Caught on Camera Outside Early Voting: BOE Candidate Eric Rhea Confronts Resident, Warns “Pray I Get Elected”
Police report filed with Teaneck Police Department following Sunday parking lot confrontation outside the Richard Rodda Community Center.
1. What Happened Outside the Early Voting Site on Sunday:
On Sunday, November 1, 2026, during early voting at the Richard Rodda Community Center, Teaneck Board of Education candidate Eric Rhea (Column A / “Team EFG”) confronted the author of Teaneck Today in the parking lot while the author was waiting with his young child and his wife was inside voting.
Summary of Incident Reported to Teaneck Police:
Eric Rhea approached the author in the Rodda Center parking lot and immediately demanded: “What do you have to say for yourself?”
Rhea then told the author that he didn’t know who he was dealing with, threatened that he would “f*** [him] up,” and warned that the author “better pray” Rhea gets elected.
When the author pulled out his phone and began recording, Rhea repeated the warning [“Pray I get elected”] directly on camera.
▶ Watch the Video Captured Outside Rodda Center Early Voting (Nov. 1, 2026)
Verbatim Transcript of Video Recording: Resident:“You’re not going to sit and threaten me.” Eric Rhea:“Pray I get elected.” Resident:“Why should I pray you get elected? Tell me.” Eric Rhea:(Walks behind campaign table, turns toward the camera, and laughs)
Asked to comment about why he brought my children up on a thread about taxes, Rhea chose insults about the author’s family:Eric Rhea:“Don’t speak to me. Don’t speak to me, Keith. Did I say something about your family? I didn’t say nothing about your ugly ass wife and your funny-looking kids. So, beat it!“ Resident:“This is the way you talk? You’re going to be a trustee on the Board of Ed, and this is the way you speak to people?” Eric Rhea: This has got to do with you. It’s personal; you made it personal. Resident: “I didn’t make it personal. You started asking about my kids as if where my kids go to school matters to who is going to be on the Board of Ed.”
Eric Rhea: (called away by George Fernandez to speak with his wife, Liza Fernandez, another candidate for BOE).
After bringing his child home safely, the author returned to the Rodda Center and called in an official report to the Teaneck Police Department.
In additional video turned over to the Teaneck Police Department, Rhea can be heard making disturbing comments about the resident’s wife and children.
With Teaneck voters heading to the polls on Tuesday, November 3, this incident raises an urgent question for our entire community: Is a candidate who confronts a parent in the parking lot of an early voting site, threatens physical harm, and warns a resident on camera to “Pray I get elected” fit to serve in public office as a trustee on the Teaneck Board of Education?
2. The Backstory: The Real Estate Investigation Eric Rhea Didn’t Want Voters to See
Sunday’s parking lot confrontation occurred after Teaneck Today investigated a message Eric Rhea sent earlier this week boasting about his immediate family’s real estate empire:
“…And for the record my immediate family has large multi-home development projects in New York, Detroit, Los Angeles and Philadelphia so I know a bit about how this all works. If I knew how much Teaneck was up for sale to the highest real estate bidder I may have run for council instead of school board but I and my family tend to live by integrity and what is the greater good.” — Eric Rhea
Cross-referencing Eric Rhea’s Team EFG Campaign Bio with SEC Proxy Filings, FINRA BrokerCheck (CRD# 1786181), and Centerview Partners Disclosures confirmed that the projects across those four cities trace back to his older brother, John B. Rhea—former Chairman & CEO of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Founder of RHEAL Capital Management, LLC, and Board Director since 2015 at corporate landlord Invitation Homes Inc. (NYSE: INVH).
Key Findings From Our Four-City Investigation:
Los Angeles & National (Invitation Homes Inc. — Board Director, 2015–Present): Sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Sept. 2024 and hit with a $48 million fraud settlement ($47.2M refunded to tenants in March 2026 per CBS News) for charging families $1,700+/yr in hidden junk fees (“juice this hog”), withholding 60.8% of tenant security deposits, and leasing 33,328 homes requiring Week-1 maintenance orders for broken AC in summer, no heat in winter, sewage backups, mold, and rodent feces. Also forced into a Jan. 2024 settlement with the California Attorney General for unlawful rent gouging.
Philadelphia (2012 Chestnut St. — RHEAL Capital JV): Awarded a contract by the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) in Oct. 2016, the joint venture left the old PHA headquarters sitting as a graffiti-covered eyesore for 10 years before excavation began in Oct. 2026 per Rittenhouse Ramblings—after housing units were slashed by 39.5% (from 200 to 121), costs jumped by $5M to $65M, and RHEAL Capital was omitted from PHA Feb. 2026 Board Resolutions.
