I was hopeful that having lost in Court, the Board of Education would start observing the transparency rules. Sadly, that was not the case. At the August 21st meeting, despite one Trustee (James Wolff) objecting to the lack of proper notice, the Board President, Clara Williams continued the meeting.
Worse, the Board mischaracterized the errors they had made, refused to correct the errors moving forward and ignored the Order of the Judge in several respects (including not paying costs owed to the prevailing party within 30 days).
Due to the utter lack of contrition and their unwillingness to act under the Injunction entered by Judge Catuogno, an Ethics Complaint has been filed with the NJ Department of Education, Ethics Commission.
Bottom Line: Board members are ethically required to follow the law. The Judge found they didn’t comply with the mandates of the law.
Ergo, the Board members have committed Ethics violations.
The School Ethics Act
The School Ethics Act , N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. is intended to ensure that the conduct of school officials holds the respect and confidence of the people. The Legislature declared that school officials must avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression that the public trust is being violated. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22(a). The School Ethics Act applies only to school officials as defined by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23, which includes administrators . (Source: School Ethics Commission)
The first requirement of the Code of Ethics states:
“I will uphold and enforce all laws, rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, and court orders pertaining to schools. Desired changes shall be brought about only through legal and ethical procedures.”
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey:
ORDERED that the declaratory judgment sought by Plaintiff in Count 3 of the complaint is GRANTED, the Court having found that the Teaneck Board of Education failed to comply with the mandates of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (Order)
ORDERED that the declaratory judgment sought by Plaintiff in Count 4 of the complaint is GRANTED, the Court having found that the Teaneck Board of Education failed to comply with the mandates of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (Order)
What will happen next?
Processing of Complaints
If the Commission finds probable cause for the allegations in the complaint, the matter can:
1. Be retained by the Commission for a hearing.
b. The Commission will not need to secure the parties’ written consent in matters where it finds probable cause to credit a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (Code of Ethics for School Board Members).
2. Be decided on a summary basis if the material facts are not in dispute
Nothing here is in dispute, so stay tuned…
Violations of the Act
Where the Commission deems there has been a violation of the Act, it may recommend a penalty to the Commissioner of Education which may include:
Reprimand
Censure
Suspension
Removal
In addition, if a school official was on notice that an activity would violate the Act, or in instances where a school official was previously sanctioned pursuant to this chapter, the Commission may recommend an enhanced penalty
“When we talk about the purpose of the open public meetings act and similar statutes, they are meant to provide relief to the public when the statutes are not being followed–and the rules are not being followed by the public entities. And in this instance, Mr Kaplan has come forward and shone a light on this particular issue at the Teaneck School Board.”
– Superior Court Judge Carol Novey Catuogno
To properly notice a meeting, the Board must post an annual list of meeting dates by January 10th of each year or notice a particular meeting with its agenda. You need to send the Notice to 2 newspapers, put it up on your website, send it to the Municipality and place it on the bulletin board so people can see.
Teaneck has failed to properly notice meetings, for years. And now that must change — by Court Order of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen.
Months of warnings over an ongoing series of violations of the Transparency Law
For months, the Board members stood with Superintendent Spencer and the decisions to remove Principal Valdes, to operate without proper notice and to ignore the warnings that their decisions can be voided. The weight and influence of the Weiner Law Group gave cover and credibility to those acting in secret.
Back in December, I stated that Superintendent Spencer abused the community’s trust, by operating secretly and holding votes that did not in any way comply with the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ’s “Sunshine Law”. Few took me seriously.
And when Superintendent Spencer removed Principal Valdes from THS, I spoke up. The Board didn’t listen.
I asked the Board to do the right thing–and redo the vote (according to the Sunshine rules). The Board refused.
I explained to the Board of Education and the Public how the Sunshine rules regarding transparency required a new vote. The Board still refused to take action to remedy the violations.
I went to meeting after meeting. I stood before the Board, and in January I said they had one last chance before I forced them to do the right thing. The Board still refused.
