Charting the Goings-On in Teaneck
//Teaneck is a town with a unique and proud history. I’ve created this blog to provide a place to exchange ideas and share visions for how to solve the challenges facing the town in a manner that brings diverse groups of people together. Contributors are welcome.
Please join us and help Teaneck live up to its promise.
I also created a Facebook Group where residents can bring up and discuss topics about the Township: Teaneck Today
Feel free to click the link, join and share with your neighbors.
//In one word, Transparency. It’s also about the fact that the Board dismissed Principal Pedro Vades from Teaneck Hich School through a series of meetings that violates NJ’s Sunshine Law.
The law lets any citizen bring suit to ensure the law is complied with correctly. Today, I happen to be that citizen.
Of course, Mr. Edelstein (who says on his firm Bio: “I always want to be the best prepared person in the courtroom”), has the upper hand being an attorney admitted to the NJ bar longer than I’ve been alive.
Oral Argument was held on Friday, April 5th. Both BOE Counsel Stephen J. Edelstein from the Weiner Law Group and I argued our points to Judge Catuogno.
Why am I doing this?
I have lived in Teaneck for almost 20 years. My daughter attended the district and I’ve volunteered my time as a public servant on the Planning Board and Township Council where I had the opportunity to represent the interests of residents. While I do not personally benefit from the outcome of this action, the case affects important issues and the lives of residents. Principal Valdes has spent his life and career in Teaneck. He is respected by the student body and parents and the greater community. Among the violative meetings for which I’m asking this Court to take action to void was a December meeting in which he was removed from the high school. While the NJ Supreme Court has indicated under a case called Polillo and the cases that followed it that even mere procedural improprieties should be found to be violative of the OPMA, the current issues before the court affect real people and deserve to be vindicated for many within the municipality.
Why not have an attorney argue this?
Continue reading “What is Kaplan v. Teaneck BOE about anyway?”
//Last week, an ethics complaint was filed against Councilwoman Denise Belcher in connection with an Application for a zoning variance before the Township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The property at 61 Church Street was zoned as a residential property and housed St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. The property is 1.3 acres and a new applicant wished to use it as a school for 100 students.
[note: the property had been abandoned for many years at the time of the application]
Of note, the property was used by the Teaneck Board of Education in the 1970s (the high point in terms of Teaneck’s population) to deal with an overpopulation issue in the district (at the time the district had over 8,000+ students, more than double today’s numbers).
In response to changing demographics, the Council instituted a set of racist and hurtful rules that were specifically designed to keep new residents, such as Blacks or Orthodox Jews from getting a foothold in the township.
One of the rules required that schools would need 10 acres + 1 additional acre per 100 students. That rule, still on the books, required the applicant to seek a waiver for the 11 acres the Building department said was necessary.
Let’s be very clear. Compared to existing schools, the closest in terms of size would be TCCS with 1.33 acres (spot-on match) and with 350 students, they are FAR below the required space. The 350 students alone would require FOUR ADDITIONAL acres beyond the initial 5 necessary.
Teaneck High School? At 12.97 acres, and with 1,239 students, they would require 10 acres + an additional 12 acres = 22 acres. Teaneck High School is TEN ACRES too small according to the rules for which the Applicant was being held.
But being in favor of a once racist policy as soon is suits you, is merely reprehensible… not unethical according to State Ethics rules.
Sadly for Teaneck and the Applicant, that’s not where Councilwoman Belcher stopped.
Councilwoman Belcher came before the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a representative of the East Votee Neighborhood Association. The Applicant’s attorney addressed her directly twice during her remarks as “Councilwoman Belcher.” This clearly indicated that the Applicant’s attorney understood that a Member of the Township Council was opposing the Application
On February 5, 2023, three days after the first public hearing held by the Board of Adjustment concerning the Application, Councilwoman Belcher and Gervonn Rice received an email from Councilmember Mark Schwartz concerning the Application that stated “[t]he above applicant reached out to me this evening in the hopes of arranging a sit down with you both after hearing you represent the community at the Board of Adjustment meeting this past week.” (Emphasis supplied.)
