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”
While I’m hopeful that the results of this year’s election can restore a bit of civility to the dais at the Board of Education, the actions exhibited throughout the campaign by certain Trustees demonstrated outright contempt toward fellow board members in a manner implicating several areas of the School Ethics Act.
School Ethics Act
School Board Trustees receive specific training in regard to the School Ethics Act. One of the core requirements of the act and the decisions that come from it, is that Trustees must affirmatively state in a disclaimer when they are speaking as an individual and not as a BOE member (those who have attended any meeting where Howard Rose was in the vicinity during his time on the BOE are very familiar with this longstanding requirement).
The mandated disclaimer is not always enough, though. And when it comes to education-related matters, the School Ethics Act is not to be taken lightly.
“In an April 27, 2021 decision, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) voted to censure a school board member for writing an opinion article that endorsed some school board candidates but specifically called for the defeat of another. Finding an increase in the number of complaints received related to statements made on social media, the SEC drafted a substantive decision warning board members that a disclaimer of personal opinion in a public statement does not necessarily cure all ethics violations within the statement.”
What did this Trustee say that was worthy of Censureby the Ethics Commission?
“On October 30, 2018, the author of the opinion piece endorsed four school board candidates but spoke negatively about another, questioning her qualifications for the board.”
That was it. The author “spoke negatively” and questioned the fellow BOE member’s qualifications.
And they did it WITH the required disclaimer:
“In that writing, the member wrote a disclaimer saying: ‘The author is writing this endorsement on his own personal behalf. His opinions are his own.’ An administrative law judge who reviewed the case found that the disclaimer written by the member ‘was insufficient to convey that he was expressing his personal opinion.’ Additionally, the judge held that the board member admitted he did not seek approval from the board or its counsel before writing the article, and the author admitted that the endorsements were meant to influence the voters. “
Was this person censured because of a previous history of violating the rules? Nope.
“The judge held that a reprimand was appropriate based on case law and the fact that the board member had no previous history of ethics violations. However, the SEC disagreed and elevated the penalty to censure based on the severity of the violation.”1
With that in mind, let’s look at Teaneck’s BOE Trustee who just won re-election, Jonathan Rodriguez:
“Why do I think there’s so much hostility on the Current board? I… I’m gonna be plain. I think that our three new members [Ed note: David Gruber, Gerald Kirshenbaum and James Woff] have been a detriment to the board. I think that they have, done their best despite the six of us to damage the district. Both in perception and in actuality. Speaking on perception, I think that the, they’re fueled by, I don’t know, Facebook, to keep the vitriol going, as opposed to opening their minds and seeing that we are all people and we all want the best things for ourselves, for our community, and for our children. Thanks.”
If the oath to abide by the School Ethics Act is so serious as to merit censure even when you use a disclaimer and talk negatively about the qualifications of a candidate, what happens when you say that fellow BOE members are actively damage the district without a disclaimer?
We will find out.
During the campaign, I asked Mr. Rodriguez if he would apologize for the statements, try to foster a bit more cohesion and eliminate the negativity as a candidate.
I didn’t receive a response.
I’ve been watching and offering to help the BOE at every step because I truly want to end divisive rhetoric and get things to a point where the Board complies with the law and the public has notice of what’s going on with an opportunity to comment. That way, we can all work towards a more productive Teaneck.
If that has to be forced, it’s unfortunate but it was it is.
Complaint filed with NJ Ethics Commission
Below, you can find the complaint filed by me against Jonathan Rodriguez based on the standards the School Ethics Act mandates for Board Trustees.
It is my hope that such a complaint will 1) remind current BOE members of their obligations and 2) ensure compliance in the future by all members of the Board.
A response is due within 20 days of service (which took place on November 6, 2024).
“Ultimately, the board member who wrote the article resigned his board position and argued that his resignation should mitigate or reduce the penalty. The SEC disagreed and held that ‘[t]o the extent resignation affords a school official the ability to avoid the imposition of a harsher penalty, the force and effect of the Act becomes diminished.’”