I’m not a lawyer. I never went to law school.
But I learned my way around the legal system a bit. And while I’ve never been a litigant, I thought what the Superintendent did to Principal Valdes was not ok. What the Board permitted, was not ok. In short, this was a case worth making and more importantly, no one else was making it.
What is the issue?
In 1975, NJ created a series of “sunshine laws”. They require, at a minimum, to let the public know what you plan to do and describe in detail how to notice meetings.
As per the assignment Judge for the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, the Township of Teaneck’s Board of Education has been violating the transparency rules for quite some time.
“One cannot ignore that there has been a series or a longstanding consistent failing under the Open Public Meetings Act to notice these meetings properly. Having said that I do think that remedy is necessary.”
– Superior Court Judge Catuogno (official court transcript forthcoming)
Not only must the Board re-do several of their votes from last year (including the votes last December to transfer Principals Valdes & LoGuidice), but they also must re-vote the Re-Organization meeting of January 3, 2024 — where they decided on who will be President / VP of the Board, Secretary, Board / District Legal Counsel, and other matters. All must be re-done, in strict compliance with notice rules.
The Judge also entered an injunction, that the Board must strictly abide by the Open Public Meetings act moving forward.
Judge Catuogno also found that the exemption that schools need not notice agendas, does not apply in Teaneck. The reason is simple: to receive the benefit of the exemption, you must notice your annual meeting list in accordance with the law–and Teaneck’s Board of Education did not do so. As such, not only must each meeting going forward be noticed as to the time, date and location, but the AGENDA, must also be noticed, including topics for closed session discussion.
This is a significant win for transparency!
Judge Catuogno said that she is “confident that Mr Edelstein will counsel the Board of Education that they are to comply with every aspect of the Open Public Meetings Act”.
Let’s see if she is correct.
The Meetings of December 21, 2023 and January 3, 2024
The Board has 70 days (until September 26, 2024) to re-do the votes of the December and January meetings. If they fail to do so, those votes are voided.
This is, as the President would say, a big f’ing deal.
The actions, in the judge’s words, were egregious enough and the pattern of the actions was longstanding enough, that an injunction was provided to force the Board to comply with the law.
“I’m particularly, specifically I should say, looking at counts three [transfer of principals] and four [holding the re-org meeting] for which relief has been granted. In both of those counts, in addition to the declaratory relief, the voiding of actions taken, I’m asked to award what’s generally referred to as injunctive relief. Thereby compelling or therefore compelling the defendants to change their agenda and public notice practices to provide adequate notice to the public.
I think based upon a review of the facts and circumstances in their totality, including the instances or the meeting dates referenced in count one (although they did not… they’re not cognizable before this court because they violate the statute of limitations), I do not think they can be ignored that this has been an ongoing pattern and it carries through to the counts three and four, where relief was granted, that there has been a pattern here.
Accordingly I do think it is appropriate for the court to enjoin the defendants and inform them that they are required, as is everybody that legislates or passes any sort of administrative policies, personnel decisions on behalf of the public–are required to comply with, in strict adherence according to the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey, with the mandates of the open public [Meetings] act.
So I do think injunctive relief is granted.
This is appropriate in this instance and therefore it is granted.”
The law doesn’t stop you from making bad decisions, but it does stop you from doing it behind people’s backs.
Moving Teaneck Forward, the BOE must keep everyone informed as to what will happen in their meetings.
As mentioned in a previous post, on March 28th I filed an Ethics Complaint against Councilwoman Denise Belcher regarding an Application for a zoning variance before the Township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Since Teaneck dissolved our local ethics board, the Complaint is adjudicated by the Local Government Division of the Local Finance Board.
The first step in resolving these types of complaints is to meet and determine if it’s frivolous or whether the allegations merit review. As per Counsel at the LFB, that happened today and as per the letter they just sent:
“Please be advised that it is the Board’s practice and intent to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations presented. The Board’s staff is processing your complaint at this time and will, subsequently, present it to the Board for review and authorization of any necessary action. The Board will correspond with you as soon as a determination is made in this matter.”
