Category: Elections

TDMC Results (TRMC Coming soon)

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Teaneck

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.

District Type of voting Registered Dems Votes Cast Turnout (%)
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) CARROLL ANNE GRECE JONATHAN ROSS Write-ins G REINER OSAMA USMANI AJHA RAHMAN PALESTINE Gerard Reiner Desiree R. Reiner
Teaneck 1 Early Voting 608 17 2.80% 13 12 1 1 1 1
Teaneck 1 Election Day 608 74 12.17% 58 42 7
Teaneck 1 Mail-In 608 43 7.07% 32 29 1 1
Teaneck 1 Provisional 608 0 0.00%
Teaneck 1 Total 608 134 22.04% 103 83 7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Teaneck Total 608 134 22.04% 103 83 7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total – Early Voting 608 17 2.80% 13 12 1 1 1 1
Total – Election Day 608 74 12.17% 58 42 7
Total – Mail-In 608 43 7.07% 32 29 1 1
Total – Provisional 608 0 0.00%
Contest Total 608 134 22.04% 103 83 7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) IRWIN BENZEL MELISSA BENZEL MOHAMED ARIF KHAN Write-ins Mahejabeen Kathawala
Teaneck 2 Early Voting 871 31 3.56% 3 12 27 11
Teaneck 2 Election Day 871 106 12.17% 24 33 68 28
Teaneck 2 Mail-In 871 66 7.58% 12 26 46 10
Teaneck 2 Provisional 871 0 0.00%
Teaneck 2 Total 871 203 23.31% 39 71 141 28 21
Teaneck Total 871 203 23.31% 39 71 141 28 21
Total – Early Voting 871 31 3.56% 3 12 27 11
Total – Election Day 871 106 12.17% 24 33 68 28
Total – Mail-In 871 66 7.58% 12 26 46 10
Total – Provisional 871 0 0.00%
Contest Total 871 203 23.31% 39 71 141 28 21
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) AYELET HIRSCHKORN REUBEN SHARRET Write-ins MUBINA KATHAWALA Mohamed Arif Khan Mahejaben Kathawala
Teaneck 3 Early Voting 754 98 13.00% 88 81 5
Teaneck 3 Election Day 754 181 24.01% 122 117 20
Teaneck 3 Mail-In 754 54 7.16% 36 40 3 3
Teaneck 3 Provisional 754 0 0.00%
Teaneck 3 Total 754 333 44.16% 246 238 20 5 3 3
Teaneck Total 754 333 44.16% 246 238 20 5 3 3
Total – Early Voting 754 98 13.00% 88 81 5
Total – Election Day 754 181 24.01% 122 117 20
Total – Mail-In 754 54 7.16% 36 40 3 3
Total – Provisional 754 0 0.00%
Contest Total 754 333 44.16% 246 238 20 5 3 3
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) THOMAS A. ABBOTT TAMAR D. WARBURG GWENETTE REESE Write-ins YIBAL GROSS YIGAL GROSS MICKEY MOUSE FREE PALESTINE CEASEFIRE NOW GRUBR
Teaneck 4 Early Voting 769 149 19.38% 99 111 36 4 6 1 1 1 1
Teaneck 4 Election Day 769 138 17.95% 90 77 51 3
Teaneck 4 Mail-In 769 82 10.66% 64 33 44
Teaneck 4 Provisional 769 0 0.00%
Teaneck 4 Total 769 369 47.98% 253 221 131 3 4 6 1 1 1 1
Teaneck Total 769 369 47.98% 253 221 131 3 4 6 1 1 1 1
Total – Early Voting 769 149 19.38% 99 111 36 4 6 1 1 1 1
Total – Election Day 769 138 17.95% 90 77 51 3
Total – Mail-In 769 82 10.66% 64 33 44