Detroit (Fisher Bldg, Kahn Bldg & Brush Park — RHEAL Capital): Majority 65% partner HFZ Capital collapsed amid foreclosures in 2021, freezing investment and forcing the Fisher Building up for sale per Deadline Detroit; Brush Park South required a zoning overhaul after exceeding the 50-foot height cap at 67+ feet per the Detroit City Planning Commission; and John Rhea reports $0 compensation from RHEAL Capital across 12 years in his FINRA Filing.
New York City (NYCHA — Chairman & CEO, 2009–2014): Left $1 billion in federal repair funds unspent amid a 400,000 repair backlog per City Limits, faced a U.S. Attorney (SDNY) Lead Paint Investigation, and paid $10M to his former employer, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), before rejoining BCG in 2014 per the NY Observer and SEC Filings.
Eric Rhea’s Own NYCHA Conflict: In his 2026 League of Women Voters (Vote411.org) Filing, Eric Rhea demands school hiring “without nepotism”—yet on that exact same page discloses that his company, Furnish My Space, was an “Employment program provider for New York City Housing Authority” and worked on the “NYCHA Hurricane Sandy disaster – displaced housing renovation program” (Oct. 2012) while his brother John was NYCHA Chairman & CEO.
A Board of Education trustee is entrusted with the safety of our children, the stewardship of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, and the temperament to lead by example. When questioned about his record, Eric Rhea responded by confronting a parent outside an early voting site and telling him on camera: “Pray I get elected.”
Eric Rhea Told Us He “Knows How This All Works” Because His Immediate Family Has “Large Multi-Home Development Projects.”
So we decided to look into those projects. And here’s what turned up.
1. What Eric Rhea Wrote to a Teaneck Voter This Week:
“Well somebody turned off the comments and probably for the best. If I had time to entertain this request the week of the elections where I have much bigger fish to fry than debating the obvious divergence from the plain and simple writing on the wall I might but it is not in the cards this week. Once time frees up after the election I may consider your request. And for the record my immediate family has large multi-home development projects in New York, Detroit, Los Angeles and Philadelphia so I know a bit about how this all works. If I knew how much Teaneck was up for sale to the highest real estate bidder I may have run for council instead of school board but I and my family tend to live by integrity and what is the greater good.”
— Eric Rhea, Candidate for Teaneck Board of Education (Column A / “Team EFG”)
Who is behind these four-city projects? Eric Rhea owns an interior design, moving, and furniture assembly business called Furnish My Space. Cross-referencing his Team EFG Campaign Bio with SEC Proxy Filings, State Street Board Disclosures, and Centerview Partners Executive Records confirms that the immediate family member connected to large housing projects in New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia is his older brother, John B. Rhea—former Chairman & CEO of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Founder of RHEAL Capital Management, LLC, and Board Director at corporate landlord Invitation Homes Inc.
Eric Rhea asked Teaneck voters to judge his “integrity” and competence by his family’s real estate track record across those four cities. Here is what the official sources actually show:
$48M
FTC Fraud Settlement (Invitation Homes)
$1 Billion
Unspent Federal Repair Funds (NYCHA)
10 Years
Philly Project Delay (+$5M Overrun)
33,328
Homes With Week-1 Repair Failures
2. The Four-City Record of Noncompliance, Delays & Penalties
Los Angeles & National ⚠ $48M FTC Fraud Penalty
Invitation Homes Inc. (Board Director, 2015–Present)
$48 Million Federal Fraud Settlement: Per SEC Form 10-K Filings, Invitation Homes operates a massive rental portfolio across Los Angeles and Southern California. In Sept. 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Invitation Homes for deceiving renters, forcing a $48M settlement in the FTC Federal Court Docket, with $47.2M refunded to consumers in March 2026 according to CBS News.
“Juice This Hog” Junk Fees: The FTC Federal Complaint revealed that Invitation Homes charged families over $1,700/yr in hidden mandatory junk fees and collected $18M+ in deceptive application fees after the CEO emailed executives to “juice this hog.”
33,328 Homes in Disrepair (Including Broken AC!): While Eric Rhea campaigns in Teaneck saying “Air Conditioning Can’t Wait” per BCNews Now, the FTC Investigation documented that 33,328 Invitation Homes properties needed work orders in the first week of move-in for broken AC in summer, no heat in winter, raw sewage backups, toxic mold, rodent feces, and exposed wiring—a process a senior manager internally called a “train wreck.”
