Endorsement: Vote Stern and Carroll for Assembly

Endorsement: Emil Yitz Stern and Rosemary Carroll for Bergen County Assembly

This year, the Bergen County Assembly race presents a critical opportunity to elect seasoned, dedicated leaders who will truly serve our community’s long-term interests. I wholeheartedly endorse Emil “Yitz” Stern and Rosemary Carroll for Bergen County Assembly.

Vote 1B Emil “Yitz” Stern and 2B Rosemary Carroll for the Assembly

I have had the privilege of serving with Yitz on the planning board, and I have witnessed firsthand his unwavering dedication to Teaneck and its residents. His extensive experience at the state level, where he has served on multiple gubernatorial commissions, and his collaborative work at the county level with neighboring municipalities, as well as his affiliation with Fairleigh Dickinson University (where he is a faculty member), demonstrates a profound understanding of the complex issues facing our region. Yitz has a proven track record of working hard and delivering results for our community.

While other candidates in this assembly race may appear worthy of support, this year, above all others, demands a strategic focus on candidates who not only possess integrity but also demonstrate the long-term viability to withstand future primary challenges and secure victories in general elections.

Yitz’s running mate, Rosemary Carroll, is a deserving candidate. In an era where political norms have been eroded from the highest offices to the local level, her presence on the ticket is more vital than ever.

The elimination of “the line” in New Jersey politics marks a historic shift, opening the door for multiple challengers to take on sitting incumbents.

However, we must think strategically beyond this immediate election cycle.

Two years from now, when the political landscape shifts and potential gubernatorial candidates emerge from other towns, and the current support of a single candidate no longer exists, the likelihood of a successful assembly run for less-established candidates diminishes significantly.

We need long-term strategic thinking, a return to fundamental civic norms, and candidates who will consistently prioritize our community’s needs above all else.

Emil “Yitz” Stern and Rosemary Carroll are precisely those candidates. Their experience, commitment to civic responsibility, and understanding of the political landscape make them the clear choice to represent Bergen County in the Assembly. They will be proven leaders who will put our priorities first, today and for the future.

Keith Kaplan
Teaneck Today

Find your Polling Location:

Polling Location Search Portal

List of Early Voting Locations:

Hours for June 10, 2025 Primary Election
Open: Tuesday, June 3rd to Sunday, June 8th
Tuesday – Saturday: 10am to 8pm; Sunday 10am to 6pm

TEANECK

Richard Rodda Center
250 Colonial Court

HACKENSACK

County Administration Building

One Bergen County Plaza

PARAMUS

Bergen Comm. College – West Gallery Hall
400 Paramus Road

FORT LEE

Jack Alter Community Center
1355 Inwood Terrace

GARFIELD

Nutrition Center & Senior Citizens Building
480 Midland Avenue

RIVER VALE

River Vale Community Center
628 River Vale Road

WOODCLIFF LAKE

Tice Senior Center
411 Chestnut Ridge Road

Wood-Ridge

Wood-Ridge Senior Citizen Center
495 Highland Avenue

Wyckoff

Public Library – Shotmeyer Room
200 Woodland Avenue

Jan 2, 2025: A new council with the same members

On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 7:00 pm, the Teaneck Council will hold the semi-annual reorganization meeting at the Rodda Center.
(Agenda available here: Reorganization Agenda)
We will be swearing in Mark Schwartz, Karen Orgen & Mike Pagan.

In addition, the Council will elect the Mayor & Deputy Mayors, among others.

For those who may not be familiar with the way the Teaneck Council operates, I’d like to offer some additional information:

How does our system work?
Teaneck utilizes the Council-Manager form of Government under the Faulkner Act.  What that means in practice is that residents choose their council members “at-large” (i.e. you vote for everyone, as opposed to a ward system like neighboring Englewood) and the Council as a body, once elected and seated, chooses a mayor from among the council-members (as opposed to municipalities where the Mayor runs separately). Continue reading “Jan 2, 2025: A new council with the same members”

JUDGE: KAPLAN WAS RIGHT and the BOE IS FAILING AGAIN to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act

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….

But there’s more! Continue reading “JUDGE: KAPLAN WAS RIGHT and the BOE IS FAILING AGAIN to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act”

TDMC Results (TRMC Coming soon)

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.

