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U. S. ___, ___–___. And courts are required to consider whether a regulation of speech “on its face” draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys. Id., at ___.

Whether or not Councilwoman Goldberg considers the opinions in Teaneck Today to be “toxic”, she may not target them with official action based on the communicative content or because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed (although she’s free to remove herself from the group).

To demand that the manager take such action also violates the NJ Statute (40:69A-91).

Later in the afternoon, the manager told Councilwoman Goldberg that:

1) he doesn’t maintain the list and
2) if she has an issue with it, perhaps they can post them publicly elsewhere e.g. Facebook:

“I do not maintain the news media list. I’m going to speak to [town attorney] Mr. Salmon. As this appears to be an issue, it may be easier to just post releases on the TPD Facebook page which is open to the public.”
– Dean Kazinci to Hillary Goldberg

And Councilwoman Goldberg responds, removing all doubt as to what her issue truly is:

At the end of the day I am fine with the real press (emphasis added) of course. But either all the Teaneck media
(Voices, Blue, Today, Tomorrow, and Newsroom) gets it or none and they all go via opra. Keith cannot get special
treatment.
Thanks please let me know asap.
Hillary

Special Treatment?

Teaneck’s Manager, Dean Kazinci is a man of principle and would not offer or accept special treatment.  He responded to that charge quickly:

Hillary:
Keith does not get and/or receive special treatment. If you know of someone who is doing so that violates any of our internal rules or regulations, please let me know. I will address it immediately. I’m sure Keith submitted something to the PD under Teaneck Today for press releases.

The final demand:

“Keith knows to inquire….
Again please either remove Keith and only the formal press gets them and Keith can get from social media.”

I do know to inquire – just like I know that a government actor seeking to define a “news” organization as “legitimate” is going to fail out of the gate (NJ has extended bloggers and other news protections, including media shield laws).  I also know that choosing one type of speech (Teaneck Tomorrow or Voices, etc..) over another like Teaneck Today, is an outright violation of the First Amendment Councilwoman Goldberg gave an oath to uphold.

The demand to have the Manager and Police Chief remove someone, based on their opinions and the content of their ideas is certainly a colorable violation of 40 § 69A-91, which ends with:

“Any council member violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof in a court of competent jurisdiction, be disqualified as a council member.”

Councilwoman Goldberg, if you attempt to block access to public information again, you may well find yourself in court.

Emails obtained from Open Public Records Act request:

 

2023 Teaneck BOE Ballot Positions

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Elections

The Bergen County Clerk has chosen Ballot Positions for the Teaneck Board of Education Race

The ballot positions will be:

  1. Gerald B. Kirshenbaum (Achieving Excellence Together)
  2. David Gruber (Achieving Excellence Together)
  3. James Wolff (Achieving Excellence Together)
  4. Nadia Hosein (Excellence Progress Equity)
  5. Seleene Raquel Wong (Excellence Progress Equity)
  6. Jose Zenon (Excellence Progress Equity)

 

Best of luck to everyone participating.

You can watch the drawing for ballot placement below

August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

If you wish hard enough, you too can be an environmentalist…

The voters in Teaneck went to the polls to decide whether or not we should join the Community Energy Aggregation program.  The vote was overwhelmingly approved, and Teaneck joined the program immediately saving money but because third-party energy is a constantly changing target, pricing was affected by factors such as the war initiated by Russia, supply, and demand, as well as a plethora of other factors.

The Sustainable Essex Alliance (SEA) announced that it awarded a contract for Round 2 of the program to Energy Harbor, the low bidder, for a 17-month contract which began in April 2021 (through September 2022).

Under the new contract with Energy Harbor, the baseline product will again provide participating residents with power supply that has nearly double the renewable energy content required of PSE&G, at a price of $0.12696/kWh, which is below the current average Basic Generation Service tariff price of PSE&G.

Part of the problem unique to Teaneck is the threshold values. Continue reading “August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update”

June 27, 2023 Council Meeting Information

Keith Kaplan / / Meetings

You can find the link to join and participate via zoom here:

Come speak at the meeting and tell Council to TABLE the Resolution!

  • When: Tuesday, June 27, 2023
  • Where: Teaneck Council Chambers (818 Teaneck Road)
  • Public Comment: Meeting begins at 8pm with public comment ~8:30pm
  • Zoom: While it’s better to attend in person, you may speak via zoom

Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85815636293 Passcode: 703943 Continue reading “June 27, 2023 Council Meeting Information”

An Open Letter to the Teaneck Council: Transparency and Process Matter

Keith Kaplan / / Meetings, Ordinances, Teaneck

Dear Mayor Pagan and Council,

Council has announced it will be voting upon new members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment (“Statutory Boards”) at the next Council meeting on June 27th, 2023.
The following is a list of the positions for which the Council is seeking to vote on nominees:
Planning Board:
  • Class III Member
  • Class IV Member (2)
  • Alternate Member (1)

Zoning Board of Adjustment

  • Regular Member (1)
  • Alternate Member (2)
The public discussion at the June 13, 2023 Council meeting indicated that a subcommittee of the council consisting of Mayor Pagan, Deputy Mayor Gee, and Councilwoman Goldberg interviewed some 16 individuals to fill the seats listed above.
As stated by Councilmembers Schwartz and Orgen and confirmed by the Mayor and subcommittee members, no interviews were held by the full council in contemplation of filling these potential vacancies and no interviews or requests for interviews were sent to those currently holding the positions, in order for the Council to determine if the members wished to be re-nominated / continue serving.
(see discussion at June 13th, 2023 Council Meeting between 8:38pm and 8:47pm)
I write to you because it would appear that the council has announced six nominees to fill expiring positions, in a manner that does not follow the law.
In order to effect a transparent and open system through which all members of the public have an effective opportunity to volunteer and be noticed when vacancies occur, the council created procedures to govern nominations and votes to fill seats on advisory and statutory boards.  These can be found in the Teaneck Code as Attachment 1 (Appendix I Council Rules of Procedure) to Chapter 2 (Charter/Administrative Code) of the Township of Teaneck (“procedures”)

Continue reading “An Open Letter to the Teaneck Council: Transparency and Process Matter”