ATTENDING & SPEAKING AT TOWN MEETINGS
MAY 2, 2022 ISSUE
|
|
PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES
Managing Editor, Bernard Rous
|
|
ATTENDING & SPEAKING AT TOWN MEETINGS - MAY 2, 2022 ISSUE
Contents
How Do Residents Get Access to Township Meetings and Have Our Voices Heard?
Two Town Budgets from Two Different Processes
What a Week it Was - Many Meetings but Mixed Results
Notable Women of Teaneck
Township Trees – Who Speaks and Cares for the Trees?
A Town-wide Survey from One Town One Vote
Voter Registration Information
All Conflicts of Interest are Not the Same
These Questions Remain Unanswered
Upcoming Town Meetings - This Week in Teaneck
Events at the Library
Teaneck Voices Has a Website
COVID Updates
- Rapid Home COVID tests from the Post Office
- Rodda Center
- New Library Covid Policy
Announcements
- Support Teaneck Voices
- Bergen County LGBTQ+ Alliance
- PTA Council Raffle
- Prayers and Support for Ukrainian People
Masthead
|
|
BEING & SPEAKING AT TOWN MEETINGS
How Do Residents Get Access to Township Meetings and Have Our Voices Heard?
|
|
How do I find out where and how to see a meeting of the Council, a Board or Commission?
Am I allowed to participate in a land use board meeting if I object to my neighbor’s renovation plans?
I have professional knowledge about public pocket parks. Can I go to the meetings of the Town’s Advisory Board on Parks and Recreation to offer advice?
There are no simple answers to these questions. Some of the answers are newly- devised and some are governed by current practice, not set policy.
Three Sets of Access/Input rules Teaneck, at present, has three distinct sets of rules which control the ways in which Township residents can know about, view and participate in the meetings of different types of Township entities:
1 ) The Township Council whose policies and practices are largely prescribed by the Council Manager form of government under the Faulkner Act and the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA);
2) Seven Township Boards and Commissions whose existence and policies are shaped by specific state statutes including OPMA, which together regulate how and when agendas are required and limits issues which may be addressed in closed session. The 7 are Teaneck’s Board of Adjustment, Environmental Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Ethics Board, Planning Board, the Library Board and the Board of Education.
3) Twelve Advisory Boards Since the passing of Ordinance 15-2020 in August 2020, these boards are newly- defined as entities which are advisory only to Council, are “not public bodies” and “are closed to the public.” Prior to adoption of that Ordinance, virtually all 12 advisory boards had observed OPMA practices and been open to the public and permitted defined public input.
The Pandemic Made Most Public Meetings Remote: Since the Spring of 2020, access has also been shaped by state statutes and executive orders which were developed during the state’s public health emergency to permit meetings to be held with members and participants taking part from remote locations (which, in Teaneck, has meant participation by Zoom). There was state legislature and administration regulation to assure that these remotely conducted meetings conformed with OPMA principles.
As pandemic rules are now slowly being eased, and access to public buildings has been opened, a variety of new meeting practices are developing. However, a senior communications official in Bergen County told a Voices reporter that, currently, the majority among the County’s 70 municipal governing boards are continuing to conduct their meetings remotely. What about Teaneck?
1) The Teaneck Council has just chosen In-person-input only meetings: Council’s 4/26/22 meeting last week was conducted in person in the Council Chambers. After nearly 2 years of Zoom, the public was invited to Council at Town Hall. Unfortunately, after the Feldman Award presentations, only 10 persons remained for the “business” portions of the meeting. As had been the practice prior to Covid, only public participants present in the Chambers were given an opportunity to speak in public input (e.g., G&W) portions. Those who wanted to watch the meeting remotely could do so either through the public access channel of their cable provider (Channel 47 for Fios, Channel 77 for Optimum), or by watching on the Town’s website.
In Tuesday’s G&W several residents pressed Council to develop a hybrid – a way for residents to again provide remote input as well as attend in Chambers. The Mayor stated that the hybrid possibility was being explored but that it would pose technical challenges.
