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 (%)
Teaneck 1Early Voting608172.80%13121111
Teaneck 1Election Day6087412.17%58427
Teaneck 1Mail-In608437.07%322911
Teaneck 1Provisional60800.00%
Teaneck 1Total60813422.04%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
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
Total - Early Voting7549813.00%88815
Total - Election Day75418124.01%12211720
Total - Mail-In754547.16%364033
Total - Provisional75400.00%
Contest Total75433344.16%24623820533
Teaneck 4Early Voting76914919.38%9911136461111
Teaneck 4Election Day76913817.95%9077513
Teaneck 4Mail-In7698210.66%643344
Teaneck 4Provisional76900.00%
Teaneck 4Total76936947.98%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
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
Total - Early Voting735182.45%179
Total - Election Day7357410.07%61393
Total - Mail-In73510213.88%8378
Total - Provisional73500.00%
Contest Total73519426.39%1611263
Teaneck 7Early Voting698497.02%16303217
Teaneck 7Election Day69811616.62%534552493
Teaneck 7Mail-In698578.17%39111038
Teaneck 7Provisional69800.00%
Teaneck 7Total69822231.81%10886941043
Total - Early Voting698497.02%16303217
Total - Election Day69811616.62%534552493
Total - Mail-In698578.17%39111038
Total - Provisional69800.00%
Contest Total69822231.81%10886941043
Teaneck 8Early Voting820617.44%22183737
Teaneck 8Election Day82019523.78%847487922
Teaneck 8Mail-In8209010.98%63592119
Teaneck 8Provisional82000.00%
Teaneck 8Total82034642.20%1691511451482
Total - Early Voting820617.44%22183737
Total - Election Day82019523.78%847487922
Total - Mail-In8209010.98%63592119
Total - Provisional82000.00%
Contest Total82034642.20%1691511451482
Teaneck 9Early Voting69212017.34%1052594
Teaneck 9Election Day69222432.37%18063160
Teaneck 9Mail-In692608.67%413428
Teaneck 9Provisional69200.00%
Teaneck 9Total69240458.38%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
Total - Early Voting66313620.51%1324126
Total - Election Day66319930.02%15251151
Total - Mail-In6638913.42%414765
Total - Provisional66300.00%
Contest Total66342463.95%325102342
Teaneck 11Early Voting57213323.25%12438334131
Teaneck 11Election Day57218231.82%161111
Teaneck 11Mail-In572478.22%41121
Teaneck 11Provisional57200.00%
Teaneck 11Total57236263.29%326111158434131
Total - Early Voting57213323.25%12438334131
Total - Election Day57218231.82%161111
Total - Mail-In572478.22%41121
Total - Provisional57200.00%
Contest Total57236263.29%326111158434131
Teaneck 12Early Voting80712815.86%1211221
Teaneck 12Election Day80718522.92%1611574
Teaneck 12Mail-In8079411.65%7777
Teaneck 12Provisional80700.00%
Teaneck 12Total80740750.43%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
Total - Early Voting809323.96%2923
Total - Election Day80914217.55%121751
Total - Mail-In809556.80%5234
Total - Provisional80900.00%
Contest Total80922928.31%2021321
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
Total - Early Voting1139534.65%4130
Total - Election Day113917815.63%141904
Total - Mail-In1139696.06%63501
Total - Provisional113900.00%
Contest Total113930026.34%24517041
Teaneck 15Early Voting7899912.55%787620111
Teaneck 15Election Day78913316.86%7169588
Teaneck 15Mail-In789465.83%302123
Teaneck 15Provisional78900.00%
Teaneck 15Total78927835.23%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
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
Total - Early Voting881404.54%2635
Total - Election Day88113014.76%81952
Total - Mail-In881647.26%5454
Total - Provisional88100.00%
Contest Total88123426.56%1611842
Teaneck 18Early Voting84310712.69%9379171
Teaneck 18Election Day84316920.05%131107532
Teaneck 18Mail-In8439110.79%7432421
Teaneck 18Provisional84300.00%
Teaneck 18Total84336743.53%298218112211
Total - Early Voting84310712.69%9379171
Total - Election Day84316920.05%131107532
Total - Mail-In8439110.79%7432421
Total - Provisional84300.00%
Contest Total84336743.53%298218112211
Teaneck 19Early Voting7518311.05%29502846
Teaneck 19Election Day75113117.44%636243515
Teaneck 19Mail-In7518010.65%61115761
Teaneck 19Provisional75100.00%
Teaneck 19Total75129439.15%15312312810351
Total - Early Voting7518311.05%29502846
Total - Election Day75113117.44%636243515
Total - Mail-In7518010.65%61115761
Total - Provisional75100.00%
Contest Total75129439.15%15312312810351
Teaneck 20Early Voting4979819.72%86167911
Teaneck 20Election Day49715230.58%12036111252
Teaneck 20Mail-In4975210.46%32262318
Teaneck 20Provisional49700.00%
Teaneck 20Total49730260.76%23878213542
Total - Early Voting4979819.72%86167911
Total - Election Day49715230.58%12036111252
Total - Mail-In4975210.46%32262318
Total - Provisional49700.00%
Contest Total49730260.76%23878213542
Teaneck 21Early Voting788253.17%171722
Teaneck 21Election Day7888610.91%63439
Teaneck 21Mail-In78811214.21%10788
Teaneck 21Provisional78800.00%
Teaneck 21Total78822328.30%187148922
Total - Early Voting788253.17%171722
Total - Election Day7888610.91%63439
Total - Mail-In78811214.21%10788
Total - Provisional78800.00%
Contest Total78822328.30%187148922
Teaneck 22Early Voting744425.65%1232281
Teaneck 22Election Day74411815.86%3472725
Teaneck 22Mail-In744557.39%243634
Teaneck 22Provisional74400.00%
Teaneck 22Total74421528.90%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
Total - Early Voting721192.64%11
Total - Election Day7217510.40%12
Total - Mail-In721354.85%21
Total - Provisional72100.00%
Contest Total72112917.89%122111

