CCA Update: Petition Deficient [Clerk’s Response attached]

Community Choice Aggregation

As previously covered, some members of the community have been working on a program call Community Choice Aggregation (“CCA”).  The program uses credits from renewable energy providers elsewhere to “transfer” that energy (via credits) to our area.

The net result is that energy is purchased at lower rates (through aggregating demand).  The program has positives and negatives (which I’ve covered in the post linked here.

On July 15, 2021 the petitioners submitted their petitions (with an enclosed ordinance to be proposed for the ballot).

The clerk issued a response, which can be found here:

Unlike the One Town, One Vote petition, the CCA petitioners do both

  1. enclose the required ordinance and
  2. cite the correct Statute for initiating a petition (N.J.S.A. 40:69A-184 ).

Why was the petition rejected?

Among the reasons for rejection:

  • The petition did not contain the requisite number of signatures.

There’s little the clerk can do if you don’t supply the signatures required.

  • The petition contained electronic signatures which were not authorized to be accepted.

Due to the pandemic, Governor Murphy issued a series of Executive Orders.  Among them was EO 132 which allowed petitions such as an initiative or referendum to be accepted by a municipal clerk in electronic form.  EO 132 was further modified by EO 216 which extended the rule through the end of the Public Health Emergency.

On June 4th, Governor Murphy announced EO 244, which ended the public health emergency.  Had nothing else happened, the authorization that permitted a municipal clerk to accept an electronic petition would have ended that moment.  However, the Legislature enacted P.L. 2021, CHAPTER 103, (approved June 4, 2021) which extended the EO 216’s operation for 30 days.

Petitioners were noticed and should have been aware that the authorization for acceptance of electronic signatures ended on June 4th.  They also should have been aware the extension for such authorization was extended 30 days past June 4th.  That would enable the clerk to be authorized to accept electronic petitions (assuming they were in the proper form) only until Sunday, July 4th. Being generous and giving them an extra day until Monday, July 5th, they missed the deadline by 10 days, having only submitted the petition on July 15th.  Without express authorization by Statute or Executive Order, the clerk is not authorized by statute to accept the petitions.

The Cure Period

As indicated in the clerk’s notice, “[p]ursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:69A-188, the Committee may amend the Petition at any time within ten days from this Notice of Insufficiency.”

How many more signatures are required?

The following signatures were submitted

  • Electronic: 614 total (52 contained deficiencies as listed below):
    • 1 was deficient for not being fully completed (e.g. missing printed name, address, signature)
    • 8 were deficient for providing information not corresponding with voter registration information (e.g. name, address)
    • 32 were deficient for not being registered voters or not being registered voters in Teaneck
    • 11 were deficient for being duplicates
  • Hard copy: 263 (76 contained deficiencies as listed below):
    • 2 were deficient for not being fully completed (e.g. missing printed name, address, signature);
    • 50 were deficient for providing information not corresponding with voter registration information (e.g. name, address
    • 17 were deficient for not being registered voters or not being registered voters in Teaneck
    • 3 were deficient for being duplicates;
    • 4 were deficient for being illegible

As electronic petitions are not permitted, the balance of valid handwritten signatures stands at: 187

How many signatures are required to have an ordinance placed on the ballot?

As indicated in the clerk’s response:

“There exists a legitimate question of what the statute means by the “total number of votes cast” but giving the statute the most liberal reading possible, the best reading for the Committee would be based on the total number of voters who voted at the last election at which members of the General Assembly were elected in Teaneck, which figure was 7908. Thus, the total number of signatures required to submit an initiated ordinance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:69A-184 is 10% of 7908 or 791 signatures.”

As 187 is below the threshold level of 791, the petition was found deficient.  Petitioners may amend and cure deficiencies within 10 days of being notified.

Community Choice Energy Aggregation: Coming soon?

A statement by Paula Rogovin, one of the Petitioners appears below:


Further explanation regarding electronic signatures for petitions

What does the Executive Order authorize?

EO 216 says in relevant part:

1. “The… municipal clerks… shall allow for any… initiative, referendum, or other petition required to be filed prior to an election to be submitted by hand delivery and
electronically.”