Agenda access remains via the Town website. Council meeting agendas, by policy are to be posted by Close of Business on the Thursday before Council’s Tuesday meetings & to be changed or augmented only when immediate action is necessary. Unfortunately, actual practice over the years has been to allow changes to the agenda right up to the last minutes before meetings. (Two important resolutions were added during the day last Tuesday.) This practice makes it difficult for all participants to be well-prepared – and has long caused similar “preparedness” problems for council members confused by what is the latest agenda version!
Video recordings of Council meetings will apparently continue to be available on the Township website immediately after Council meetings adjourn. Council meeting minutes have - for the past two years - finally become timely.
2) The Statutory Boards and Commissions have stayed remote only – for now. Although no policy directive appears to have been issued, 5 of the other township entities governed by OPMA that were scheduled to meet last week did so by using Zoom- exclusively. Both access and public input portions were available remotely. Unfortunately, several of these Boards publish their agendas on the website as images, so that the zoom address is not clickable and must be copied and separately entered. (Note: Teaneck Voices website (www.teaneckvoices.com) does provide clickable links for these meetings when the Town website does not.)
What will likely happen In the immediate future? The chairs of some statutory boards that met last week indicated that their next meetings too would be remote. One clear advantage of continuing to use remote technology is that the videos of the zoomed statutory board meetings can be found on the Town website a day later. Previously, no Town videos of those statutory board meetings existed & audio recording were available only for some of these entities.
One other improvement: Minutes of the statutory Boards are now finally getting timely to the Township website. By contrast, agenda content remains nearly impenetrable when land use board hearings are continued without further notice to the public.
3) Being and Speaking at Meetings Denied for the 12 Boards Advisory to Council. Unfortunately, neither public access nor input have changed for these 12 bodies defined by Code since 2020 as “not-public” . No non-board member access and no input – unless special permission is given a resident to address a specific issue – and then leave!
Different boards are selecting different approaches for their members-only meetings: some are in-person, others remain remote.
Teaneck Voices notes an increase in resident criticism of the closed meetings of these boards – as is reflected in comments it is receiving. “Outrageous” is the word most frequently used.
A little-known fact is that the minutes of these closed advisory board meetings, are required by the new Ordinance to be produced for its board members 5 days prior to its next meeting, And it turns out those minutes can be obtained by OPRA. They are not otherwise publicly available.
|
|
TWO TOWN BUDGETS FROM TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES
|
|
On successive nights last week, Teaneck’s two budgeting authorities – its municipal Council and its Board of Education – met to consider two very different steps in their individual processes for defining and deciding on their respective annual budgets.
By mid-week we had an Introduced budget for Teaneck’s municipal government and an approved final budget for the public schools. Depending on what happens when the County approves a budget (which did not happen last year until September) and the specific annual $ number for Teaneck’s voluntary Municipal Open Space Trust 2022, Teaneck’s residents will be able to calculate their 2022 property tax level. For now it would appear that the property owner of the average home in Teaneck will see about a $47 annual increase in his/her muni plus schools taxes – or about $3.75 a month ,That's about the cost of one cappuccino per month + the tip at Starbuck’s
The additional cost to taxpayers in the portion of the total tax levy associated with these two town budgets will have come from the schools budget ($96,992M). while the municipal budget requires just level property tax coverage ($57,220M). Council members tirelessly tell you of their achievement. But as municipal Deputy Manager Schwartz admitted at Tuesday’s Council meeting, the BOE will recently have significantly reduced the amount of the bonded debt it carries while the Town continues to increase its debt level, which in part explains how it maintains a level tax levy – despite the contractual increases in employee salaries and, for example, what the Town pays the Bergen County Utility Authority significantly more each year to manage its sewage.
The calculations to accommodate pandemic expenditure patterns and shifting federal/state revenues that each of these two entities have recently had to make have resulted in 2022 budgets that are surely not going to be replicated when our schools and government actually return to “normal”. The reason for Mayor Dunleavy’s lonely vote against the Introduced budget is his conviction that the “level’ tax levy is an artifact of abnormal expenditures and revenues that will not be sustainable.