DistrictType of votingRegistered DemsVotes CastTurnout (%)
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)CARROLL ANNE GRECEJONATHAN ROSSWrite-insG REINEROSAMA USMANIAJHA RAHMANPALESTINEGerard ReinerDesiree R. Reiner
Teaneck 1Early Voting608172.80%13121111
Teaneck 1Election Day6087412.17%58427
Teaneck 1Mail-In608437.07%322911
Teaneck 1Provisional60800.00%
Teaneck 1Total60813422.04%103837111111
TeaneckTotal60813422.04%103837111111
Total - Early Voting608172.80%13121111
Total - Election Day6087412.17%58427
Total - Mail-In608437.07%322911
Total - Provisional60800.00%
Contest Total60813422.04%103837111111
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)IRWIN BENZELMELISSA BENZELMOHAMED ARIF KHANWrite-insMahejabeen Kathawala
Teaneck 2Early Voting871313.56%3122711
Teaneck 2Election Day87110612.17%24336828
Teaneck 2Mail-In871667.58%12264610
Teaneck 2Provisional87100.00%
Teaneck 2Total87120323.31%39711412821
TeaneckTotal87120323.31%39711412821
Total - Early Voting871313.56%3122711
Total - Election Day87110612.17%24336828
Total - Mail-In871667.58%12264610
Total - Provisional87100.00%
Contest Total87120323.31%39711412821
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)AYELET HIRSCHKORNREUBEN SHARRETWrite-insMUBINA KATHAWALAMohamed Arif KhanMahejaben Kathawala
Teaneck 3Early Voting7549813.00%88815
Teaneck 3Election Day75418124.01%12211720
Teaneck 3Mail-In754547.16%364033
Teaneck 3Provisional75400.00%
Teaneck 3Total75433344.16%24623820533
TeaneckTotal75433344.16%24623820533
Total - Early Voting7549813.00%88815
Total - Election Day75418124.01%12211720
Total - Mail-In754547.16%364033
Total - Provisional75400.00%
Contest Total75433344.16%24623820533
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)THOMAS A. ABBOTTTAMAR D. WARBURGGWENETTE REESEWrite-insYIBAL GROSSYIGAL GROSSMICKEY MOUSEFREE PALESTINECEASEFIRE NOWGRUBR
Teaneck 4Early Voting76914919.38%9911136461111
Teaneck 4Election Day76913817.95%9077513
Teaneck 4Mail-In7698210.66%643344
Teaneck 4Provisional76900.00%
Teaneck 4Total76936947.98%2532211313461111
TeaneckTotal76936947.98%2532211313461111
Total - Early Voting76914919.38%9911136461111
Total - Election Day76913817.95%9077513
Total - Mail-In7698210.66%643344
Total - Provisional76900.00%
Contest Total76936947.98%2532211313461111
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)JUANITA BROWNYASSINE ELKARYANIWrite-ins
Teaneck 5Early Voting571193.33%1615
Teaneck 5Election Day5717713.49%59463
Teaneck 5Mail-In571315.43%2421
Teaneck 5Provisional57100.00%
Teaneck 5Total57112722.24%99823
TeaneckTotal57112722.24%99823
Total - Early Voting571193.33%1615
Total - Election Day5717713.49%59463
Total - Mail-In571315.43%2421
Total - Provisional57100.00%
Contest Total57112722.24%99823
Registered VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)ALEXANDRA SORIANO-TAVERASRONALD SCHWARTZWrite-ins
Teaneck 6Early Voting735182.45%179
Teaneck 6Election Day7357410.07%61393
Teaneck 6Mail-In73510213.88%8378
Teaneck 6Provisional73500.00%
Teaneck 6Total73519426.39%1611263
TeaneckTotal73519426.39%1611263
Total - Early Voting735182.45%179
Total - Election Day7357410.07%61393
Total - Mail-In73510213.88%8378
Total - Provisional73500.00%
Contest Total73519426.39%1611263
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)JAMES R. NORMANLEYAT MAFOUDAAVI BERLINERMARGARET E. FISHERWrite-ins
Teaneck 7Early Voting698497.02%16303217
Teaneck 7Election Day69811616.62%534552493
Teaneck 7Mail-In698578.17%39111038
Teaneck 7Provisional69800.00%
Teaneck 7Total69822231.81%10886941043
TeaneckTotal69822231.81%10886941043
Total - Early Voting698497.02%16303217
Total - Election Day69811616.62%534552493
Total - Mail-In698578.17%39111038
Total - Provisional69800.00%
Contest Total69822231.81%10886941043
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)SHARON VATSKYARTHUR VATSKYMICHAEL KLATSKYSHANA B. DWORKENWrite-ins
Teaneck 8Early Voting820617.44%22183737
Teaneck 8Election Day82019523.78%847487922
Teaneck 8Mail-In8209010.98%63592119