2. The… municipal clerks…  shall accept petitions with hand-written signatures and signatures collected via an online form created by the Secretary of State.

4. The requirements of N.J.S.A. 19:23-7, N.J.S.A. 19:23-15, and N.J.S.A. 19:13-8 that a candidate provide a notarized oath of allegiance shall be in effect regardless of whether a petition is submitted by hand delivery or electronically.

9. This order shall take effect immediately and shall apply to any petition that is due or may be submitted during the Public Health Emergency, first declared in Executive Order No. 103 (2020).

Clerk’s may only do what they are authorized to do by Statute.  Here, the EO (132, supplemented by 216) authorized the clerk to allow for any initiative to be submitted (paragraph #1) on a form created by the Sec. of State (paragraph #2) with the necessary oaths (paragraph #4) and applied to any petition that was due or submitted during the Public Health Emergency (which ended via EO 244 on June 4, 2021).

Once EO 216 ended, paragraph #9 meant that the public health emergency no longer allowed clerks to accept submitted electronic petitions.  But, they got a 30 day extension, via legislation.  That extension was on notice to the public (including petitioners).

Therefore, after the 30 days extension elapsed (on July 5th, 2021), the authorization to accept the petitions ceased and the clerk was precluded from doing so.

To be clear: the clerk was not authorized, absent express authorization to accept electronic signatures.  It did not exist on July 15th.

 

Mosquito Spraying: Where and why?

Resident Glenn Williams Jr submitted the following query to the group:

So…I took a snippet overlaying where Bergen County has sprayed for Mosquitos the last 4 times (2018-2021). And I mean…this is almost hilarious to see. I’m genuinely interested in hearing a reasonable explanation as to how this is even possible. Do the mosquitos stop in the middle of Votee park to play basketball? Do they only cross Route 4 in one area? I mean COME ON. lol. I mean I’m willing to listen, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me at all. 4 years?
At first glance, it certainly seems odd.
So I did two things.
  1. I called the county to get information (they have yet to call me back)
  2. I looked up the Environmental Resource Inventory (available here)

Bergen County Mosquito Control

Continue reading “Mosquito Spraying: Where and why?”

2021 Mosquito Spraying

Tomorrow, August 2, the County will be spraying for Mosquitos throughout Teaneck.

The map of areas set for spraying can be found below.

In compliance with N.J.A.C. Title 7, Chapter 30, the Bergen County Mosquito Control Division BCMCD will be applying insecticides for the control of adult mosquito populations on an area-wide basis, in Teaneck, on Monday, August 2, 2021 between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM. Continue reading “2021 Mosquito Spraying”

Petitioners and EiC Hillary Zaer-Goldberg: Apologize For Disparaging Town Employee

“Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”
– Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan after acquittal


Speaking freely on topics of concern is important.  Having smart people discussing issues on both sides of an issue and opposite ends of a spectrum informs the electorate about various issues.

But when petitioners choose to smear an employee merely for doing his job and an “editor-in-chief” decides to allow their publication to smear an employee to a larger audience, it does nothing to foster debate, argue issues, or help the community.

As you may have seen, the Township clerk replied to a petition submitted to his office.  The reply is posted here and you can read the entire thing for yourselves.

Petitions chose to issue a statement, in which they imply that the Township Clerk acted inappropriately.

Ms Goldberg then chose to describe the issue thusly:

Teaneck Clerk Tries to Thwart popular Grassroots Initiative” and has sent out the following to her mailing list:

In the email, Goldberg includes the petitioners’ press release, without the letter from the clerk stating the statutory deficiencies of the petition effort, which says in part:

“It is no surprise that the One Town One Vote petition is being challenged by the Township Clerk, who is appointed by the Teaneck Township council. The council majority has been fiercely opposed to the proposed change to the status quo.”

The clerk did not “thwart” anything.  He did his job.  If there’s a disagreement over how he did so, there’s an appeal process.

To make such a claim, absent evidence is bad enough.  To disseminate that statement, without corroborating it, compounds the injury.

