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: | Yes | 325 | No | 638 |
| 33.7% | 66.3% | |||
| For Manufacturer: | Yes | 317 | No | 646 |
| 32.9% | 67.1% | |||
| For Wholesale: | Yes | 315 | No | 648 |
| 32.7% | 67.3% | |||
| For Distribution: | Yes | 331 | No | 632 |
| 34.4% | 65.6% | |||
| For Retail: | Yes | 376 | No | 587 |
| 39.0% | 61.0% | |||
| For Delivery: | Yes | 354 | No | 609 |
| 36.8% | 63.2% | |||
| Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license? | Yes | 677 | No | 286 |
| 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:
- Who planned the forum?
- Did the Subcommittee take action outside of a council meeting?
- Who directed town personnel to hold the forum?
- 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:
- Planned and executed events on behalf of the municipality including the direction of township personnel
- Created documents sent and shared with residents
- 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: | Yes | 325 | No | 638 |
| 33.7% | 66.3% | |||
| For Manufacturer: | Yes | 317 | No | 646 |
| 32.9% | 67.1% | |||
| For Wholesale: | Yes | 315 | No | 648 |
| 32.7% | 67.3% | |||
| For Distribution: | Yes | 331 | No | 632 |
| 34.4% | 65.6% | |||
| For Retail: | Yes | 376 | No | 587 |
| 39.0% | 61.0% | |||
| For Delivery: | Yes | 354 | No | 609 |
| 36.8% | 63.2% | |||
| Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license? | Yes | 677 | No | 286 |
| 70.3% | 29.7% |
| Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|
| Total Number of Responses | 981 | |
| Unique Responses | 963 | |
| Individuals Identified | 406 | 42.16% |
| Individuals Not Identified | 555 | 57.63% |
| Number of Responses | Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| District 1 | 6 | 3.20% | 0.80% |
| District 2 | 6 | 3.20% | 0.80% |
| District 3 | 13 | 7.00% | 1.80% |
| District 4 | 13 | 7.00% | 1.80% |
| District 5 | 2 | 1.10% | 0.30% |
| District 6 | 5 | 2.70% | 0.70% |
| District 7 | 11 | 5.90% | 1.50% |
| District 8 | 12 | 6.50% | 1.60% |
| District 9 | 19 | 10.20% | 2.60% |
| District 10 | 16 | 8.60% | 2.20% |
| District 11 | 14 | 7.50% | 1.90% |
| District 12 | 14 | 7.50% | 1.90% |
| District 13 | 2 | 1.10% | 0.30% |
| District 14 | 1 | 0.50% | 0.10% |
| District 15 | 6 | 3.20% | 0.80% |
| District 16 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| District 17 | 4 | 2.20% | 0.50% |
| District 18 | 15 | 8.10% | 2.00% |
| District 19 | 9 | 4.80% | 1.20% |
| District 20 | 8 | 4.30% | 1.10% |
| District 21 | 3 | 1.60% | 0.40% |
| District 22 | 7 | 3.80% | 0.90% |
| District 23 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Unknown | 555 | 74.90% | |
| Totals |