But with all this uncertainty about the “meaning” of these two different budgets, Voices is coming to a major realization. The actual conduct of the two budget processes at the municipal and BOE budget meetings reflected vastly different views of what these two Town entities believe the public deserves to know.
1) The municipal budget was – until the morning of the Council meeting – hidden at page 49 of the 499-page meeting agenda. When the public could actually see the to-be-Introduced budget, they found a budget that defined the tax levy at $1.9M less than what the Manager had proposed in March. Or put differently, the Manager’s proposed 2022 budget would have added almost exactly the same amount to the tax levy as does the BOE’s final approved budget.
Where did that $1.9M come from? – Voices analyses have simply not been able to locate what happened – but we intend to keep looking. And if we find the answer before the final muni budget passage scheduled for 5/31, we will let you know. We asked at the Council meeting, where did you folks find $1.9M and no one on Council answered. . But Council did spend 10 minutes congratulating itself – but never specifying a single # or budget line for where its secret Council sub-committee had found $1.9M in different revenues or spending cuts. We have not heard a word from the Manager about the budget since 3/24. Suggestion for next year: why don’t you provide the Council (and us) with a revised Power Point when Introduction time arrives. Without such a presentation, the public has only this impenetrable document to review Click Here.
2) BOE's budget review on Wednesday was in complete contrast, the BOE’s interim business manager walked the BOE (and the public) through an incredibly detailed and persuasive budget presentation that masterfully integrated BOE educational programming with the final proposed budget, a budget which she explained in detail – before responding cogently to questions. That presentation itself can be seen Click Here. For the BOE video that shows her delivering the presentation and responding to questions Click Here. And, best of all, she promised (and has delivered Click Here) a User-Friendly budget where the public can delve further into the BOE budget and its recent predecessors. (We await a parallel document from the Township)
|
|
WHAT A WEEK IT WAS – MANY MEETINGS BUT MIXED RESULTS
|
|
This week there were more Teaneck meetings – and specifically more meetings required to be open to the public – than in any other recent week. The results were mixed at best.
Teaneck’s Board of Education We all know the Board is currently challenged by needing to conduct a superintendent search and – like virtually all public school boards in the country – needs to find replacement teachers. It nevertheless conducted an extremely productive and transparent 2022-2023 schools budget discussion and budget adoption vote which was ably introduced by a thorough and understandable budget presentation by the Board’s interim business administrator (see the budgets discussion which precedes this story in this Voices edition.) Click Here to see a well-run 2-hour BOE meeting.
Teaneck Historic Preservation Commission This Commission continued its run of well-organized and advertised meetings which again resulted in productive Commissioner discussion of well-researched agenda items and reports on how the Commission is successfully gaining Council and Administration support for its several historic marker initiatives and efforts to obtain additional Teaneck historic places recognition. It is true that the Commission will need to work with the BOE on how to implement its proposed Bryant School marker. Subscribers wishing to see how a good agenda enables an efficiently run public meeting will want to Click Here for the Commission’s Agenda and Click Here for the under 1 ½ hour video of the meeting
Teaneck Council The Council’s first in-person meeting in 2 years did approve Introduction of the 2022 muni budget which all but the Mayor touted for its having maintained its multi-year run of “no tax levy increase” Although several residents have pressed for clarification of how the Manager’s proposed budget had - after the budget subcommittee meeting in closed sessions - been reduced by $1.9M – that request yielded no Council response. (See preceding budgets story in this Voices edition). Of equally great concern is what then happened in the final 55 seconds of the Council meeting.
The Council Agenda for this meeting listed a Consent Agenda which is described as dealing only with “matters… considered to be routine in nature by Council and will be enacted by one motion”. But in this case the “routine” matters included the following. The Bill Lists is a list of all the payments that are ready to go to vendors as soon as Council acts – and Tuesday’s list totaled more than $20 million – fully 25+% of the Town’s annual budget. It included 25 different resolutions – and 2 of the complicated ones had been added during the course of that same day. Among the other 23 resolutions were ones which
· completely changed the lease of a Town property on Teaneck Road to a developer NOT selected competitively to a sale of the property to that developer for an unexplained sum of only $200K - is that routine?