Withholding Security Deposits & Illegal Rent Gouging: Per the FTC Enforcement Order, Invitation Homes returned only 39.2% of tenant security deposits (vs. 63.9% national average) and steered tenants away from federal COVID-19 eviction protections, while the California Attorney General forced a separate Jan. 2024 settlement over unlawful rent gouging.
Philadelphia ⚠ 10-Year Delay & $65M Cost
2012 Chestnut Street (RHEAL Capital Management Joint Venture)
A Decade of Blight: Awarded a contract by the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) in Oct. 2016, the joint venture between Alterra Property Group and RHEAL Capital Management let the former PHA headquarters sit as a decaying, graffiti-covered eyesore for years according to Philly YIMBY, only starting foundation excavation in Oct. 2026 per Rittenhouse Ramblings—a full 10 years later.
Housing Units Slashed by 39.5%: Originally announced by Alterra Property Group as a 20-story, 200-unit mixed-income building, Philly YIMBY documented that repeated restructurings shrank the project to 14 stories and 121 units while cutting commercial space from 4,500 to 2,000 sq. ft.
$65 Million Price Tag: According to Rittenhouse Ramblings, federal HUD review holdups and rising material costs drove the project budget up by another $5 million to $65 million ($537,000+ per apartment).
Quietly Dropped: Following contract restructurings in PHA Oct. 2022 Board Minutes, the PHA Feb. 2026 Board Resolutions show PHA overhauled the deal’s ownership structure and omitted RHEAL Capital from active development agent filings.
Detroit ⚠ Partner Collapse & Zoning Issues
Fisher Building, Albert Kahn Building & Brush Park South (RHEAL Capital)
65% Majority Partner Imploded: RHEAL Capital teamed up with NY developer HFZ Capital Group (65% owner) and The Platform in 2015. As reported by Deadline Detroit and Historic Detroit, when HFZ collapsed amid foreclosures in 2021, investment froze and the Fisher Building was forced up for sale until The Platform bought out HFZ’s distressed stake in July 2022.
Flipped Before Converting: After promising to convert floors 2–11 of the Albert Kahn Building into apartments per Lutz Real Estate, the partnership flipped the building in 2018 for $9.5M before completing the conversion according to WDIV ClickOnDetroit.
Zoning Height Noncompliance: Per a Detroit City Planning Commission Report, RHEAL Capital designed its Brush Park South building over 67 feet tall—violating the 50-foot neighborhood cap by 34%—requiring a zoning amendment and city mandates to resolve structural and setback impacts on an abutting neighbor.
$0 Reported Compensation: In his official FINRA BrokerCheck Filing (CRD# 1786181) through 2026, John Rhea reports receiving “no compensations as of yet” ($0) from RHEAL Capital across 12 years of operation.
New York City ⚠ Scandals, Audits & Lawsuits
NYC Housing Authority (Chairman & CEO, 2009–2014)
$1 Billion Hoarded Amid 400,000 Unfinished Repairs: Per City Limits, John Rhea left $1 billion in federal repair money unspent and froze $42M–$45M in security camera funds while tenants endured a 400,000 work-order backlog—prompting the former NYC Comptroller to demand Rhea’s firing as reported by the Amsterdam News.
$10M Revolving-Door Contract: Per the New York Observer and the NYCHA–BCG Contract Report, Rhea paid $10M in NYCHA funds to his former employer, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), for an 87-page report ($124,000/page), spent $325,000 on a Javits Center employee rally per Patch, and rejoined BCG right after leaving NYCHA per SEC Proxy Disclosures.
Sued by Legal Aid & City Council: As documented by City Limits, Rhea secretly targeted 8 public housing sites to lease land for 80% luxury towers without informing residents first, sparking a lawsuit from tenants, the Legal Aid Society, and the NYC Council.
3. The Smoking Gun in Eric Rhea’s Own Candidate Filing
Eric Rhea Lectures Teaneck on Hiring “Without Nepotism”—Yet Worked on NYCHA Programs While His Brother Ran NYCHA!
In his official 2026 questionnaire filed with the League of Women Voters (Vote411.org), Eric Rhea lectures Teaneck on hiring school officials “without nepotism.” Yet on that exact same page, right underneath his ownership of Furnish My Space, look at what Eric Rhea admits in his own biography:
What Eric Rhea Preaches to Teaneck Voters (Vote411.org Filing): “…the hiring of key staff and administrators should come from ‘best intentions’ without nepotism.”