“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 momentarily.
*** Some Votes May Still Be Coming In ***
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


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



Total Student Transportation Services$6,499,755



Total Student Transportation Services$5,706,667






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



Total Security Budget$383,161



Total Security Budget$548,073




ACFR Data (available on NJ State Website):


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….
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.

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

Haqquisha Taylor <>
Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:45 PM
To: Keith Kaplan <>
Cc: Andre Spencer <>
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

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
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
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
For Distribution:Yes331No632
For Retail:Yes376No587
For Delivery:Yes354No609
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286

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.”

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:
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)


[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
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
For Distribution:Yes331No632
For Retail:Yes376No587
For Delivery:Yes354No609
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
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%
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”

Wayne Puppies took Hillary Goldberg to Court. What happened next might shock you…

UPDATE: Judge denies motion brought by [Councilwoman] Hillary Goldberg, to dismiss the action.
(note: Ms. Goldberg was sued in her individual capacity)

UPDATE 2: Counsel for Ms. Goldberg sent a response***.  It is appended below in full.

UPDATE 3: Teaneck’s Township manager sent a response****.  It is appended below in full.

UPDATE 4: Hillary Goldberg submitted an Answer, Demand for Discovery and Jury Demand on June 5th.

A request for comment was sent to all parties and the post may be updated with replies

For those unfamiliar with the saga that is Wayne Puppies, Teaneck, I will offer a brief recap:

  • 2018: Teaneck banned the sale of dogs and cats in retail stores*.
  • 2021: Wayne Puppies (which has existed in Wayne, NJ for some time) sought to create a “store” on Cedar Lane.  That store would sell dog supplies, food, etc… and would house puppies too young for sale (which would eventually go to the Wayne location when appropriate).

“All puppies will be delivered approx. at the gestational age of 8 weeks and will be thoroughly checked by a licensed veterinarian before classifying as fit for sale. If at any case the animal is not fit for sale, we will set the animal for adoption. The puppies will continue to be under veterinary supervision for weekly checkups. The only supply sold in our store will be the same pet food (wet and dry) that is used in our store to feed the puppies with.”
– email from Alexandra Hofman, owner of Wayne Puppies to Teaneck Zoning Officer dated 9/9/21

The idea was a sort of “take a look at this doggie in the window… and buy it elsewhere” type model.

  • The Township initially gave Wayne Puppies a certificate of occupancy, with the understanding of all parties that they could not sell animals in Teaneck.

Description of Work / Use:
PER SEC. 6-68

  • 2022: The plaintiff alleges that the Township eventually changed positions and the company sued Teaneck and Hillary Goldberg, claiming:

“…the Township of Teaneck is not entitled to any deference in its revocation of its approval of the business plan as it was not based on an interpretation of any statute or Code, but rather based on outside forces, including political pressure placed on the Township members; especially with an election upcoming in November 2022.”
Complaint at paragraph 39

Why Hillary Goldberg?

According to the complaint, while running for a seat on the council, [now Councilwoman] Hillary Goldberg is alleged to have created a petition on which the plaintiff (Wayne Puppies) claimed was not only defamatory but done in order to raise her position as a candidate.