One reader of Teaneck Today wrote me to say:

“I don’t know the town clerk, I don’t care what his politics are. He had a right to do his job free from abuse or being used as some kind of a tool, and he in turn has an obligation to carry out his duties in accordance with the law and free from bias. I have never heard otherwise. This nonsense all started with Ron Schwartz forcing him to pose for photos as if he was receiving the civil rights act.”

Petitioners, Ms. Goldberg, and any others that shared this should immediately apologize to the Clerk.  He did his job.  He should not be scorned for doing so.

UPDATE: Meet the 2021 BOE Candidates

Subject to certification by the County Clerk, the preliminary list of BOE candidates for the 2021 November election appears below:

If you’re a candidate and would like to participate in a “virtual” Meet & Greet to introduce yourself to Teaneck Today membership, please let me know. A formal invitation to all candidates will be going out as well.

  • DENNIS KLEIN [BRIDGING GAPS]
  • DARRYL F. GREENE
  • ROMAINE L. HASSANAH
  • RACHEL SECEMSKI
  • YASSINE ELKARYANI
  • LAURA E. FEIN [KIDS COME FIRST]
  • VICTORIA FISHER* [TRUST EQUITY ACCESS]
  • JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ [TRUST EQUITY ACCESS]
  • SHAMIQ SYED [TRUST EQUITY ACCESS]

* Indicates Incumbent

(three positions are open and brackets listed were chosen by the candidates)

UPDATE:

Please note that while Mr. Sahmiq Syed submitted an adequate number of petitions, he has been disqualified for not meeting the minimum residency requirement of living in Teaneck (1 year).

Board of Ed incumbent Victoria Fisher acknowledged in a social media post yesterday that the “campaign won’t be easy”.
Apparently, this is the first setback for the “Trust Equity Access” team.

 

Teaneck 101: Talking about the basics

A huge thank you to Miriam Berger, Danny Ackerman, and the others that helped to arrange this.
On behalf of myself and Mayor Jim Dunleavy, we also wanted to thank the residents that sent in questions and tuned in to watch.
We hope to do more of these in the near future.
The recording from last night is available below for anyone that’s interested.
Feel free to also join the conversation in the Teaneck Today group on FB.
References in the video are linked below 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Page

Municipal:

Board Of Education:

State:

Breakdowns:

 

Want to hear about a different topic?  Have questions about procedures in Town?

Let us know:

 

Developer Sues Teaneck For Not Permitting Off-Site Affordable Housing

The Township said only on-site affordable housing units.  The Developer agreed.

Then they sued to change the terms.

Developer promised affordable units in Teaneck but hasn’t built any, lawsuit says

As per the Bergen Record:

“Teaneck is facing another lawsuit regarding affordable housing after a developer failed to provide two affordable units agreed upon in the site plan, the Fair Share Housing Center alleges.”

The developer signed an agreement to build two affordable units on-site.  But when the Township wouldn’t let them renegotiate the agreement, they filed suit.

Back in May, attorney Gail Price filed a lawsuit for her client Red Realty against Teaneck and the head of our Building Department.  At issue was the denial of a temporary certificate of occupancy to the builder.

In short, the builder applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBOA”) for permission to build 19 apartments back in 2015/16.  Among the requirements set forth by the ZBOA, he had to:

  • Build 2 Affordable Apartments in addition to Market Rate units
  • Sign a developers agreement with the Township

The ZBOA grant of variance allowed for the affordable units to be built on or off site (the appeal pre-dated the ordinance requiring only on-site affordable housing units), but the developer’s agreement required only on-site and inclusionary affordable apartments.

  • “E. Affordable Housing. The Applicant shall be required to provide 2 affordable housing units either within the development. Or in the alternative, the Applicant may provide 2 units elsewhere in the Township. A contribution to a fund will not be considered an option or be permitted.”
  • “F (3): The within Approval is conditioned upon the Applicant entering into a Developer’s Agreement with the Township. The Developer’s Agreement shall contain the applicable conditions of this resolution.