Total – Provisional 769 0 0.00%
Contest Total 769 369 47.98% 253 221 131 3 4 6 1 1 1 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) JUANITA BROWN YASSINE ELKARYANI Write-ins
Teaneck 5 Early Voting 571 19 3.33% 16 15
Teaneck 5 Election Day 571 77 13.49% 59 46 3
Teaneck 5 Mail-In 571 31 5.43% 24 21
Teaneck 5 Provisional 571 0 0.00%
Teaneck 5 Total 571 127 22.24% 99 82 3
Teaneck Total 571 127 22.24% 99 82 3
Total – Early Voting 571 19 3.33% 16 15
Total – Election Day 571 77 13.49% 59 46 3
Total – Mail-In 571 31 5.43% 24 21
Total – Provisional 571 0 0.00%
Contest Total 571 127 22.24% 99 82 3
Registered Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) ALEXANDRA SORIANO-TAVERAS RONALD SCHWARTZ Write-ins
Teaneck 6 Early Voting 735 18 2.45% 17 9
Teaneck 6 Election Day 735 74 10.07% 61 39 3
Teaneck 6 Mail-In 735 102 13.88% 83 78
Teaneck 6 Provisional 735 0 0.00%
Teaneck 6 Total 735 194 26.39% 161 126 3
Teaneck Total 735 194 26.39% 161 126 3
Total – Early Voting 735 18 2.45% 17 9
Total – Election Day 735 74 10.07% 61 39 3
Total – Mail-In 735 102 13.88% 83 78
Total – Provisional 735 0 0.00%
Contest Total 735 194 26.39% 161 126 3
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) JAMES R. NORMAN LEYAT MAFOUDA AVI BERLINER MARGARET E. FISHER Write-ins
Teaneck 7 Early Voting 698 49 7.02% 16 30 32 17
Teaneck 7 Election Day 698 116 16.62% 53 45 52 49 3
Teaneck 7 Mail-In 698 57 8.17% 39 11 10 38
Teaneck 7 Provisional 698 0 0.00%
Teaneck 7 Total 698 222 31.81% 108 86 94 104 3
Teaneck Total 698 222 31.81% 108 86 94 104 3
Total – Early Voting 698 49 7.02% 16 30 32 17
Total – Election Day 698 116 16.62% 53 45 52 49 3
Total – Mail-In 698 57 8.17% 39 11 10 38
Total – Provisional 698 0 0.00%
Contest Total 698 222 31.81% 108 86 94 104 3
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) SHARON VATSKY ARTHUR VATSKY MICHAEL KLATSKY SHANA B. DWORKEN Write-ins
Teaneck 8 Early Voting 820 61 7.44% 22 18 37 37
Teaneck 8 Election Day 820 195 23.78% 84 74 87 92 2
Teaneck 8 Mail-In 820 90 10.98% 63 59 21 19
Teaneck 8 Provisional 820 0 0.00%
Teaneck 8 Total 820 346 42.20% 169 151 145 148 2
Teaneck Total 820 346 42.20% 169 151 145 148 2
Total – Early Voting 820 61 7.44% 22 18 37 37
Total – Election Day 820 195 23.78% 84 74 87 92 2
Total – Mail-In 820 90 10.98% 63 59 21 19
Total – Provisional 820 0 0.00%
Contest Total 820 346 42.20% 169 151 145 148 2
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) DANIEL A. BLOOM ELIZABETH KLEIN HILLARY KESSLER-GODIN Write-ins
Teaneck 9 Early Voting 692 120 17.34% 105 25 94
Teaneck 9 Election Day 692 224 32.37% 180 63 160
Teaneck 9 Mail-In 692 60 8.67% 41 34 28
Teaneck 9 Provisional 692 0 0.00%
Teaneck 9 Total 692 404 58.38% 326 122 282
Teaneck Total 692 404 58.38% 326 122 282
Total – Early Voting 692 120 17.34% 105 25 94