What Eric Rhea Admits on the Very Same Page (Vote411.org Bio):
• “Employment program provider for New York City Housing Authority”
• “NYCHA Hurricane Sandy disaster – displaced housing renovation program” (Hurricane Sandy struck in Oct. 2012—right while his brother John was Chairman & CEO of NYCHA!)
Teaneck Schools Can’t Afford Eric Rhea’s Version of “How This All Works”
Eric Rhea wants to fast-track millions in Teaneck school facilities bonds and contracts—and he told us his family’s real estate record proves he “knows a bit about how this all works.” Now Teaneck voters have the facts: $48M in FTC fraud settlements, $1B in unspent repair funds, 10-year construction delays, and participating in programs at the housing authority his own brother ran.
Click any highlighted source above to inspect the original federal court dockets, SEC filings, FINRA disclosures, municipal housing resolutions, and candidate questionnaires.
A Leadership Vacuum Approaches: Teaneck Public Schools Confronts Complete Executive Resignation Crisis
Teaneck Public Schools is racing toward an unprecedented administrative emergency. By the start of July, our school district will have no functioning Superintendent and no Assistant Superintendent, leaving the helm of our public education system completely vacant during the most critical operational period of the fiscal year. [Ed. Note: the Superintendent said he will stay on through mid-August]
This institutional void is the result of a rapid succession of top-tier administrative departures that have caught parents and local observers entirely off guard. With the crucial summer months arriving—a window strictly designated for sealing municipal budgets, confirming staff contracts, finalizing curricula, and securing safety protocols—residents are left demanding to know who is genuinely running the district.
1. The Superintendent’s Sudden Exit & A Familiar Pattern
Tonight, June 4, 2026, at 7:00 PM, the Teaneck Board of Education is holding a special public meeting at the Central Administration Office. It will not be recorded, and it will not be live-streamed.
Under New Jersey’s new public notice framework (P.L. 2025, c. 72), the Board is allowed to post its notices on its website instead of print newspapers. But while the law has modernized, the Board’s tactics have not. A review of the timeline reveals that the Board is using a digital shell game to keep the public completely in the dark about a massive, high-stakes legal crisis.
The Eleventh-Hour Bait-and-Switch
On May 28, 2026, trustees shared an official notice stating that the sole purpose of tonight’s unrecorded meeting was the Superintendent’s Evaluation (documented in “May 28, 2026 post re Superintendent Evaluation as well as on other groups (James Wolff’s screenshot appears below.”)
(Screenshot of NJ State Website for Public Notices)(Teaneck Schools Landing Page for Public Notices)
The Superintendent’s Evaluation has completely vanished from the agenda.
In its place is a single resolution: authorizing a $100,000 contract to a new law firm (Scarinci Hollenbeck) to represent the Board in LaClair v. Teaneck Board of Education.
(Action items for Board Agenda of June 4, 2026)
What is the LaClair Case, and What is the Board Hiding?
“Following its discussion on May 20, 2025, the Commission adopted a decision at its meeting on June 17, 2025, finding that there are sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) (Counts 1, 2, and 4) were violated as set forth in the Complaint” (page 1)
“The Commission also adopted a decision finding the Complaint not frivolous, and denying Respondents’ request for sanctions.” (page 2)
“Based on its finding of probable cause, the Commission voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a plenary hearing where Complainants shall carry the burden to prove the remaining allegations that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Counts 1, 2, and 4.”
On June 17, 2025, the School Ethics Commission decided a complaint filed against some members of the Teaneck Board of Education.
This complaint was brought by Keith Kaplan, Danielle Feuer, Suzanne Griffin Garcia, Adam Gussen, and Carl Jackson, who alleged that eleven Board members—Clara Williams, Kassandra Reyes, Sebastian Rodriguez, Victoria Fisher, David Gruber, Edward Ha, Nadia Hosein, Gerald Kirshenbaum, Dennis Klein, Jonathan Rodriguez, and Denise Sanders—violated the School Ethics Act.
The Board members had contended that the complaint was frivolous and requested that penalties be issued against the Complainants.
The Commission decided there was enough evidence to suggest that the Board members might have violated certain ethics rules related to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the complaint. However, they found insufficient evidence for Count 3 because the Judge did not specifically include the dates for that count in the decision.
The Commission also ruled that their complaint was not baseless, and they denied the Board members’ request to issue penalties against the Complainants.
What’s This All About?