Just a note: While these do come from the County, there are still mail-in ballots that may be arriving, rejections that can be fixed and other issues that may alter the final tally.
The clerk will issue a final number in due course.
Sometimes, it appears that you need to say the little things, so please… do NOT be like Layla Graham, and do NOT bring a weapon to the Council meeting this evening.
Youtube (TBD) or Web: http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx
For those unaware, you can watch what transpired at the prior meeting here:
Layla Graham appeared for her first appearance (CJP) in Bergen County Superior Court on May 13th.
Her next scheduled appearance is June 11th at 9am before Criminal Judge Marc Ramundo.
Amanda Kearney’s first appearance is set for tomorrow, May 22nd (also before Criminal Judge Marc Ramundo) at 9am.
UPDATE: Amanda Kearney’s first appearance was postponed to June 11th at 9a before Criminal Judge Marc Ramundo.
If you wish to attend, please note that all criminal appearances are listed for 9am, so there may be some waiting involved.
The Courtroom is in Building 3 on the fourth floor, room 401.
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.
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]
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.
Zoning Board Appearance
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.
Let’s be clear about what this issue reveals:
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.
NJ’s Sunshine Law was passed in the 1970s and requires all State Agencies, Public Universities, Municipal Governments, and Boards of Education to follow certain requirements. The Complaint alleges that the Teaneck Board of Education has violated these requirements for many years, including recent meetings at which Principal Valdes was removed from Teaneck High School, the Board met in secret, without informing the public about discussions, and more.
Is there evidence the Board violated the OPMA?
Yes, the Board Admitted to doing so
The Board admits they violated the OPMA. In their Answer to the Court, they admit that they technically violated the Notice Requirements for the OPMA [NJSA 10:4-8(d)] for Workshop and Regular Public Meetings in paragraph 41 and they admit that they technically violated the proper notice requirements for the special meeting of December 21, 2023 (at which they removed Principal Valdes from THS) at paragraph 22
Yes, under binding precedent, the Court may be lenient in looking at the remedy used to cure a defect, but not as to whether a defect took place.
Under Polillo v. Deane (which the Board of Ed cites in their own documents), the Supreme Court of NJ said:
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)
What will happen if the Plaintiff wins?
Under the NJ Open Public Meetings Act, the Judge is empowered to do two things:
Void actions that were done not in accordance with the OPMA [NJSA 10:4-15]
Issue an injunction [NJSA 10:4-16] that the Board must follow the rules of OPMA going forward (which can be enforced if they do not follow the rules)
What can the Board do if the actions are voided?
The Board is free at any time to re-do the actions that were done improperly [see NJSA 10:4-15]. In fact, the Board claims that they have done so (at the meeting of January 17th). This will be one of the topics of discussion at the hearing on Friday.
How does the Board Re-Do the Votes they took improperly?
If the Board does decide to re-do their decisions (e.g. the vote to remove Principal Valdes), they would have to:
Properly Notice a meeting
Send out an Agenda stating the action(s) they wish to take
Abide by the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act and any other applicable laws (e.g. RICE notices to affected employees)
Mention the information or testimony/reports from the previous discussion(s) they intend to use to form the basis for a vote
Since there are new members of the Board who didn’t attend the closed sessions in December, they will likely need to re-do the closed session discussion for the new members
Have public input (from those who did not know about the previous meeting at a minimum, but hopefully anyone who wishes to speak)
STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES
Hearing information:
The hearing before Judge Catuogno will take place on Friday, April 5th at 2pm. You can watch via the Zoom link below:
Topic: (MTD Hearing) Kaplan v. Teaneck BOE – BER-L-121-24
Time: Apr 5, 2024 02:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
If anyone is interested in reading the documents in the case, they can do so here: https://www.teanecktoday.com/blog/board-of-education/litigation/ber-l-000121-24-kaplan-vs-teaneck-board-of-education/
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.
Author: 