Hilary Goldberg Defames Wayne Puppies to Gain a Political Advantage:
(emphasis in original)

In the legal action (a copy of the docket is available here), attorneys for Ms. Goldberg sought to dismiss the case, saying that nothing Ms. Goldberg said was, in fact, defamatory or created tortious interference.

The claims made against Ms. Goldberg include:

  • Defamation
  • Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
  • Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advance


Ms. Goldberg filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, contending that:

  • The mischaracterization of the Petition is in bad faith and further proves that Plaintiff’s defamation claim is meritless.
  • The fact that Plaintiff specifies that the only alleged interference was with prospective clients demonstrates that no actual contracts existed for Ms. Goldberg to interfere with and this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
  • Ms. Goldberg’s actions are not malicious and do not meet the necessary requirements to be deemed tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.

The full briefing of the motion is available below.


The plaintiff (Wayne Puppies) states in their opposition to Goldberg’s motion to dismiss:

“Goldberg’s argument reminds me of my childhood teachers accusing “someone” of wrongdoing, staring right at them, and stating “I am not naming names, but you know who you are.” The purpose of the petition is clear, and it was not to simply argue the virtues of adoption. Instead, it was a targeted and purposeful attack on Wayne Puppies, that amounts to actionable defamation.”
– Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

In response, Goldberg states in reply:

“Folksy wisdom aside, this is what is required for a defamation claim as a matter of law, and thus, Ms. Goldberg’s Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

“Unfortunately for Plaintiff, this motion will be decided in a New Jersey Court, not in counsel’s former elementary school. Here, where the petition does not actually make the alleged defamatory statements about Wayne Puppies, this motion to dismiss must be granted.””
– Reply to Motion to Dismiss

The motion was indeed heard and decided in a New Jersey Court on May 26th.

Unfortunately for Hillary Goldberg, the motion to dismiss the complaint was denied (for the reasons stated on the record**)

A request was sent to all parties to obtain the reasons stated on the record and the post will be updated with additional information / replies / comments.

Stay tuned.

June 5, 2023: An answer was submitted by Hillary Goldberg

* At the time this law was passed, I objected to the passage because it was poorly written and could would lead to a scenario such as this one.
** I was not able to watch the proceedings (held via zoom) because they took place over a religious holiday.  I did reach out to all sides of the litigation to request the video/transcript as well as if they had any comment on the decision.  I will post any responses received, in full, under this post.

***  At 4:40pm on 5/30/2023, Counsel for Ms. Goldberg, John Coyle responded to my request for comment:

Hi there:

This is John Coyle, counsel for Ms. Goldberg.

When Wayne Puppies was not able to open up in Teaneck, it filed this frivolous lawsuit against Ms. Goldberg, the Town, and others.  Against Ms. Goldberg, the Complaint claims she defamed it by calling Wayne Puppies a “puppy mill.”
However, counsel for Wayne Puppies admitted that at no point in the petition did Hillary Goldberg actually say that Wayne Puppies was a puppy mill.  Despite this, he argued to the Court that people who read the petition would have thought she meant it about Wayne Puppies and the motion to dismiss was denied.
It is undisputed that the New Jersey Attorney General found that Wayne Puppies committed 27 violations of the Pet Purchase Protection Act for its failure to adhere to laws designed to protect consumers from purchasing unhealthy pets.
The truth is the ultimate defense in a defamation action.  We fully expect Ms. Goldberg and all defendants to be vindicated and this frivolous lawsuit to ultimately be dismissed.
John D. Coyle, Esq.
201 Littleton Road, Suite 210
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
T: 973.370.3519

****  At 8:50am on 5/31/2023, Township Manager Dean Kazinci responded to my request for comment:

Good morning. The Township possesses no record/transcript regarding the motion recently heard in Court on the matter involving Ms. Goldberg as a private citizen. Also, the Township does not comment on pending litigation in which we’re listed as a defendant.


Dean B. Kazinci, CPM CHR
Township Manager
Township of Teaneck
818 Teaneck Road
Teaneck, NJ 07666
201-837-1600 ext. 1001

Has the Teaneck Cannabis Subcommittee been operating in violation of State law?

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 Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of 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

Continue reading “Has the Teaneck Cannabis Subcommittee been operating in violation of State law?”

Election Results: November 2022

The “unofficial” results from the town are below.

Note: These do not include Early Voting or VBM, which will be added in by the County (not all numbers are yet available on their site).

But the “live” numbers (available here) seem to include the early voting totals.  Based on this data, it would appear that at least 3 of the challengers Continue reading “Election Results: November 2022”