The core of the complaint revolves around a section of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). This rule essentially states that school board members must uphold and enforce all state laws, rules from the State Board of Education, and court orders related to schools. It also says that any changes desired should only be made through legal and ethical means.
In order to prevail on this type of claim, a complainant must include a decision from a Court of Law in the State of NJ that says a violation of the law took place.
Here’s a breakdown of the specific allegations reviewed by the Ethics Commission:
Count 1: The Complainants presented a court decision showing that the Board failed to follow state laws and court orders, particularly concerning the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). They highlighted that a court found the Board had a “longstanding consistent failing” and a “pattern” of not properly announcing meetings on December 21, 2023, and January 3, 2024.
Count 2: Similar to Count 1, the Complainants claimed the Board again failed to meet OPMA requirements for a meeting on January 17, 2024. The court also found that the District didn’t publish an annual meeting list by January 10th as required, making proper notice impossible.
Count 3: This count alleged that the Board held meetings between January 14, 2024, and July 17, 2024, without providing proper agenda notices, which is also an OPMA violation.
Count 4: Despite previous court rulings and an order to strictly follow OPMA, the Complainants stated that the Board’s August 21, 2024, meeting still lacked adequate notice and an agenda.
What the Commission Decided
The School Ethics Commission’s role is specifically to enforce the School Ethics Act. They clarified that while the complaint mentioned violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the Commission itself isn’t the body that rules on OPMA violations. Those types of claims need to be pursued in a different legal forum (the Superior Court already ruled on those issues).
However, when it came to whether the Board members upheld their ethical duty to follow court orders (as outlined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a)), the Commission looked for specific evidence: a final court decision showing that the Board members failed to enforce laws or court orders.
Here’s what they found:
For Counts 1, 2, and 4: The Commission found enough evidence because courtorders were provided that stated the Board had not complied with OPMA for the meetings on December 21, 2023, January 3, 2024, January 17, 2024, and August 21, 2024. If it can be proven that the Board members failed to correct these issues, then a violation of the ethics rule could be confirmed.
For Count 3: The Commission dismissed this part of the complaint. This was because while the Judge determined that the failure to notice meetings existed for all meetings in 2024, the Complainants did not provide a final court decision or administrative agency ruling specifically about the alleged OPMA violations for the meeting dates between January 14, 2024, and July 17, 2024.
What Happens Next?
Because there’s enough evidence for Counts 1, 2, and 4, these parts of the complaint will now move to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a full hearing.
At this hearing, the Complainants will need to present their case and prove that the Board members indeed violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). Because a Court decision already indicates that they violated the law, this part should move fairly quickly.
The OAL will notify all parties involved of the hearing dates.
Decision (page 6):
In accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(b), and for the reasons detailed herein, the Commission hereby notifies Complainants and Respondents that there are sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) was violated in Counts 1, 2, and 4, but insufficient facts and circumstances to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Count 3 was violated. The Commission further advises the parties that, following its review, it voted to find that the Complaint is not frivolous, and to deny Respondents’ request for sanctions.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(a)(3), the Commission transmits the above-captioned matter to the OAL for a plenary hearing, Complainants shall carry the burden to factually establish that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). In order to prevail, Complainants must satisfy the burden of proof as articulated in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), specifically:
1. Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) shall include a copy of a final decision from any court of law or administrative agency of this State demonstrating that Respondents failed to enforce all laws, rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, and/or court orders pertaining to schools or that Respondents brought about changes through illegal or unethical procedures.
The plenary hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the OAL. N.J.A.C. 1:1 et seq. The OAL will notify the parties when the remaining allegations in this matter will be heard.
While I’m hopeful that the results of this year’s election can restore a bit of civility to the dais at the Board of Education, the actions exhibited throughout the campaign by certain Trustees demonstrated outright contempt toward fellow board members in a manner implicating several areas of the School Ethics Act.
School Ethics Act
School Board Trustees receive specific training in regard to the School Ethics Act. One of the core requirements of the act and the decisions that come from it, is that Trustees must affirmatively state in a disclaimer when they are speaking as an individual and not as a BOE member (those who have attended any meeting where Howard Rose was in the vicinity during his time on the BOE are very familiar with this longstanding requirement).
The mandated disclaimer is not always enough, though. And when it comes to education-related matters, the School Ethics Act is not to be taken lightly.
“In an April 27, 2021 decision, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) voted to censure a school board member for writing an opinion article that endorsed some school board candidates but specifically called for the defeat of another. Finding an increase in the number of complaints received related to statements made on social media, the SEC drafted a substantive decision warning board members that a disclaimer of personal opinion in a public statement does not necessarily cure all ethics violations within the statement.”