Total – Election Day 692 224 32.37% 180 63 160
Total – Mail-In 692 60 8.67% 41 34 28
Total – Provisional 692 0 0.00%
Contest Total 692 404 58.38% 326 122 282
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) SHARON L. KOLB RHONA VEGA NOAH LIBEN Write-ins
Teaneck 10 Early Voting 663 136 20.51% 132 4 126
Teaneck 10 Election Day 663 199 30.02% 152 51 151
Teaneck 10 Mail-In 663 89 13.42% 41 47 65
Teaneck 10 Provisional 663 0 0.00%
Teaneck 10 Total 663 424 63.95% 325 102 342
Teaneck Total 663 424 63.95% 325 102 342
Total – Early Voting 663 136 20.51% 132 4 126
Total – Election Day 663 199 30.02% 152 51 151
Total – Mail-In 663 89 13.42% 41 47 65
Total – Provisional 663 0 0.00%
Contest Total 663 424 63.95% 325 102 342
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) CARLEY L. PEVEN Write-ins Alan Sohn ALAN SOHN ALLEN SOHN ABDUL WAHEED TALIA ROSENBERG SOHN ALAN SONNE
Teaneck 11 Early Voting 572 133 23.25% 124 3 83 3 4 1 3 1
Teaneck 11 Election Day 572 182 31.82% 161 111
Teaneck 11 Mail-In 572 47 8.22% 41 12 1
Teaneck 11 Provisional 572 0 0.00%
Teaneck 11 Total 572 362 63.29% 326 111 15 84 3 4 1 3 1
Teaneck Total 572 362 63.29% 326 111 15 84 3 4 1 3 1
Total – Early Voting 572 133 23.25% 124 3 83 3 4 1 3 1
Total – Election Day 572 182 31.82% 161 111
Total – Mail-In 572 47 8.22% 41 12 1
Total – Provisional 572 0 0.00%
Contest Total 572 362 63.29% 326 111 15 84 3 4 1 3 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) EMIL STERN TERESA R. BAYEWITZ Write-ins SCOTT ALTIERI
Teaneck 12 Early Voting 807 128 15.86% 121 122 1
Teaneck 12 Election Day 807 185 22.92% 161 157 4
Teaneck 12 Mail-In 807 94 11.65% 77 77
Teaneck 12 Provisional 807 0 0.00%
Teaneck 12 Total 807 407 50.43% 359 356 4 1
Teaneck Total 807 407 50.43% 359 356 4 1
Total – Early Voting 807 128 15.86% 121 122 1
Total – Election Day 807 185 22.92% 161 157 4
Total – Mail-In 807 94 11.65% 77 77
Total – Provisional 807 0 0.00%
Contest Total 807 407 50.43% 359 356 4 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) CLARA WILLIAMS RAYMOND ADDISON Write-ins
Teaneck 13 Early Voting 809 32 3.96% 29 23
Teaneck 13 Election Day 809 142 17.55% 121 75 1
Teaneck 13 Mail-In 809 55 6.80% 52 34
Teaneck 13 Provisional 809 0 0.00%
Teaneck 13 Total 809 229 28.31% 202 132 1
Teaneck Total 809 229 28.31% 202 132 1
Total – Early Voting 809 32 3.96% 29 23
Total – Election Day 809 142 17.55% 121 75 1
Total – Mail-In 809 55 6.80% 52 34
Total – Provisional 809 0 0.00%
Contest Total 809 229 28.31% 202 132 1
Registered
Voters		 Voters Cast Turnout (%) GLORIA J. WILSON JAMES D. EDMONDS III Write-ins John Smith
Teaneck 14 Early Voting 1139 53 4.65% 41 30
Teaneck 14 Election Day 1139 178 15.63% 141 90 4
Teaneck 14 Mail-In 1139 69 6.06% 63 50 1
Teaneck 14 Provisional 1139 0 0.00%
Teaneck 14 Total 1139 300 26.34% 245 170 4 1