Teaneck 8Provisional82000.00%
Teaneck 8Total82034642.20%1691511451482
TeaneckTotal82034642.20%1691511451482
Total - Early Voting820617.44%22183737
Total - Election Day82019523.78%847487922
Total - Mail-In8209010.98%63592119
Total - Provisional82000.00%
Contest Total82034642.20%1691511451482
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)DANIEL A. BLOOMELIZABETH KLEINHILLARY KESSLER-GODINWrite-ins
Teaneck 9Early Voting69212017.34%1052594
Teaneck 9Election Day69222432.37%18063160
Teaneck 9Mail-In692608.67%413428
Teaneck 9Provisional69200.00%
Teaneck 9Total69240458.38%326122282
TeaneckTotal69240458.38%326122282
Total - Early Voting69212017.34%1052594
Total - Election Day69222432.37%18063160
Total - Mail-In692608.67%413428
Total - Provisional69200.00%
Contest Total69240458.38%326122282
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)SHARON L. KOLBRHONA VEGANOAH LIBENWrite-ins
Teaneck 10Early Voting66313620.51%1324126
Teaneck 10Election Day66319930.02%15251151
Teaneck 10Mail-In6638913.42%414765
Teaneck 10Provisional66300.00%
Teaneck 10Total66342463.95%325102342
TeaneckTotal66342463.95%325102342
Total - Early Voting66313620.51%1324126
Total - Election Day66319930.02%15251151
Total - Mail-In6638913.42%414765
Total - Provisional66300.00%
Contest Total66342463.95%325102342
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)CARLEY L. PEVENWrite-insAlan SohnALAN SOHNALLEN SOHNABDUL WAHEEDTALIA ROSENBERGSOHNALAN SONNE
Teaneck 11Early Voting57213323.25%12438334131
Teaneck 11Election Day57218231.82%161111
Teaneck 11Mail-In572478.22%41121
Teaneck 11Provisional57200.00%
Teaneck 11Total57236263.29%326111158434131
TeaneckTotal57236263.29%326111158434131
Total - Early Voting57213323.25%12438334131
Total - Election Day57218231.82%161111
Total - Mail-In572478.22%41121
Total - Provisional57200.00%
Contest Total57236263.29%326111158434131
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)EMIL STERNTERESA R. BAYEWITZWrite-insSCOTT ALTIERI
Teaneck 12Early Voting80712815.86%1211221
Teaneck 12Election Day80718522.92%1611574
Teaneck 12Mail-In8079411.65%7777
Teaneck 12Provisional80700.00%
Teaneck 12Total80740750.43%35935641
TeaneckTotal80740750.43%35935641
Total - Early Voting80712815.86%1211221
Total - Election Day80718522.92%1611574
Total - Mail-In8079411.65%7777
Total - Provisional80700.00%
Contest Total80740750.43%35935641
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)CLARA WILLIAMSRAYMOND ADDISONWrite-ins
Teaneck 13Early Voting809323.96%2923
Teaneck 13Election Day80914217.55%121751
Teaneck 13Mail-In809556.80%5234
Teaneck 13Provisional80900.00%
Teaneck 13Total80922928.31%2021321
TeaneckTotal80922928.31%2021321
Total - Early Voting809323.96%2923
Total - Election Day80914217.55%121751
Total - Mail-In809556.80%5234
Total - Provisional80900.00%
Contest Total80922928.31%2021321
Registered
Voters
Voters CastTurnout (%)GLORIA J. WILSONJAMES D. EDMONDS IIIWrite-insJohn Smith
Teaneck 14Early Voting1139534.65%4130
Teaneck 14Election Day113917815.63%141904
Teaneck 14Mail-In1139696.06%63501
Teaneck 14Provisional113900.00%
Teaneck 14Total113930026.34%24517041
TeaneckTotal113930026.34%24517041
Total - Early Voting1139534.65%4130
Total - Election Day113917815.63%141904
Total - Mail-In1139696.06%63501
Total - Provisional113900.00%
Contest Total113930026.34%24517041
Registered VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)TALYA ROSENBERG ZACHARY YITZCHAK GREENBERGNATASHA WILLIAMSWrite-insKWASIGLENN WILLIAMSGLENN WILLIAMS JR
Teaneck 15Early Voting7899912.55%787620111
Teaneck 15Election Day78913316.86%7169588
Teaneck 15Mail-In789465.83%302123
Teaneck 15Provisional78900.00%
Teaneck 15Total78927835.23%1791661018111
TeaneckTotal78927835.23%1791661018111
Total - Early Voting7899912.55%787620111
Total - Election Day78913316.86%7169588
Total - Mail-In789465.83%302123
Total - Provisional78900.00%
Contest Total78927835.23%1791661018111
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)DENISE SANDERSCHERYL L. HALLWrite-ins