· approved the settlement of a real estate court case that the Town attorney had apparently lost and had originally appealed but had decided, for unexplained reasons, to go back to the original “adverse” [sic.} lower court decision for an undisclosed $ amount and involving paying the plaintiff attorney’s legal fees – is that routine?
· approved the Council asking the Planning Board to declare a series of blocks and lots (no street names) that are apparently in the heart of the Queen Anne retail district to be an AINR - Area in Need of Redevelopment (i.e. blighted) for no explained reason in order, one assumes, to pursue an undisclosed development plan with an undisclosed developer – is that routine?
In sum, Council in its first meeting back in-person either mindlessly passed a Consent Agenda it did not understand – or mindfully decided to treat as routine HUGE expenditures and decisions affecting the very fabric of the Town but about which it was not willing to tell the public ANYTHING! –
Unfortunately, that kind of decision-making IS BECOMING ROUTINE!
Voices readers will want to take just 2 minutes to see this 55 seconds of irresponsible “Council decision-making” Click Here
Board of Adjustment – The several hours of this 4/27 ” special meeting” had been expected to complete the very long-running Arzei Darom synagogue expansion case. Attorneys had claimed being near settlement but then the entire evening turned into cross-examination of only 3 of the 5 prior witnesses. Cross of two others await - followed by a planner’s expert “sum-up” testimony followed by his cross, of course. In other words, the BofA falls further and further behind and its backlog of significant cases typically go on to multiple hearings lasting more than a year.
Pity the average resident trying to figure out when some case about which he/she would like to comment will actually be open to public input! Want to see what happened this week Click Here
Planning Board Lets just say that the PB’s 4/28 meeting was for 50 minutes consumed with the Board’s berating of two small business owners trying to get approval for their business signs which involved small deviances from the Town’s signs ordinance. Tough to watch!
Then for just four minutes the PB turned its major business of rhe night = to evaluate whether a proposed ordinance that addresses the principal building height of the new townhouses on the old Holuba property. The PB had long fdinally approved integrated affordable and market-rate housing – and part of the deal was allowing the building height to be raised to 42 feet to accommodate 7 feet of pitched roofs. But a 2019 Town’s ordinance passed as part of the amended Master Plan and the consequent Ordinances to codify the Town’s Fair Share Housing agreement had specified for the Holuba property a building height of 35, not 42 feet. When Council introduced an ordinance to allow retroactively the 42 feet height Council had, of course, to go back to the PB to ask if the change was consistent with the Master Plan. Which, in fact, it isn’t. But suffice it to say that what the PB was told about the Council’s request to the PB by the Chair and member Schwartz misdescribed the request. So the Board, with its own attorney remaining silent, and with none of the statutorily required input from a licensed planner and after providing no opportunity for required public input, unanimously passed a motion to say the ordinance IS consistent.
Several residents in the subsequent G&W tried to explain the PB’s “legal mistake”. But when they finished, the Chair then simply responded by asking for a motion of adjournment. You can watch the hour of PB’s meeting if you Click Here
Environmental Council (EC) Sometime – apparently Tuesday - last week the Town website posted announcement of a Wednesday 4/27 meeting of the EC. Sometime on Wednesday the Website reported that that meeting had been canceled. Voices has no further information.
|
|
NOTABLE WOMEN OF TEANECK
A LOOK BACK
|
|
Teaneck Voices Planned to feature the NETBPA celebration in honor of newly retired Senator Loretta Weinberg in this spot. Unfortunately, technical difficulties required the rescheduling of the event. The new date is Wednesday, May 18th.
So, we bring you a look back at some of the diverse women we have honored. You can read all about the 28 (so far) honored Teaneck women at Click Here
|
|
These are just 5 of the creative, energetic, vibrant women who serve our community - too often behind the scenes. Please read more about them and about all the amazing women Teaneck Voices has honored.
