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?
I couldn’t find any attorney to take this case without paying an extraordinary fee, so I went in alone.
Certain types of cases (like when the government denies you documents) let the attorney work for free and get back the money for their time after they win the case. Meetings act cases do not work like that.
Since there’s no chance for recoupment of attorney costs like there is with a records act case, and no volunteers, I thought I’d try to defend the parents, students and residents, nonetheless.
For clarity: I am not an attorney, I don’t have experience in courtrooms and to be clear with everyone (other than the cases where I was named as a councilman, in my official capacity), this is the first time I’ve ever been a party to litigation (with an exception for a small claims case in college).
But the facts and the law seem to be on the side of those supporting me here.
There was even a similar case where the facts were almost IDENTICAL (see below) and the Trial Judge went and did what the lawyers requested, saying… eh, who cares and gave it to the Board, as a win.
But then there was an Appeal that followed and the Appellate Court said:
“We agree the Board’s multiple failures to comply with the OPMA require reversal of the trial court’s orders and remand to the Board for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
Take a look at the parallels:
| Brick Zoning Board of Adjustment (2018) | Teaneck School Board (2024) |
|
Lawyers for Municipality: Weiner Law Group LLP, attorneys for respondent Brick Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (Ronald D. Cucchiaro, of counsel and on the brief; Richard Brigliadoro, on the brief). |
Lawyers for Municipality: WEINER LAW GROUP LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Teaneck Board of Education, Sebastian Rodriguez, Victoria Fisher, Edward Ha, Nadia Hosein, Dennis Klein, Kassandra Reyes, Jonathan Rodriguez, Denise Sanders, and Clara Williams (Stephen J. Edelstein) |
| [PLAINTIFF’S] COMPLAINT RELIEF REQUESTING THAT ALL BOARD DETERMINATIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE REORGANIZATION, JANUARY 17TH REGULAR MEETING AND THE JANUARY 31ST SPECIAL MEETING, BE VOIDED DUE TO OPMA VIOLATIONS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. |
SAME (For the Reorganization Meeting, January 17th Regular Meeting and also meetings in November / Special Meeting in December)
|
| [PLAINTIFF’S] COMPLAINT RELIEF REQUESTING THE BOARD TO TAKE REMEDIAL AND CURATIVE MEASURES TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE OPMA, FOR THE REORGANIZATION, JANUARY 17TH REGULAR AND JANUARY 21ST SPECIAL MEETINGS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. |
SAME (For Remedial and Curative meeting held on January 17th at the Regular Meeting and November / December Special Meeting)
|
| Decision of the Court: | Decision of the Court: TBA |
| The Board conducted its reorganization meeting on January 3, 2018, at which it adopted a revised 2018 annual meeting schedule and appointed the Board chairman, vice chairman, secretary, attorney, engineer, court reporter and conflict planner. |
SAME 2024 instead of 2018 Board appointed President, Vice-President and Business Administrator & attorney. |
| At the January 17, 2018 regular meeting, the Board chairman announced RTS’s application would not be heard because the meeting was not properly noticed, and would be carried to a special meeting on January 31, 2018. | At the January 3rd meeting, the Board administrator announced that the meeting was not properly notice but held the meeting anyway and said it would be re-affirmed at the January 17th meeting. |
| At the January 31 meeting, plaintiff’s counsel challenged the Board’s jurisdiction. Specifically, he noted the earlier January meetings were not included in the 2017 annual meeting schedule that was published only in the Asbury Park Press (The Press). | At the January 3rd and 17th meetings, the plaintiff (me) challenged the Board’s jurisdiction. Specifically, noting the earlier January meetings were not included in the 2023 annual meeting schedule that was published only in the Bergen Record. |
| He also observed that notice of those early-January meetings appeared only in the annual meeting schedule published in a January 18, 2018 edition of The Press—after the meetings were held. |
SAME (only published in the Bergen Record) |
| The Board’s counsel agreed that the annual meeting schedule that included the early-January meetings was published on January 18 [2018], only in The Press. |
SAME 2024 and The Bergen Record |
| [Plaintiff’s Counsel] commented those steps constituted “substantial compliance” with the OPMA, and invalidation of the Board’s actions was not warranted. | SAME |
| N.J.S.A. 10:4-18 requires that a public body, such as the Board, mail the annual meeting notice to at least two newspapers designated by the public body pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(2).5 We see no proof that the annual meeting notice was mailed to The Ocean Star. Thus, there was no advance notice of the January 3 and January 17, 2018 meetings. |
SAME 2024 and the Bergen Record |
| Absent notice under N.J.S.A. 10:4-18, a public body must give “adequate notice” of a meeting in compliance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d), which provides in pertinent part: “‘Adequate notice’ means written advance notice of at least [forty-eight] hours, giving the time, date, location and, to the extent known, the agenda of any regular, special or rescheduled meeting, which notice shall accurately state whether formal action may or may not be taken[.]” Notice must be posted in the same manner as required for the annual meeting schedule. N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(1). It must also be “mailed, telephoned, telegrammed, or hand delivered to at least two newspapers” designated in the same manner as those to which an annual meeting notice is to be mailed. N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(2). And, it must be submitted in the same manner as the annual meeting notice with the clerks and Secretary of State. N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(3). | SAME |
| It is undisputed that the Board failed to provide prior notice of its January 3 and January 17, 2018 meetings, and that, inexplicably, notice of all its regular meetings on the annual meeting schedule was mailed only to The Press, not to the second required newspaper. |
SAME (The Bergen Record) |
| As plaintiff clearly explained to the Board at the January 31 meeting, notice of meetings must be mailed to two newspapers. The law mandates the Board’s actions be declared void. | SAME |
| We are also convinced the Board’s violations were technical ones, related to the newspaper-notice requirement of the OPMA; it complied with the posting and submission requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(1) and N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(3). | SAME |
| The Board’s remedial actions appear to have been good-faith attempts to rectify the mistakes made at the early January meetings. Its readoption of the meeting schedule and the appointments were de novo actions. Unfortunately, although notice of the February meeting at which the annual meeting schedule was readopted was proper, the Board never mailed the schedule to two newspapers. The schedule was twice published in The Press, but it was never sent to The Ocean Star. Hence, any regular meeting on that schedule was never properly noticed. The remedial action of readopting the Board’s appointments that took place at the August and September meetings, therefore, did not take place “at a public meeting held in conformity with [the OPMA],” as required by N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a). The Board’s corrective actions did not satisfy the OPMA’s purposes or cure the notice-defect. |
SAME (except the second notice failed for not including the action to be taken in the agenda at all [for the corrective action on the December meetings] and that if failed to include the required language that “Formal Action May Be Taken”) |
| We fully comprehend not every violation of the OPMA requires reversal of the body’s actions at an inadequately noticed meeting. Polillo, 74 N.J. at 579. But we cannot approve the Board’s initial failure to comply with the OPMA with regard to its early- January meetings, and its subsequent compliance failures in attempting to remediate those failures. | SAME |
| Outcome: Overturned on Appeal |
Outcome: ??? |
A-0858-18T2_JSTAR_LLC_vs_Brick_Township_Zoning_Board_of_Adjustment_l-0389-18_Ocean
What nobody seems to want to address is the long term gap in performance in Teaneck system in math & reading scores.
https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/2022-2023/district/detail/03/5150/overview
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=3416080
Over the last 25yrs the lack of focus on transforming that performance has hindered all other dimensions of performance in the system.
There has never been a true commitment to reevaluate the pedagogy, structure, systems of learning, design of environment, learner focus, development culture with reading, math & overall transformation of Teaneck schools to hit benchmarks that other Bergen County towns have met.