Resolution of the ZBOA

  • 59. Affordable Housing UnitsThe Developer shall provide not less than 2 on-siteaffordable housing units in connection with the proposed development.  The Developer shall be required to comply with all legal requirements necessary to render the aforedescribed affordable housing units as affordable housing units to low and moderate income families as those terms are defined pursuant to the regulations established by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAI-l) or its successor and the Housing Affordability Controls regulations (N.J.A.C. 5:80-26 et seq.). The Applicant shall be required to take all actions necessary to insure that the unit is deemed to be an affordable housing unit acceptable to COAI-I, and shall be affirmatively marketed in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The units shall also be deed restricted in accordance with COAH regulations and only be rented or sold to an income qualified individual.
    Developer’s Agreement with Township

When the applicant asked for permission to do off-site affordable housing units, the Township emphatically said: No!

When asked if they could have a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (“TCO”) to allow them to rent their market-rate units, the Township said: No!

So they sued.  And a Judge granted their papers, ordering the Teaneck building department to give them a TCO.  You can read the decision here.

But the case is not over

As per the complaint filed this week,

57. After Judge Farrington’s June 11, 2021 Order, counsel for the Township of Teaneck contacted counsel for Fair Share Housing Center.
58. Counsel for Teaneck informed FSHC of the action and what had transpired.
Complaint filed by Fair Share (available here)

Fair Share filed a letter in the existing litigation and sued on their own as well.

“FSHC is gravely concerned that if RREA receives its TCOs for all its market-rate units before it has provided any of the required affordable housing units, the affordable homes will never be built.”
Fair Share Housing Letter

Now, as per the Record:

“The center filed the suit Tuesday in Superior Court in Bergen County, naming not only the developer but also Teaneck and its Board of Adjustment. The attorneys for the township, the Board of Adjustment and Red Real Estate Associates were not immediately available for comment.”

Complaint available here

Stay tuned.

 

The End of Prohibition in Teaneck? [Part 1]

It seems that the end of prohibition may officially be on the horizon.  Once a never-ending war on the foul drugs of decadence, those in the temperance movement on the waning side of history.

What will the future be like in the USA, NJ, and Teaneck in particular once prohibition is finally over?

It’s unclear for sure, but we will track developments here. Continue reading “The End of Prohibition in Teaneck? [Part 1]”

The Future Former Administration of the Teaneck BOE

If you missed it while you were poolside or having bbq and watching the fireworks, I’d completely understand.

While most of us were celebrating the 4th of July, the BOE sent out a notice informing the public that a special meeting would be held tonight, July 7th.

The notice, says:
There will be only one item for discussion this evening (TBD) and public participation (virtual/live) will be kept to 1 hour. Formal action may be taken.

So, that’s…. informative?

Rumors started swirling, almost immediately.  Some said the Superintendent, who was just granted a five-year contract last year, would be tossed out.

Turns out, the rumors were accurate:

Why? Continue reading “The Future Former Administration of the Teaneck BOE”

Rodda Center POD to Close on June 27th

After a very successful six month operation, the Richard Rodda Center COVID-19 vaccination site will close on June 27, 2021. Since opening in early January, this incredible vaccination site administered well over 100,000 doses of vaccine which saved many lives across the State.

This remarkable achievement could not have been attained if it wasn’t for the hard work of staff from Holy Name Medical Center, the Township of Teaneck, our private sector partners, as well as our community members who visited these sites to get vaccinated.

Now that vaccine supply has caught up with demand, getting vaccinated is easier than ever. In areas where mass vaccination sites are closing, there will still be multiple vaccine providers nearby that will continue to administer the COVID-19 vaccine. People can visit the New Jersey COVID-19 Information Hub https://covid19.nj.gov/ for help finding vaccination sites in your area.

Holy Name Medical Center, located at 718 Teaneck Road, Teaneck, New Jersey, will continue to provide first and second doses of the vaccine at the hospital facility after June 27, 2021. Anyone unvaccinated can register for the first dose of the vaccine by visiting https://vaccine.holyname.org/covid-vaccine. Continue reading “Rodda Center POD to Close on June 27th”