Teaneck Total 1139 300 26.34% 245 170 4 1
Total – Early Voting 1139 53 4.65% 41 30
Total – Election Day 1139 178 15.63% 141 90 4
Total – Mail-In 1139 69 6.06% 63 50 1
Total – Provisional 1139 0 0.00%
Contest Total 1139 300 26.34% 245 170 4 1
Registered Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) TALYA ROSENBERG ZACHARY YITZCHAK GREENBERG NATASHA WILLIAMS Write-ins KWASI GLENN WILLIAMS GLENN WILLIAMS JR
Teaneck 15 Early Voting 789 99 12.55% 78 76 20 1 1 1
Teaneck 15 Election Day 789 133 16.86% 71 69 58 8
Teaneck 15 Mail-In 789 46 5.83% 30 21 23
Teaneck 15 Provisional 789 0 0.00%
Teaneck 15 Total 789 278 35.23% 179 166 101 8 1 1 1
Teaneck Total 789 278 35.23% 179 166 101 8 1 1 1
Total – Early Voting 789 99 12.55% 78 76 20 1 1 1
Total – Election Day 789 133 16.86% 71 69 58 8
Total – Mail-In 789 46 5.83% 30 21 23
Total – Provisional 789 0 0.00%
Contest Total 789 278 35.23% 179 166 101 8 1 1 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) DENISE SANDERS CHERYL L. HALL Write-ins
Teaneck 16 Early Voting 540 8 1.48% *** *** ***
Teaneck 16 Election Day 540 81 15.00% 59 32 1
Teaneck 16 Mail-In 540 33 6.11% 28 26
Teaneck 16 Provisional 540 0 0.00%
Teaneck 16 Total 540 122 22.59% 93 62 1
Teaneck Total 540 122 22.59% 93 62 1
Total – Early Voting 540 8 1.48% *** *** ***
Total – Election Day 540 81 15.00% 59 32 1
Total – Mail-In 540 33 6.11% 28 26
Total – Provisional 540 0 0.00%
Contest Total 540 122 22.59% 93 62 1
Registered Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) DONALD STARK GERVONN C. ROMNEY-RICE Write-ins
Teaneck 17 Early Voting 881 40 4.54% 26 35
Teaneck 17 Election Day 881 130 14.76% 81 95 2
Teaneck 17 Mail-In 881 64 7.26% 54 54
Teaneck 17 Provisional 881 0 0.00%
Teaneck 17 Total 881 234 26.56% 161 184 2
Teaneck Total 881 234 26.56% 161 184 2
Total – Early Voting 881 40 4.54% 26 35
Total – Election Day 881 130 14.76% 81 95 2
Total – Mail-In 881 64 7.26% 54 54
Total – Provisional 881 0 0.00%
Contest Total 881 234 26.56% 161 184 2
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) JENNIFER A. MONTAG STEPHEN GRUBER QURAN GEE Write-ins Sam Passner DANIELLE GEE
Teaneck 18 Early Voting 843 107 12.69% 93 79 17 1
Teaneck 18 Election Day 843 169 20.05% 131 107 53 2
Teaneck 18 Mail-In 843 91 10.79% 74 32 42 1
Teaneck 18 Provisional 843 0 0.00%
Teaneck 18 Total 843 367 43.53% 298 218 112 2 1 1
Teaneck Total 843 367 43.53% 298 218 112 2 1 1
Total – Early Voting 843 107 12.69% 93 79 17 1
Total – Election Day 843 169 20.05% 131 107 53 2
Total – Mail-In 843 91 10.79% 74 32 42 1
Total – Provisional 843 0 0.00%
Contest Total 843 367 43.53% 298 218 112 2 1 1
Registered Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) JUDITH SAMUELS RAMOS GABRIELLE SOPHIA WASSERMAN DANIEL M. ROSENBLUM SEAN HIRSCHHORN Write-ins Elie Katz