On February 27, 2023, Councilwoman Belcher received an email from Vincent Brevetti, another member of the East Votee Neighborhood Association, that requested “[p]lease call me so we may discuss legal implications concerning 61 Church St.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In an email dated March 1, 2023, Councilwoman Belcher stated that “[t]his invitation is extended to you from the EVNA (East Votee Neighborhood Association) for you to attend in support of the neighbor’s effort to reject this proposed application.” (Emphasis supplied.) The email further stated that “[t]his is the second meeting since the 1st introductory meeting in February, since then the neighbors have researched and mobilized and are vehemently against this application.” (Emphasis supplied.) As used in that email, the term “neighbor” is referring to the East Votee Neighborhood Association.
What is clear from all four of these exchanges concerning the Church Street Property is that Councilwoman Belcher was acting on behalf of the East Votee Neighborhood Association in her official capacity in her active opposition to the Application. Councilwoman Belcher was not just speaking “as a neighbor in the Northeast.” See Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509
After the applicant pulled the application looking to find a home elsewhere, Councilwoman Belcher wasn’t done. She wanted to make sure she approved of any FUTURE applicant for the property. A message was sent by a local email list (for which previous version indicated Belcher was a Supporter) stating:
“But we’re not done! Moving forward a team of residents is partnering with the current property owner with the goal of identifying a suitable project that will enhance our neighborhood. If you are on the East Votee Neighborhood Association (EVNA) mailing list, we will keep you informed regarding any developments.”
[via Teaneck Voices where Denise Belcher was listed as a Supporter on the Masthead]
After the East Votee Neighborhood Association members were made aware that the current application was withdrawn, they stated: “First, until we know that the 61 Church Street site will be developed responsibly, in ways that preserve our neighborhood, we must remain mobilized and continue our work together. We cannot let our guard down. Whatever is proposed next, needs to be compatible with our neighborhood.”
At that point, to ensure that the new applicant for the property was approved by Belcher, she became (through her Real Estate firm) the listing agent for the property.
Any and all applicants for the property were to go through Belcher.
A Councilwoman who appoints the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (several members who appeared in favor of the application were not appointed a few months later), who makes zoning affecting Teaneck residents, who is working on the Master Plan which will guide zoning and variance decisions… that individual appeared on behalf of others to influence the Zoning Board against an application and then became the Agent, making thousands of dollars in commission (the building sold for $2.4M).
When you have control of zoning decisions, the ability to replace (or not replace) members of statutory boards, advocate on behalf of others and make money after stating you will ensure you approve of particular buyers and users of the property… you now have an ethics issue.
In response, Belcher said that she understands ethics and the obligation to ensure no conflicts exist. Referring to the complaint, she stated the “targeted attacks” are simply divisive, they are hate-filled and they are discriminatory.
Ms. Belcher, you will not find a discriminatory word in the complaint, as it’s irrelevant to the manifest problems.
//[Link to answer: Answer]
The thrust of defendants’ argument is that the Court should uphold the Commission’s recommendation on the basis of its substantial compliance with the Sunshine Law. They assert (1) that there was no attempt “to meet secretly or without some notice to the public,” as found by the Appellate Division, and (2) that any meeting at which formal votes were taken complied with the Act, thereby satisfying the requirements of the law. Although, on these facts, we impute to the Commission no wrongful motivation for choosing to conduct its business as it did, lack of wrongful intent cannot excuse noncompliance with the Act. Such a reading of the statute would invite abuse and would contravene the legislative intent in enacting the provision.
Rather than providing a new exception to the rule, we believe that defendants’ suggestion would swallow the rule. Accordingly we reject this argument completely and hold that strict adherence to the letter of the law is required in considering whether a violation of the Act has occurred.
Polillo v. Deane 74 N.J. 562 (1977)
//The Line is Dead, but this Easter, plenty of pols are hoping for a Resurrection
What has happened since Judge Quraishi’s opinion?
For those unaware: NJ has been using “the line” to ensure preferential treatment for establishment pols since the 60’s. It works incredibly well. There hasn’t been a pol that won “off the line” in about a decade and a half (since 2009). You can read about the case against the line here: Abolosh The Line
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi (NJ’s First Muslim Article III Judge) ruled on Friday that the line had to go.
Some NJ Pols are… not happy about it.