After the Judge ruled in July that Keith Kaplan was a prevailing party regarding the failure of the Teaneck Board of Education to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (the “OPMA”), the Board and their attorneys continued to act as if nothing happened. They refused to admit they lost the case. They refused to change the practices of the Board of Education.
So Keith Kaplan filed a Motion to compel them to comply. The first had to do with the BOE failing to pay fees to Kaplan as a prevailing party of $400. The Board responded that they were gonna do it…. in a bit
Judge Catuogno:
If such is the case, then Defendants also knew that it could not pay the $400 within the 30-day timeframe ordered by the Court. Defendants would have been wiser to have raised such an issue to the Court when the judgment was issued on July 18, 2024, or simply moved for an extension. (Opinion – page 16)
The August 21st Meeting violated the OPMA
The next motion filed said that the OPMA was violated on August 21st when the Board AGAIN held a meeting without noticing the meeting or noticing an Agenda.
The Board responded that it’s cool because they put the agenda on the school website and that’s kinda how people do things in BOE land throughout the State.
Judge Catuogno:
In their opposition brief, Defendants state the January 17, 2024, meeting was properly noticed, stating that “posting the agenda on the website is … perfectly permissible” because it is a “norm throughout New Jersey.” Of course, norms that are not in strict compliance with OPMA cannot satisfy OPMA. (Opinion – page 12)
Swing and a miss….. if only someone had tried to tell them this ahead of time. Oh, wait….
I was hopeful that having lost in Court, the Board of Education would start observing the transparency rules. Sadly, that was not the case. At the August 21st meeting, despite one Trustee (James Wolff) objecting to the lack of proper notice, the Board President, Clara Williams continued the meeting.
Worse, the Board mischaracterized the errors they had made, refused to correct the errors moving forward and ignored the Order of the Judge in several respects (including not paying costs owed to the prevailing party within 30 days).
Due to the utter lack of contrition and their unwillingness to act under the Injunction entered by Judge Catuogno, an Ethics Complaint has been filed with the NJ Department of Education, Ethics Commission.
Bottom Line: Board members are ethically required to follow the law. The Judge found they didn’t comply with the mandates of the law.
Ergo, the Board members have committed Ethics violations.
The School Ethics Act
The School Ethics Act , N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. is intended to ensure that the conduct of school officials holds the respect and confidence of the people. The Legislature declared that school officials must avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression that the public trust is being violated. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22(a). The School Ethics Act applies only to school officials as defined by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23, which includes administrators . (Source: School Ethics Commission)
The first requirement of the Code of Ethics states:
“I will uphold and enforce all laws, rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, and court orders pertaining to schools. Desired changes shall be brought about only through legal and ethical procedures.”
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey:
ORDERED that the declaratory judgment sought by Plaintiff in Count 3 of the complaint is GRANTED, the Court having found that the Teaneck Board of Education failed to comply with the mandates of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (Order)
ORDERED that the declaratory judgment sought by Plaintiff in Count 4 of the complaint is GRANTED, the Court having found that the Teaneck Board of Education failed to comply with the mandates of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (Order)
What will happen next?
Processing of Complaints
If the Commission finds probable cause for the allegations in the complaint, the matter can:
1. Be retained by the Commission for a hearing.
b. The Commission will not need to secure the parties’ written consent in matters where it finds probable cause to credit a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (Code of Ethics for School Board Members).
2. Be decided on a summary basis if the material facts are not in dispute
Nothing here is in dispute, so stay tuned…
Violations of the Act
Where the Commission deems there has been a violation of the Act, it may recommend a penalty to the Commissioner of Education which may include:
Reprimand
Censure
Suspension
Removal
In addition, if a school official was on notice that an activity would violate the Act, or in instances where a school official was previously sanctioned pursuant to this chapter, the Commission may recommend an enhanced penalty
“When we talk about the purpose of the open public meetings act and similar statutes, they are meant to provide relief to the public when the statutes are not being followed–and the rules are not being followed by the public entities. And in this instance, Mr Kaplan has come forward and shone a light on this particular issue at the Teaneck School Board.”