Teaneck 19 Early Voting 751 83 11.05% 29 50 28 46
Teaneck 19 Election Day 751 131 17.44% 63 62 43 51 5
Teaneck 19 Mail-In 751 80 10.65% 61 11 57 6 1
Teaneck 19 Provisional 751 0 0.00%
Teaneck 19 Total 751 294 39.15% 153 123 128 103 5 1
Teaneck Total 751 294 39.15% 153 123 128 103 5 1
Total – Early Voting 751 83 11.05% 29 50 28 46
Total – Election Day 751 131 17.44% 63 62 43 51 5
Total – Mail-In 751 80 10.65% 61 11 57 6 1
Total – Provisional 751 0 0.00%
Contest Total 751 294 39.15% 153 123 128 103 5 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) ELIE Y. KATZ MICHELLE M. BIVINS RUTH EZRAPOUR JARREN N. BIVINS Write-ins
Teaneck 20 Early Voting 497 98 19.72% 86 16 79 11
Teaneck 20 Election Day 497 152 30.58% 120 36 111 25 2
Teaneck 20 Mail-In 497 52 10.46% 32 26 23 18
Teaneck 20 Provisional 497 0 0.00%
Teaneck 20 Total 497 302 60.76% 238 78 213 54 2
Teaneck Total 497 302 60.76% 238 78 213 54 2
Total – Early Voting 497 98 19.72% 86 16 79 11
Total – Election Day 497 152 30.58% 120 36 111 25 2
Total – Mail-In 497 52 10.46% 32 26 23 18
Total – Provisional 497 0 0.00%
Contest Total 497 302 60.76% 238 78 213 54 2
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) LORETTA WEINBERG ROBERT ELKIN Write-ins MUHAMMAD BAGASRA PALESTINE
Teaneck 21 Early Voting 788 25 3.17% 17 17 2 2
Teaneck 21 Election Day 788 86 10.91% 63 43 9
Teaneck 21 Mail-In 788 112 14.21% 107 88
Teaneck 21 Provisional 788 0 0.00%
Teaneck 21 Total 788 223 28.30% 187 148 9 2 2
Teaneck Total 788 223 28.30% 187 148 9 2 2
Total – Early Voting 788 25 3.17% 17 17 2 2
Total – Election Day 788 86 10.91% 63 43 9
Total – Mail-In 788 112 14.21% 107 88
Total – Provisional 788 0 0.00%
Contest Total 788 223 28.30% 187 148 9 2 2
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) DEVORAH BACKMAN OSAMA USMANI AJHA RAHMAN Write-ins PALESTINE
Teaneck 22 Early Voting 744 42 5.65% 12 32 28 1
Teaneck 22 Election Day 744 118 15.86% 34 72 72 5
Teaneck 22 Mail-In 744 55 7.39% 24 36 34
Teaneck 22 Provisional 744 0 0.00%
Teaneck 22 Total 744 215 28.90% 70 140 134 5 1
Teaneck Total 744 215 28.90% 70 140 134 5 1
Total – Early Voting 744 42 5.65% 12 32 28 1
Total – Election Day 744 118 15.86% 34 72 72 5
Total – Mail-In 744 55 7.39% 24 36 34
Total – Provisional 744 0 0.00%
Contest Total 744 215 28.90% 70 140 134 5 1
Voters Voters Cast Turnout (%) Write-ins Rhona Vega Noah Liben PALISTINE ZUNERA ZUBAIRY
Teaneck 23 Early Voting 721 19 2.64% 1 1
Teaneck 23 Election Day 721 75 10.40% 12
Teaneck 23 Mail-In 721 35 4.85% 2 1
Teaneck 23 Provisional 721 0 0.00%
Teaneck 23 Total 721 129 17.89% 12 2 1 1 1
Teaneck Total 721 129 17.89% 12 2 1 1 1
Total – Early Voting 721 19 2.64% 1 1
Total – Election Day 721 75 10.40% 12
Total – Mail-In 721 35 4.85% 2 1
Total – Provisional 721 0 0.00%
Contest Total 721 129 17.89% 12 2 1 1 1