Teaneck 16Early Voting54081.48%*********
Teaneck 16Election Day5408115.00%59321
Teaneck 16Mail-In540336.11%2826
Teaneck 16Provisional54000.00%
Teaneck 16Total54012222.59%93621
TeaneckTotal54012222.59%93621
Total - Early Voting54081.48%*********
Total - Election Day5408115.00%59321
Total - Mail-In540336.11%2826
Total - Provisional54000.00%
Contest Total54012222.59%93621
Registered VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)DONALD STARKGERVONN C. ROMNEY-RICEWrite-ins
Teaneck 17Early Voting881404.54%2635
Teaneck 17Election Day88113014.76%81952
Teaneck 17Mail-In881647.26%5454
Teaneck 17Provisional88100.00%
Teaneck 17Total88123426.56%1611842
TeaneckTotal88123426.56%1611842
Total - Early Voting881404.54%2635
Total - Election Day88113014.76%81952
Total - Mail-In881647.26%5454
Total - Provisional88100.00%
Contest Total88123426.56%1611842
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)JENNIFER A. MONTAGSTEPHEN GRUBERQURAN GEEWrite-insSam PassnerDANIELLE GEE
Teaneck 18Early Voting84310712.69%9379171
Teaneck 18Election Day84316920.05%131107532
Teaneck 18Mail-In8439110.79%7432421
Teaneck 18Provisional84300.00%
Teaneck 18Total84336743.53%298218112211
TeaneckTotal84336743.53%298218112211
Total - Early Voting84310712.69%9379171
Total - Election Day84316920.05%131107532
Total - Mail-In8439110.79%7432421
Total - Provisional84300.00%
Contest Total84336743.53%298218112211
Registered VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)JUDITH SAMUELS RAMOSGABRIELLE SOPHIA WASSERMANDANIEL M. ROSENBLUMSEAN HIRSCHHORNWrite-insElie Katz
Teaneck 19Early Voting7518311.05%29502846
Teaneck 19Election Day75113117.44%636243515
Teaneck 19Mail-In7518010.65%61115761
Teaneck 19Provisional75100.00%
Teaneck 19Total75129439.15%15312312810351
TeaneckTotal75129439.15%15312312810351
Total - Early Voting7518311.05%29502846
Total - Election Day75113117.44%636243515
Total - Mail-In7518010.65%61115761
Total - Provisional75100.00%
Contest Total75129439.15%15312312810351
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)ELIE Y. KATZMICHELLE M. BIVINSRUTH EZRAPOURJARREN N. BIVINSWrite-ins
Teaneck 20Early Voting4979819.72%86167911
Teaneck 20Election Day49715230.58%12036111252
Teaneck 20Mail-In4975210.46%32262318
Teaneck 20Provisional49700.00%
Teaneck 20Total49730260.76%23878213542
TeaneckTotal49730260.76%23878213542
Total - Early Voting4979819.72%86167911
Total - Election Day49715230.58%12036111252
Total - Mail-In4975210.46%32262318
Total - Provisional49700.00%
Contest Total49730260.76%23878213542
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)LORETTA WEINBERGROBERT ELKINWrite-insMUHAMMAD BAGASRAPALESTINE
Teaneck 21Early Voting788253.17%171722
Teaneck 21Election Day7888610.91%63439
Teaneck 21Mail-In78811214.21%10788
Teaneck 21Provisional78800.00%
Teaneck 21Total78822328.30%187148922
TeaneckTotal78822328.30%187148922
Total - Early Voting788253.17%171722
Total - Election Day7888610.91%63439
Total - Mail-In78811214.21%10788
Total - Provisional78800.00%
Contest Total78822328.30%187148922
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)DEVORAH BACKMANOSAMA USMANIAJHA RAHMANWrite-insPALESTINE
Teaneck 22Early Voting744425.65%1232281
Teaneck 22Election Day74411815.86%3472725
Teaneck 22Mail-In744557.39%243634
Teaneck 22Provisional74400.00%
Teaneck 22Total74421528.90%7014013451
TeaneckTotal74421528.90%7014013451
Total - Early Voting744425.65%1232281
Total - Election Day74411815.86%3472725
Total - Mail-In744557.39%243634
Total - Provisional74400.00%
Contest Total74421528.90%7014013451
VotersVoters CastTurnout (%)Write-insRhona VegaNoah LibenPALISTINEZUNERA ZUBAIRY
Teaneck 23Early Voting721192.64%11
Teaneck 23Election Day7217510.40%12
Teaneck 23Mail-In721354.85%21
Teaneck 23Provisional72100.00%
Teaneck 23Total72112917.89%122111
TeaneckTotal72112917.89%122111
Total - Early Voting721192.64%11
Total - Election Day7217510.40%12
Total - Mail-In721354.85%21
Total - Provisional72100.00%
Contest Total72112917.89%122111
COUNTY COMMITTEE