Here’s what has happened since: Continue reading ““The Line”: Is it dead or will it be resurrected? Some Counties are already abandoning the fight. Here’s what has happened…”
//Click to enlarge the slides:
//| Average Change in Assessed Value | Average Change in Assessed Value | Average Change in Yearly Tax payment | Number of houses in category |
|---|---|---|---|
| $237,949.12 | 62.08% | -$51.35 | 10,974 |
(use the slider to see additional information)
| Voting District | Number of Properties | Avg. Change in Yearly Payment |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 444 | -$113.46 |
| 2 | 514 | $120.91 |
| 3 | 508 | -$331.03 |
| 4 | 566 | $23.19 |
| 5 | 334 | $329.00 |
| 6 | 413 | $46.37 |
| 7 | 432 | -$0.89 |
| 8 | 613 | $140.11 |
| 9 | 548 | -$87.98 |
| 10 | 591 | -$119.95 |
| 11 | 492 | -$271.53 |
| 12 | 544 | -$463.60 |
| 13 | 474 | -$26.48 |
| 14 | 619 | $56.20 |
| 15 | 154 | $175.51 |
| 16 | 332 | -$61.53 |
| 17 | 543 | $125.47 |
| 18 | 545 | -$60.58 |
| 19 | 554 | $15.18 |
| 20 | 366 | -$410.78 |
| 21 | 571 | -$166.43 |
| 22 | 408 | $127.88 |
| 23 | 409 | -$25.13 |
//
The Teaneck Board of Education has problems.
There’s the Federal investigation into Civil Rights Violations by the Office of Civil Rights
There’s the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Investigation and charges of Civil Rights Violations
(First Letter from FIRE) (Second Letter from FIRE)
And now, there’s a Superior Court action for multiple violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (NJ’s signature transparency law)
I called several of the OPMA violations out at meetings, including the failure to abide by the minimum requirements of transparency–sending notice to two newspapers. The First Amendment organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) has called them out for Civil Rights violations, not once, but TWICE. And the Feds are investigating the District.
Sadly, there’s no sign that the illegal and improper activities that the Trustees of the Board of Education and the Administration in Teaneck have been engaged in, will be ending on their own.
So I have filed a Verified Complaint and an Order to Show Cause against the School District. Today, the Order was granted by Judge Catuogno.
I do not take this step lightly. However the law requires certain actions, and they have not been taken. To wit: Continue reading “Kaplan v. Teaneck BOE”
//The last meeting of both the Municipal Council and the Board of Education has shown just how much transparency is a buzzword, without much meaning, to many elected to public office.
At the December 12th meeting of the Teaneck Council, Councilwoman Goldberg made a motion to appoint co-chairs of the PPRAB. In response, the following conversation appears to indicate that open session (public) items have not only been discussed in closed session but decisions were made in closed session for open session items, in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA):
Discussion from the December 12th Open session meeting:
You can watch the entire meeting here: https://youtu.be/uOHqH3unrQ8?t=4526
The conversation below starts at approximately 1:15:26
Deputy Mayor Gee: “Mr. Mayor, I’m doing all the personnel nominations, I’m not sure why she [Councilwoman Goldberg] did that.”
CW Belcher: “The discussion is, I thought in closed session, we said that Deputy Mayor Gee was going to put forth the nominations, so I don’t know why Councilwoman Goldberg is usurping that intent. That was clearly stated during closed session.” Continue reading “Municipal Weather: Shady With Remote Chance of Sunshine”
//What happens in a closed session of the Council or Board of Education stays in that closed session… but the minutes, with proper redactions, are still a public record.
But not according to the Teaneck Board of Education. I have emailed the Board Secretary to provide these documents. If they do not do so, suit shall be commenced.
I hope they do not waste taxpayer dollars trying to hide this public information.
Keith Kaplan
Teaneck Today Continue reading “Teaneck BOE Violates OPRA to Keep Public in the Dark”
//“When the Board of Education Violated My Civil Rights, I Chose to Fight Fisher with F.I.R.E.” – Keith Kaplan
Lest anyone thinks that the standpoint the board based their vague and unequally applied rules has any standing, I’d urge you to read Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
In the opinion, the Court says:
“The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures — Boards of Education not excepted.”
“Such Boards are numerous, and their territorial jurisdiction often small. But small and local authority may feel less sense of responsibility to the Constitution, and agencies of publicity may be less vigilant in calling it to account.”
“There are village tyrants, as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.”
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
and my favorite line from any opinion:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”
On October 11, Teaneck School’s Superintendent Dr. Andre D. Spencer sent out a letter to parents in the wake of the most horrific attack on the Jewish people in a single day since the Holocaust.
In that letter, Dr. Spencer referred to the attacks perpetrated by Hamas as “the latest incidents in the cycle of violence in the Middle East” and “[t]he unfortunate situation in the Middle East”.