What did this Trustee say that was worthy of Censureby the Ethics Commission?
“On October 30, 2018, the author of the opinion piece endorsed four school board candidates but spoke negatively about another, questioning her qualifications for the board.”
That was it. The author “spoke negatively” and questioned the fellow BOE member’s qualifications.
And they did it WITH the required disclaimer:
“In that writing, the member wrote a disclaimer saying: ‘The author is writing this endorsement on his own personal behalf. His opinions are his own.’ An administrative law judge who reviewed the case found that the disclaimer written by the member ‘was insufficient to convey that he was expressing his personal opinion.’ Additionally, the judge held that the board member admitted he did not seek approval from the board or its counsel before writing the article, and the author admitted that the endorsements were meant to influence the voters. “
Was this person censured because of a previous history of violating the rules? Nope.
“The judge held that a reprimand was appropriate based on case law and the fact that the board member had no previous history of ethics violations. However, the SEC disagreed and elevated the penalty to censure based on the severity of the violation.”1
With that in mind, let’s look at Teaneck’s BOE Trustee who just won re-election, Jonathan Rodriguez:
“Why do I think there’s so much hostility on the Current board? I… I’m gonna be plain. I think that our three new members [Ed note: David Gruber, Gerald Kirshenbaum and James Woff] have been a detriment to the board. I think that they have, done their best despite the six of us to damage the district. Both in perception and in actuality. Speaking on perception, I think that the, they’re fueled by, I don’t know, Facebook, to keep the vitriol going, as opposed to opening their minds and seeing that we are all people and we all want the best things for ourselves, for our community, and for our children. Thanks.”
If the oath to abide by the School Ethics Act is so serious as to merit censure even when you use a disclaimer and talk negatively about the qualifications of a candidate, what happens when you say that fellow BOE members are actively damage the district without a disclaimer?
We will find out.
During the campaign, I asked Mr. Rodriguez if he would apologize for the statements, try to foster a bit more cohesion and eliminate the negativity as a candidate.
I didn’t receive a response.
I’ve been watching and offering to help the BOE at every step because I truly want to end divisive rhetoric and get things to a point where the Board complies with the law and the public has notice of what’s going on with an opportunity to comment. That way, we can all work towards a more productive Teaneck.
If that has to be forced, it’s unfortunate but it was it is.
Complaint filed with NJ Ethics Commission
Below, you can find the complaint filed by me against Jonathan Rodriguez based on the standards the School Ethics Act mandates for Board Trustees.
It is my hope that such a complaint will 1) remind current BOE members of their obligations and 2) ensure compliance in the future by all members of the Board.
A response is due within 20 days of service (which took place on November 6, 2024).
“Ultimately, the board member who wrote the article resigned his board position and argued that his resignation should mitigate or reduce the penalty. The SEC disagreed and held that ‘[t]o the extent resignation affords a school official the ability to avoid the imposition of a harsher penalty, the force and effect of the Act becomes diminished.’”
After the Judge ruled in July that Keith Kaplan was a prevailing party regarding the failure of the Teaneck Board of Education to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (the “OPMA”), the Board and their attorneys continued to act as if nothing happened. They refused to admit they lost the case. They refused to change the practices of the Board of Education.
So Keith Kaplan filed a Motion to compel them to comply. The first had to do with the BOE failing to pay fees to Kaplan as a prevailing party of $400. The Board responded that they were gonna do it…. in a bit
Judge Catuogno:
If such is the case, then Defendants also knew that it could not pay the $400 within the 30-day timeframe ordered by the Court. Defendants would have been wiser to have raised such an issue to the Court when the judgment was issued on July 18, 2024, or simply moved for an extension. (Opinion – page 16)
The August 21st Meeting violated the OPMA
The next motion filed said that the OPMA was violated on August 21st when the Board AGAIN held a meeting without noticing the meeting or noticing an Agenda.
The Board responded that it’s cool because they put the agenda on the school website and that’s kinda how people do things in BOE land throughout the State.
Judge Catuogno:
In their opposition brief, Defendants state the January 17, 2024, meeting was properly noticed, stating that “posting the agenda on the website is … perfectly permissible” because it is a “norm throughout New Jersey.” Of course, norms that are not in strict compliance with OPMA cannot satisfy OPMA. (Opinion – page 12)
Swing and a miss….. if only someone had tried to tell them this ahead of time. Oh, wait….
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.
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.
//