COUNTY COMMITTEE

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

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Lawsuits, Teaneck

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

Keith Kaplan / / Elections

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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7-Nov Early Mail Total
Gerald Kirschenbaum 57 52 158 154 52 36 198 73 308 306 316 379 30 24 108 27 49 193 100 144 46 43 16 2869 1775 748 5392
David Gruber 54 56 157 152 45 38 193 70 306 306 313 367 29 26 108 33 52 188 98 145 46 45 15 2842 1764 719 5325
James Wolff 55 53 157 150 48 42 193 72 303 307 312 357 24 31 106 29 55 191 94 145 46 43 15 2828 1753 718 5299
Nadia Hosein 117 154 179 130 114 98 210 67 66 65 26 59 210 253 97 102 193 108 106 65 130 177 112 2838 484 885 4207
Selene Wong 114 154 182 140 111 105 215 72 72 74 30 70 206 251 98 101 195 117 106 63 124 170 114 2884 503 912 4299
Jose Zenon 112 152 173 131 108 100 202 63 69 67 26 57 202 248 92 96 181 111 102 65 118 160 111 2746 481 855 4082
Personal choice 0 3 1 0 6 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 1 4 0 2 2 0 4 6 3 49 49
Mail in per district 56 76 50 66 34 118 57 82 70 99 56 100 48 66 52 40 62 97 70 50 129 59 35

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

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Budget, Elections, Teaneck

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 Budget Actual Spent Variance (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 Budget Actual Spent Variance (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?

Keith Kaplan / / Development, Elections, Health, Ordinances, Teaneck

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: Yes 325 No 638
33.7% 66.3%
For Manufacturer: Yes 317 No 646
32.9% 67.1%
For Wholesale: Yes 315 No 648
32.7% 67.3%
For Distribution: Yes 331 No 632
34.4% 65.6%
For Retail: Yes 376 No 587
39.0% 61.0%
For Delivery: Yes 354 No 609
36.8% 63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license? Yes 677 No 286
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: Yes 325 No 638
33.7% 66.3%
For Manufacturer: Yes 317 No 646
32.9% 67.1%
For Wholesale: Yes 315 No 648
32.7% 67.3%
For Distribution: Yes 331 No 632
34.4% 65.6%
For Retail: Yes 376 No 587
39.0% 61.0%
For Delivery: Yes 354 No 609
36.8% 63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license? Yes 677 No 286
70.3% 29.7%

Percentage
Total Number of Responses 981
Unique Responses 963
Individuals Identified 406 42.16%
Individuals Not Identified 555 57.63%

Number of Responses Percentage
District 1 6 3.20% 0.80%
District 2 6 3.20% 0.80%
District 3 13 7.00% 1.80%
District 4 13 7.00% 1.80%
District 5 2 1.10% 0.30%
District 6 5 2.70% 0.70%
District 7 11 5.90% 1.50%
District 8 12 6.50% 1.60%
District 9 19 10.20% 2.60%
District 10 16 8.60% 2.20%
District 11 14 7.50% 1.90%
District 12 14 7.50% 1.90%
District 13 2 1.10% 0.30%
District 14 1 0.50% 0.10%
District 15 6 3.20% 0.80%
District 16 0 0.00% 0.00%
District 17 4 2.20% 0.50%
District 18 15 8.10% 2.00%
District 19 9 4.80% 1.20%
District 20 8 4.30% 1.10%
District 21 3 1.60% 0.40%
District 22 7 3.80% 0.90%
District 23 0 0.00% 0.00%
Unknown 555 74.90%
Totals


Township of Teaneck Cannabis Survey Jan. 2023 Results(1)(1)_Redacted_Redacted

2023 Teaneck BOE Ballot Positions

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Elections

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

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

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…

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

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:
LIVE PET STORE – PUPPIES ONLY AS PER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THROUGH 10-20-2021.
NO SALE OF LIVE CATS OR DOGS PERMITTED
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 change.org 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 Change.org 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 Change.org 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.
COYLE & MORRIS LLP
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.

Thanks,

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?

Keith Kaplan / / Development, Elections

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

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Teaneck

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”