– Superior Court Judge Carol Novey Catuogno
To properly notice a meeting, the Board must post an annual list of meeting dates by January 10th of each year or notice a particular meeting with its agenda. You need to send the Notice to 2 newspapers, put it up on your website, send it to the Municipality and place it on the bulletin board so people can see.
Teaneck has failed to properly notice meetings, for years. And now that must change — by Court Order of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen.
Months of warnings over an ongoing series of violations of the Transparency Law
For months, the Board members stood with Superintendent Spencer and the decisions to remove Principal Valdes, to operate without proper notice and to ignore the warnings that their decisions can be voided. The weight and influence of the Weiner Law Group gave cover and credibility to those acting in secret.
Back in December, I stated that Superintendent Spencer abused the community’s trust, by operating secretly and holding votes that did not in any way comply with the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ’s “Sunshine Law”. Few took me seriously.
And when Superintendent Spencer removed Principal Valdes from THS, I spoke up. The Board didn’t listen.
I asked the Board to do the right thing–and redo the vote (according to the Sunshine rules). The Board refused.
I explained to the Board of Education and the Public how the Sunshine rules regarding transparency required a new vote. The Board still refused to take action to remedy the violations.
I went to meeting after meeting. I stood before the Board, and in January I said they had one last chance before I forced them to do the right thing. The Board still refused.
I’m not a lawyer. I never went to law school.
But I learned my way around the legal system a bit. And while I’ve never been a litigant, I thought what the Superintendent did to Principal Valdes was not ok. What the Board permitted, was not ok. In short, this was a case worth making and more importantly, no one else was making it.
What is the issue?
In 1975, NJ created a series of “sunshine laws”. They require, at a minimum, to let the public know what you plan to do and describe in detail how to notice meetings.
As per the assignment Judge for the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, the Township of Teaneck’s Board of Education has been violating the transparency rules for quite some time.
“One cannot ignore that there has been a series or a longstanding consistent failing under the Open Public Meetings Act to notice these meetings properly. Having said that I do think that remedy is necessary.”
– Superior Court Judge Catuogno (official court transcript forthcoming)
Not only must the Board re-do several of their votes from last year (including the votes last December to transfer Principals Valdes & LoGuidice), but they also must re-vote the Re-Organization meeting of January 3, 2024 — where they decided on who will be President / VP of the Board, Secretary, Board / District Legal Counsel, and other matters. All must be re-done, in strict compliance with notice rules.
The Judge also entered an injunction, that the Board must strictly abide by the Open Public Meetings act moving forward.
Judge Catuogno also found that the exemption that schools need not notice agendas, does not apply in Teaneck. The reason is simple: to receive the benefit of the exemption, you must notice your annual meeting list in accordance with the law–and Teaneck’s Board of Education did not do so. As such, not only must each meeting going forward be noticed as to the time, date and location, but the AGENDA, must also be noticed, including topics for closed session discussion.
This is a significant win for transparency!
Judge Catuogno said that she is “confident that Mr Edelstein will counsel the Board of Education that they are to comply with every aspect of the Open Public Meetings Act”.
Let’s see if she is correct.
The Meetings of December 21, 2023 and January 3, 2024
The Board has 70 days (until September 26, 2024) to re-do the votes of the December and January meetings. If they fail to do so, those votes are voided.
This is, as the President would say, a big f’ing deal.
The actions, in the judge’s words, were egregious enough and the pattern of the actions was longstanding enough, that an injunction was provided to force the Board to comply with the law.