Submitted names of notable women must be Teaneck residents or former residents.
|
|
TOWNSHIP TREES –
WHO SPEAKS FOR/CARES FOR THE TREES?
TONIETTE H. DUNCAN
|
|
Living on a street that is lined with beautiful township trees provides picturesque scenery and cooling shade in the summer. But what happens when a township tree looks unhealthy and needs to be treated?
Unfortunately, Dr. Suess’s “The Lorax, who speaks for trees” does not live in Teaneck! So, the question remains, who speaks and takes care of our township trees? Here is the answer.
On April 19th, a resident of Voorhees Street called Town Manager Dean Kazinci for assistance with a township tree on their street. The tree was looking unhealthy; the bark was peeling off the tree and the trunk was turning dark. As always, Dean acted immediately. He contacted DPW Supervisor Ed Javier and asked Ed to examine the tree.
Sadly, the diagnosis was not good. The tree was diseased. It could not be treated and saved. It had to go. On April 21st, a crew came out and removed the tree.
Then the residents of Voorhees Street got happy news. The township can replace the tree this summer!
- A word of advice, if your street has township trees and some are not looking healthy, SPEAK for the tree and reach out to DPW Supervisor Ed Javier. HE WILL BE THERE!!!
Teaneck is a Tree Town. Let’s make sure our trees are inspected and treated before it’s too late to save them!
Thanks are extended to Township Manager Dean Kazinci, DPW Supervisor Ed Javier and the DPW Crew for responding so quickly to address the township tree on Voorhees Street.
|
|
A TOWN-WIDE SURVEY FROM ONE TOWN ONE VOTE
|
|
Teaneck Voices is happy to join diverse social media in urging its subscribers and readers to take the time to complete a survey being conducted by One Town One Vote – the non-partisan organization that led the successful effort to change Council elections from May to November.
In order to help it better listen to and empower all Teaneck residents, OTOV is, by way of the survey described and accessible below, seeking input from all residents. Please take the time to understand the survey’s purpose and to provide your views on Teaneck issues and concerns.
One Town One Vote (OTOV) is a grassroots, nonpartisan volunteer organization that worked with other community groups to make it easier and more convenient for Teaneck residents to vote for their local leadership by unifying Teaneck’s stand-alone town council elections, previously held in May, to take place on the same day as the General Elections in November. Tuesday, November 8, 2022 will be the first time Teaneck residents will have the opportunity to vote for town council members at the same time as we vote for other local, state, and national officials.
In anticipation of this historic event, OTOV is conducting a town-wide survey on resident issues and concerns. They need your input! Your responses will help OTOV achieve their ongoing goal of helping to listen, educate, organize, and empower residents on local issues so your voice matters and your vote counts in the November elections. Your information will not be shared with any other organization.
Please click here to take the One Town One Vote resident survey! Your voices will be heard, your votes will count!
|
|
If you are not registered to vote, please make it a priority to do so. To complete a registration form or for more information regarding voting in Bergen County, please click onto the this link.
If you are not sure if you are registered to vote in Teaneck, you may search here.
To check the details of your voter record, you may sign up here.
|
|
ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE NOT THE SAME
More on Teaneck's Litigation Saga
|
|
On April 15, 2022, New Jersey Media in its publication The Record, reported on the lawsuit brought by the “Good Neighbors” (who live in the area affected by Holy Name’s expansion plans) against the Township of Teaneck and its Planning Board. Teaneck Voices reported on this suit last week in its April 25 issue.
One of the key Complaints in the suit concerns the fact that several Councilmembers and members of the Planning Board allegedly had conflicts of interest that should have disqualified them from discussion and voting on Ordinance 9-2022 dealing with Holy Name Hospital property.