“The Line”: Is it dead or will it be resurrected? Some Counties are already abandoning the fight. Here’s what has happened…

The Line is Dead, but this Easter, plenty of pols are hoping for a Resurrection

What has happened since Judge Quraishi’s opinion?

For those unaware: NJ has been using “the line” to ensure preferential treatment for establishment pols since the 60’s.  It works incredibly well.  There hasn’t been a pol that won “off the line” in about a decade and a half (since 2009).  You can read about the case against the line here: Abolosh The Line

Judge Zahid N. Quraishi (NJ’s First Muslim Article III Judge) ruled on Friday that the line had to go.

Some NJ Pols are… not happy about it.

Here’s what has happened since: Continue reading ““The Line”: Is it dead or will it be resurrected? Some Counties are already abandoning the fight. Here’s what has happened…”

2023 Election Results

Congratulations to all those who ran for seats on the Board of Education.

Board of Education Results

It appears that the results indicate that the Educational Excellence Slate has won all three seats.
Final Tallies:
Gerald Kirschenbaum: 5392*
David Gruber: 5325*
James Woff: 5299*
Nadia Hosein: 4207
Selene Wong: 4299
Jose Zenon: 4082
For those interested:
  • Excellence Progress Equity (EPE) Slate won in the VBM category (54.8% to 45.2%)
  • Educational Excellence Slate won in the Early Voting (78.3% 21.7%)
  • On Election day, it was fairly even with only 4 votes separating 3rd and 4th place
My spreadsheet will be available on TeaneckToday.com momentarily.
*** Some Votes May Still Be Coming In ***
District:12345678910111213141516171819202122237-NovEarlyMailTotal
Gerald Kirschenbaum575215815452361987330830631637930241082749193100144464316286917757485392
David Gruber54561571524538193703063063133672926108335218898145464515284217647195325
James Wolff55531571504842193723033073123572431106295519194145464315282817537185299
Nadia Hosein117154179130114982106766652659210253971021931081066513017711228384848854207
Selene Wong1141541821401111052157272743070206251981011951171066312417011428845039124299
Jose Zenon112152173131108100202636967265720224892961811111026511816011127464818554082
Personal choice031061400000751402204634949
Mail in per district5676506634118578270995610048665240629770501295935

Following the Money at the BOE: Year After Year, TPS District Bilked Taxpayers for Security, Transportation and More

Where do I vote? Click HERE to find out

A Review of Teaneck Public School Filings Show District Overcharged Taxpayers on Several Budgetary Items, including Transportation and Security

Security

Despite significant security issues (including the removal of security guards and threats against schools), the Teaneck Public School District collected 100% of its security budget from taxpayers… but didn’t spend 25% of it.  Where did it go?