“I’m particularly, specifically I should say, looking at counts three [transfer of principals] and four [holding the re-org meeting] for which relief has been granted. In both of those counts, in addition to the declaratory relief, the voiding of actions taken, I’m asked to award what’s generally referred to as injunctive relief. Thereby compelling or therefore compelling the defendants to change their agenda and public notice practices to provide adequate notice to the public.
I think based upon a review of the facts and circumstances in their totality, including the instances or the meeting dates referenced in count one (although they did not… they’re not cognizable before this court because they violate the statute of limitations), I do not think they can be ignored that this has been an ongoing pattern and it carries through to the counts three and four, where relief was granted, that there has been a pattern here.
Accordingly I do think it is appropriate for the court to enjoin the defendants and inform them that they are required, as is everybody that legislates or passes any sort of administrative policies, personnel decisions on behalf of the public–are required to comply with, in strict adherence according to the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey, with the mandates of the open public [Meetings] act.
So I do think injunctive relief is granted.
This is appropriate in this instance and therefore it is granted.”
The law doesn’t stop you from making bad decisions, but it does stop you from doing it behind people’s backs.
Moving Teaneck Forward, the BOE must keep everyone informed as to what will happen in their meetings.
As mentioned in a previous post, on March 28th I filed an Ethics Complaint against Councilwoman Denise Belcher regarding an Application for a zoning variance before the Township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Since Teaneck dissolved our local ethics board, the Complaint is adjudicated by the Local Government Division of the Local Finance Board.
The first step in resolving these types of complaints is to meet and determine if it’s frivolous or whether the allegations merit review. As per Counsel at the LFB, that happened today and as per the letter they just sent:
“Please be advised that it is the Board’s practice and intent to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations presented. The Board’s staff is processing your complaint at this time and will, subsequently, present it to the Board for review and authorization of any necessary action. The Board will correspond with you as soon as a determination is made in this matter.”
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.
Sometimes, it appears that you need to say the little things, so please… do NOT be like Layla Graham, and do NOT bring a weapon to the Council meeting this evening.
Youtube (TBD) or Web: http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx
For those unaware, you can watch what transpired at the prior meeting here:
Layla Graham appeared for her first appearance (CJP) in Bergen County Superior Court on May 13th.
Her next scheduled appearance is June 11th at 9am before Criminal Judge Marc Ramundo.
Amanda Kearney’s first appearance is set for tomorrow, May 22nd (also before Criminal Judge Marc Ramundo) at 9am.
UPDATE: Amanda Kearney’s first appearance was postponed to June 11th at 9a before Criminal Judge Marc Ramundo.
If you wish to attend, please note that all criminal appearances are listed for 9am, so there may be some waiting involved.
The Courtroom is in Building 3 on the fourth floor, room 401.
In one word, Transparency. It’s also about the fact that the Board dismissed Principal Pedro Vades from Teaneck Hich School through a series of meetings that violates NJ’s Sunshine Law.
The law lets any citizen bring suit to ensure the law is complied with correctly. Today, I happen to be that citizen.
Of course, Mr. Edelstein (who says on his firm Bio: “I always want to be the best prepared person in the courtroom”), has the upper hand being an attorney admitted to the NJ bar longer than I’ve been alive.
Oral Argument was held on Friday, April 5th. Both BOE Counsel Stephen J. Edelstein from the Weiner Law Group and I argued our points to Judge Catuogno.
Why am I doing this?
I have lived in Teaneck for almost 20 years. My daughter attended the district and I’ve volunteered my time as a public servant on the Planning Board and Township Council where I had the opportunity to represent the interests of residents. While I do not personally benefit from the outcome of this action, the case affects important issues and the lives of residents. Principal Valdes has spent his life and career in Teaneck. He is respected by the student body and parents and the greater community. Among the violative meetings for which I’m asking this Court to take action to void was a December meeting in which he was removed from the high school. While the NJ Supreme Court has indicated under a case called Polillo and the cases that followed it that even mere procedural improprieties should be found to be violative of the OPMA, the current issues before the court affect real people and deserve to be vindicated for many within the municipality.