Those named included Elie Katz, James Dunleavy, Karen Orgen, Councilmembers, because of their association with the Hospital. In the cases of Katz and Orgen, the conflicts are in relation to their associations with the Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps (TVAC), and the fact that Holy Name has agreed to pay the Corps $70,000/year support for 10 years. Dunleavy’s conflict is said to arise from the fact that he was once employed by the Hospital. None of the individuals has directly benefited personally from the association.
The others named were Mark Schwartz, Councilmember and Council liaison to the Planning Board and Kenneth Croonquist, Captain in the Teaneck Police Department, Realtor, and the Township Employee Representative to the Planning Board. The Conflicts cited in the legal Complaints for these two are different from those cited for the three other councilmembers.
Mark Schwartz is said to have a Conflict of Interest because he is Owner and Publisher of the Jewish Link a newspaper in which Holy Name advertises – and did so to directly criticize the neighbors and defend the hospital on the zoning expansion matters. Schwartz’s financial benefits from the Link are directly affected by the advertising dollars Holy Name spends with the newspaper.
Kenneth Croonquist is said to have a Conflict of Interest because in his capacity as a Realtor in Teaneck, he handled the sale of a property owned by Holy Name Hospital, and as the Realtor received a commission on that sale.
One of the critical questions in any discussion of Conflicts of Interest is WHO BENEFITS? Simply put, the reason there is a conflict of interest is the conflicted individual(s) -- In this case, Schwartz and Croonquist – gained personal benefit while voting to give a valuable zoning benefit to the Hospital. This kind of Conflict of Interest – a mutual exchange of benefits – is outright illegal for any government entity or employee.
While the councilmembers’ association through TVAC and former employment by the hospital may leave a bad taste in some mouths, it is not the same as “I’ll pat your back and you pat mine.” That kind of illegal conflict of interest lies squarely on the doorsteps of Schwartz and Croonquist.
|
|
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN WAITING
BUT THESE QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED
|
|
-
More than one year ago, last March 10th, Teaneck Council, the Teaneck Library and Fairleigh Dickinson organized a community lecture and lab series called Walk the Talk. What is the follow-up to this effort to put "equity into action"?
- Why has Planning Board Good & Welfare been moved to the end of the meeting – late at night and after all votes have been taken?
- Why does the Council use secret subcommittees (there are 16) to make decisions instead of holding Workshop sessions where the public can listen to discussion and decision-making?
- When will the Planning Board enact an Open Space & Recreation Plan so Teaneck can receive full Green Acres funding support?
- When will the Council hold a workshop or otherwise ask for input from residents with respect to proposed additional parkland located at 611 Roemer Avenue, 1603 Ardsley Court, and 75 Bedford Avenue?
- What is happening with the proposed Alfred Avenue development?
- The 255-unit building for which the developer will pay no taxes?
- The cannabis development to grow, process, distribute and sell marijuana?
- Has our council spoken to Englewood Council about our draining into their drainage system and selling cannabis adjacent to their park?
- What is happening with the Holy Name Medical Center and Good Neighbors agreement?
- Do Teaneck Council and Planning Board still maintain that the American Legion Drive properties constitute a blighted Area in Need of Redevelopment?
- Is the council planning to honor Former Senator Weinberg in any way? To recognize her as a daughter of Teaneck, for her years of service on the Council, General Assembly and State Senate? Is the Council considering anything - possibly renaming a park or street after her?
|
|
UPCOMING TOWN MEETINGS - THIS WEEK IN TEANECK
|
|
After last week's many major meetings, this next week’s line up is much shorter. Two of the four meetings are not available to the public. The Library Board and Board of Adjustment are publicly available and may well deserve attention
Teaneck Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse (TMAASA) - Monday 5/2/2022 at 6:00 pm
Parks. Playgrounds and Recreation Advisory Board (PPRAB) - Wednesday 5/4/2022 at 7:30 pm
Public access and opportunity for input limited by the
Advisory Board ordinance* (see below)
Teaneck Library Board –Thursday 5/5/2022 at 6:30 pm Please check to the Library website back for the link on Tuesday prior to the board meeting; link TBA.