Busing / Transportation

Despite complaints about the cost of busing and the inability to meet required busing needs, records show that the District collected FAR IN EXCESS of what it spent on busing.  In fact, in the last 3 years alone, the District pocketed $3M into “Fund Balance” to use as surplus funds… all from our tax dollars.

What is happening within the Teaneck Public School Budgets?

25% of the District Security budget went to discretionary fund balance?

Over $3M in local taxes set aside for busing students, instead went to discretionary fund balance over the past 3 years?

2022/23: Teaneck Schools – $6.94M ALLOCATED  for Transportation
2022/23: Teaneck Schools – $5.73M ACTUALLY SPENT for Transportation
2023/24: Teaneck Schools – $7.67M, a 10.46% RAISE to the Transportation Tax Levy, for an unprecedented $7.67M bill to taxpayers.

You read that right — after pocketing $3M in local tax levy funds from residents that we were told would be used for busing & transportation,  the line item for busing in 2023-24 WENT UP AGAIN by 10.46% to $7.67M according to the 2023-24 Final Budget presentation,

How could that be possible?

A few days after scores of parents attended a Board of Education meeting asking about the lack of security, I found myself asking these questions to the Teaneck School District Business Administrator.

The ACFR (Annual Comprehensive Financial Report)

The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is a set of U.S. government financial statements comprising the financial report of a state, municipal or other governmental entity that complies with the accounting requirements promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

“Exhibit C” of the ACFR contains “Budgetary Comparison Schedules”.

These schedules indicate the:

  1. Final amount of the budgeted line item
  2. Actual amount spent for the budgeted line item
  3. Variance, or difference in the final amount budgeted and what was actually spent

Here are some examples from the ACFR”

Final BudgetActual SpentVariance (Difference)Year
Total Student Transportation Services$6,069,994

$4,489,077

$1,580,917

2021
Total Student Transportation Services$6,499,755

$5,736,648

$763,107

2022
Total Student Transportation Services$5,706,667

$4,975,660

$731,007

2020
Total:$18,276,416

$9,464,737

$3,075,031

Final BudgetActual SpentVariance (Difference)Year
Total Security Budget$1,134,695

$855,873

$278,822

2022
Total Security Budget$383,161

$383,161

$0

2020
Total Security Budget$548,073

545,723

$2,350

2021

ACFR Data (available on NJ State Website):

Confirmation

I reached out to the District’s Business Administrator to confirm these findings.

My email appears below:

While the difference between Final Budget and Actual is fairly small for many categories (e.g. Total instruction, which comes in at 5%), other categories seem to have a very different variance betweenfinal budget and actual expenditures.
As an example….
Security:
The original budget is listed as $516,101.00
The final budget is listed as $1,134,695.00 with $618,594.00 under “transfers”
The actual is listed as $855,873.00, leaving a variance of $278,822.00
The variance would appear to be 25% of the final budget amount.
If that’s the case, did the variance go to fund balance?
Am I missing something here?
Appreciate any feedback you can provide.
Keith

The response from the Business Administrator came on 10/19/2023:

Haqquisha Taylor <htaylor@teaneckschools.org>
Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:45 PM
To: Keith Kaplan <keith@teanecktoday.com>
Cc: Andre Spencer <aspencer@teaneckschools.org>
Good Day,
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan, for your patience and for your follow up. The answer to your question regarding the variance listed in the 2021-2022 ACFR for Security is yes, the variance goes to fund balance. For Capital, $388,328 of the variance goes to fund balance. The remaining $18,600 of variance, relating to Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services, is returned to the Capital Reserves.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Where did the money GO?

This is a tricky question, as once you put massive amounts of money into “surplus”, it can be spent in a discretionary manner across different expense categories.

Obviously, as per the Business Administrator, we can see that the 25% of last year’s “Security Budget” which went unused was disbursed as follows:

  1. $388,328.00 to “Capital”
  2. $18,600.00 to “Facilities Acquisition and Construction [sic] Services”

 

If you recall, Teaneck Schools spent $5.35M for Renovation of a Kindergarten Building (from Eugene Field School office space to the current Lacey School) & Admin Offices by Thomas Jefferson Middle School.

Where did an “extra” $5,300,000.00 come from without bonding?  Now you know.