In the days following, I personally reached out to Dr. Spencer and we spoke via telephone for a while about the reasons the letter was so problematic to many residents, including those who had children in the district. I even went as far as to prepare language that Dr. Spencer might be able to use1 to indicate that he understood the Jewish community’s anguish and was being responsive to those in his care.
Subsequently, parents in the township organized a Change.org petition, entitled: “Teaneck Public Schools: Revise Your Statement on Terrorism in Israel“, which urged the Superintendent to revisit his remarks. The letter was signed by 3,071 individuals.
On October 17th, the Township Council unanimously passed Resolution 272-2023 “Denouncing the Terrorist Group Hamas and Supporting the State of Israel”.
The next day, residents came to address the Board of Education and Superintendent Spencer at the regular board meeting of October 18th [video link to meeting].
At the 10/18 BOE meeting, Board Vice President Victoria Fisher regularly cut off speakers who mentioned atrocities committed by Hamas against Israel, but did not do so for those making comments in the opposite direction. After seeing at least six of these incidents happen (watch e.g. at time indexes: 16:55, 50:16, 54:35 and 1:21:57), I went to the microphone and spoke.
You can watch me speaking at time reference 1:49:57.
Several residents were cut off from speaking based on vague notions that dangerous actions, described in detail were too much for High School students in attendance, to hear.
The Court in Cohen v. CA dealt with the issue of using alternative words, stating:
“Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said,
“[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 322 U. S. 673-674 (1944).
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
I was cut off from speaking no less than 3 times, due solely to the words I spoke to the board. This was an egregious violation of the First Amendment, as well as State Law (N.J. STAT. § 10:4-12(a) — OPMA) and Board Policy.
“Several parents and community members used the public comment period to criticize Spencer for not explicitly and forcefully condemning the attack. But when they described Hamas’s actions to support that criticism, the board repeatedly shut them down. The board took particular exception to commenters’ “graphic” descriptions of the attack and repeatedly told speakers to keep in mind that children were in the audience.
Yet when other commenters used their time to emphasize the plight of Palestinians and used similarly “graphic” language, the board allowed them to continue.”
– Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
“For example, when one speaker said it’s possible to unequivocally condemn Hamas’s actions without taking a side in the conflict “unless of course you’re trying to appease people who actually think that the raping and murdering and pillaging of the community is appropriate,” Board Vice President Victoria Fisher immediately cut him off. In contrast, the board remained silent when another commenter said, “These people talking about raping and piling bodies on top of each other, that happened in the Holocaust. And if they’re having PTSD for what they’re doing to the Muslim community in Palestine, that’s something they need to seek mental health counseling for.”
When a speaker rhetorically asked how others would feel if “Indigenous people in our country … pulled your kids out of their beds and then shot you in front of them,” Fisher disapprovingly interrupted. But the board allowed someone else to freely comment that Israel’s “dehumanizing and genocidal actions” and the “propaganda surrounding them have spread all the way to us, where kids are stabbed 26 times just for being Palestinian.”
The board also repeatedly warned speakers discussing the Hamas attack not to repeat details or facts already “on the record.” Yet several pro-Palestinian speakers repeated details mentioned by previous commenters without receiving such warnings or admonitions.”
– Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
At the next meeting, the Board voted in closed session to have the Counsel for the District send a letter to “Cease and Desist” regarding my “conduct” to the board. In this revision of history, the attorneys stated:
“The Board takes no position with respect to the subject matter of your comments”
This is clearly belied by the facts, as anyone can see on the recorded Board meeting.
Luckily, there are groups such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), whose mission is “to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty.”
FIRE lays out exactly where the Board VP, Victoria Fisher repeatedly violated the civil rights of parents and other members of our community. The letter, which is posted in full below with links to all relative documents and cases, requests a response by December 11th. I will update you whenever responses come through.
The response from FIRE to the Teaneck Board of Education can be read here:
2023-11-27_FIRE Letter to Teaneck Public Schools Board of Education, November 27, 2023Due to a significant number of emails received by the Teaneck Board of Education, I also notified Board President Sebastian Rodriguez and Vice President Victoria Fisher separately, since they were cc’d on the communication to me. I will post any further responses I receive below.
Response from Teaneck Board of Education Vice President Victoria Fisher:
Response from Teaneck Board of Education President Sebastian Rodriguez:
“Keith you sent the letter to the attorney Mr. Tabarkin, as such you must wait for his response by the due date on the letter (12/11/23).”