Let’s start with some basic facts:

  • Value of all land in Teaneck (as of 10/01/2020): $5,188,972,400
  • Value of Average Residential Assessment: $387,405
    • Percentage of total land value: .007466%

(stats from “User-Friendly budget” available on Township website)

Share of each $5.35M project for the average homeowner = $399.43

The $399.43 can be paid through the tax levy (all at once) or bonded (at near-zero interest) to be paid back over decades.

Bonding a project or paying for it through direct levy is a policy and financial decision that affects YOU!

So what would you prefer? Pay it all now or $19.97 a year for 20 years?

This is NOT how schools are supposed to operate.  Here’s why:

If you were to move out of Teaneck today, you would have paid 100% of your share of the $5,300,000.00.  But had this been bonded, at historically low rates over 30 years, you would only pay a share of the amount that corresponded with your time living in Teaneck.

The new resident moving in would continue to pay their fair share.

That’s how bonding – which is sometimes called “generational equity” – works.

But to do that, the Schools would have to go to the public with a bonding referendum on a ballot.  And the fear is that the public would vote down a bonding referendum because they think the schools ALREADY have enough money.  So rather than chance a defeat (which also acts as a barometer on resident satisfaction with the district), they inflate certain line items, year after year after year, in order to have you, the taxpayer pay MORE THAN YOU NEED to ensure a free and appropriate public education.

This is NOT how schools should function and the public should be incensed at how they are treating us at the Teaneck BOE.

Teaneck Cannabis Survey: Why Haven’t Results Been Released?

Until today, results from the survey conducted by the Cannabis Subcommittee have never been published.

  • Who created the Cannabis Survey and sent it out to residents?
  • Who created the Cannabis Forum at the Rodda Center?
  • Who directed employees to attend/work at the event?

The answers matter because the Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of the council formed to discuss issues)

It is the intention of this article that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager… The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.”
source: NJ Rev Stat § 40:69A-91

Sebastian Castillo

On April 5, 2022, Mr. Sebastian Castillo appeared before Council to give a presentation as to why the Township should grant him a letter authorizing him to apply for a license to open a Cannabis Dispensary in Teaneck. [video]

In Resolution 106-2022, the Council granted Mr. Castillo local support for the granting of a license to his company, Galaxy Express NJ, LLC.

Mr. Castillo continued coming to council meetings through December, requesting zoning expansion (beyond Alfred Avenue) for Cannabis dispensaries.

Then, after the new Council was seated in January, Mr. Castillo wrote to the Cannabis Subcommittee indicating that he created a google form, which they could use to determine whether the residents were willing to see an expansion of Cannabis zoning for retail stores.

Through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, you can see he email below.  The link for the form is still active and is available on archive.org.

The Survey and the Forum

As you may be aware, the council sent out this survey earlier this year, seeking resident comments regarding cannabis zoning in Teaneck.
(Note: The original municipal page with the survey has been deleted from the Township website, but is available here via archive.org)
The survey link indicates it is no longer open or available:

“The form Township of Teaneck | Cannabis Zoning Survey | January 2023 is no longer accepting responses.”

That survey had raised many questions (see our former Mayor Dunleavy’s post here), and Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests seeking to find the derivation of the survey have thus far gone unanswered (the post will be updated if any additional responses are received).

Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee promoted the forum as well as the survey

Cannabis Survey Results (obtained via OPRA):

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:Yes325No638
33.7%66.3%
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
32.9%67.1%
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
32.7%67.3%
For Distribution:Yes331No632
34.4%65.6%
For Retail:Yes376No587
39.0%61.0%
For Delivery:Yes354No609
36.8%63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
70.3%29.7%

So what happened to the survey?

Residents questioned the validity of the survey and forum held by the township.  Some sought information about cannabis zoning/council actions on Facebook.  In response, the husband of Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee indicated:

“Just to be clear, only Mayor Pagan, CW Goldberg, and CW Belcher along with the Manager etc were involved in planning this forum.”
(source)

This again raised several questions, namely:

  1. Who planned the forum?
  2. Did the Subcommittee take action outside of a council meeting?
  3. Who directed town personnel to hold the forum?
  4. Was the Council involved in the decision to hold the forum?

 

The clerk’s office responded:

“This was discussed at the Jan. 10, 2023 Meeting. The subcommittee report and accompanying minutes may be found here: http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx
This the record responsive to this portion of the request.”

The minutes for the first three meetings held this year did not indicate any vote for the survey, its language, or the forum (page 24 of the minutes from the 1/10 meeting indicates it was already scheduled).  So who is running the show?

An email from Councilwoman Goldberg states:

The current cannabis subcommittee planned and executedthe successful Town Hall which tookplace on January 25th at the Rodda Center, with more than 100 attendees in person andonline, marking the first such event held by the township in several years. Thank you again toDean, Tom Rowe, Doug, Ronn Goodman, MIS, and the panelists and participants for all of thehard work that went into planning and executing the event.” (emphasis added)

also from the Goldberg email:

“Additionally, a google doc survey was created by the cannabis subcommittee and shared with residents.  Several
hundred people submitted their responses and the results are still being collected and reviewed by the subcommittee.
The feedback we have received from the town hall, the survey, comments at good and welfare, conversations andemails from residents and stakeholders, as well as consultation with experts including our planner and the explorationof retaining legal counsel will all be used to determine next steps.” (emphasis added)

and

[W]e have asked the attorney to draft an ordinance to limit publicconsumption of cannabis in public spaces.”

The subcommittee, apparently through some authority has:

  1. Planned and executed events on behalf of the municipality including the direction of township personnel
  2. Created documents sent and shared with residents
  3. Directed the town attorney to draft ordinances

 

SIX MONTHS LATER: Where are the survey results?

Teaneck Today submitted an OPRA request and received the survey results (which included some data on the individuals filling out the survey).  Using emails and IP address info, along with a review of responses, it appears that several people submitted the survey results multiple times, making any assertions from the survey’s results, problematic.

Council Minutes from August 8, 2023, indicate “Cannabis” was a closed-session discussion topic.

 

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:Yes325No638
33.7%66.3%
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
32.9%67.1%
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
32.7%67.3%
For Distribution:Yes331No632
34.4%65.6%
For Retail:Yes376No587
39.0%61.0%
For Delivery:Yes354No609
36.8%63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
70.3%29.7%
Percentage
Total Number of Responses981
Unique Responses963
Individuals Identified40642.16%
Individuals Not Identified55557.63%
Number of ResponsesPercentage
District 163.20%0.80%
District 263.20%0.80%
District 3137.00%1.80%
District 4137.00%1.80%
District 521.10%0.30%
District 652.70%0.70%
District 7115.90%1.50%
District 8126.50%1.60%
District 91910.20%2.60%
District 10168.60%2.20%
District 11147.50%1.90%
District 12147.50%1.90%
District 1321.10%0.30%
District 1410.50%0.10%
District 1563.20%0.80%
District 1600.00%0.00%
District 1742.20%0.50%
District 18158.10%2.00%
District 1994.80%1.20%
District 2084.30%1.10%
District 2131.60%0.40%
District 2273.80%0.90%
District 2300.00%0.00%
Unknown55574.90%
Totals
Township of Teaneck Cannabis Survey Jan. 2023 Results(1)(1)_Redacted_Redacted

2023 Teaneck BOE Ballot Positions

The Bergen County Clerk has chosen Ballot Positions for the Teaneck Board of Education Race

The ballot positions will be:

  1. Gerald B. Kirshenbaum (Achieving Excellence Together)
  2. David Gruber (Achieving Excellence Together)
  3. James Wolff (Achieving Excellence Together)
  4. Nadia Hosein (Excellence Progress Equity)
  5. Seleene Raquel Wong (Excellence Progress Equity)
  6. Jose Zenon (Excellence Progress Equity)

 

Best of luck to everyone participating.

You can watch the drawing for ballot placement below

August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update

If you wish hard enough, you too can be an environmentalist…

The voters in Teaneck went to the polls to decide whether or not we should join the Community Energy Aggregation program.  The vote was overwhelmingly approved, and Teaneck joined the program immediately saving money but because third-party energy is a constantly changing target, pricing was affected by factors such as the war initiated by Russia, supply, and demand, as well as a plethora of other factors.

The Sustainable Essex Alliance (SEA) announced that it awarded a contract for Round 2 of the program to Energy Harbor, the low bidder, for a 17-month contract which began in April 2021 (through September 2022).

Under the new contract with Energy Harbor, the baseline product will again provide participating residents with power supply that has nearly double the renewable energy content required of PSE&G, at a price of $0.12696/kWh, which is below the current average Basic Generation Service tariff price of PSE&G.

Part of the problem unique to Teaneck is the threshold values. Continue reading “August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update”