This meeting will be held electronically via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to attend can participate. The public will be muted until the Good and Welfare portion of the meeting. During the remarks from the public, you will be given the opportunity to raise your hand and you will then be unmuted.
Board of Adjustment – Thursday 5/5/2022 at 7:00 pm to be held by zoom but no access or official agenda information was available as of 5/1
Teaneck Voices website (www.teaneckvoices.com) provides updated information about Town meetings as it becomes available during the week.
Although no official information is currently known for this meeting, the application to approve a 20-unit rental multi-family facility at 54 West Englewood had been moved to this 5/5 BofA meeting. The final expert witness – the applicant’s planner Joe Burgis – gave his testimony at the conclusion of the BofA meeting on 1/6/2022 Click Here for video; & Click Here for a transcript of Burgis’ testimony). A hearing date for Burgis to be questioned by the public and for the applicant to provide a wrap up has been pending for the past 4 months. The BofA first heard this applicant in early 2021.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Quote from Ordinance 15-2020 on Advisory Boards adopted by Council on August 11, 2020:
“Council’s advisory Board meetings are closed to the public. The public can submit items for discussion to the Council’s advisory board chair and council liaison for review and potential for inclusion on their meeting agenda. If the item is placed on the agenda, the chair, with approval of their Council’s advisory board, may invite the member of the public to come and speak to them about the specific issue they want to have discussed”.
|
|
TEANECK VOICES HAS A WEBSITE !
|
|
:Teaneck Voices enthusiastically announces that its website
is now available to aid its subscribers and readers in several ways that we believe may be useful to them.
1) Its post Teaneck Voices Newsletters – Current and Past is a list that allows users to identify prior Voices editions by date and by edition title and click to retrieve them from the website archive
2) Its Post Township Meetings under the category Township Calendar is where late every Monday we post what we know about the Town’s upcoming meetings for the week – and then we update that post throughout the week as more information and calendar changes are released
3) Its post Voice’s Notable Women provides users with the dates and names of
the prior (currently 28) women who have appeared in the Voice’s Notable Women series to-date. Each name will allow you to pull up the edition in which Voices has told that woman’s story
4) Other Categories and Posts have recently been added and Voices plans to continue to build its coverage and search capabilities so its subscribers and readers can better retrieve what we have covered.
In addition, our weekly editions are also added weekly to our
Teaneck Voices Facebook page
Enjoy!
|
|
Rapid COVID-19 Test Kits Available for Free from USPS
Free at-home COVID-19 tests ordered on www.covidtests.gov and delivered by USPS. Limit of 2 orders per household. Each order contains 4 individual tests
|
|
RODDA CENTER
In an effort to keep the senior center staff and participants safe, all are required to be fully vaccinated and provide proof of vaccination. Mask wearing and social distancing are required.
|
|
Masks are now optional inside the library. Those attending programs held in limited areas, such as the Auditorium, are still required to wear masks.
Contactless doorside pickup is still available.
masks will be optional inside the library. Those attending programs held i
|
|
SUPPORT TEANECK VOICES
CONTRIBUTIONS WELCOME
It is our mission to achieve integrity, transparency, responsiveness, diversity, and social justice in Teaneck governance.
Help us continue to publish by sending a contribution to
Teaneck Voices, P. O. Box 873, Teaneck, NJ 07666-0873
|
|
TEANECK PTA COUNCIL RAFFLE
|
|
BERGEN COUNTY LGBTQ+ ALLIANCE
|
|
TEANECK VOICES OFFERS ITS PRAYERS AND SUPPORT
TO THE BRAVE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE FIGHTING FOR THEIR FREEDOM
|
|
Editorial Board
Natalee Addison
Laraine Chaberski
Toniette H. Duncan
LaVerne Lightburn
Charles W. Powers
Bernard Rous
Micki Shilan
Barbara Ley Toffler
|
|
Supporters
Denise Belcher
Juanita Brown
Margot Embree Fisher
Gail Gordon
Guy Thomas Lauture
Gloria Wilson
|
|
Contributors
Bettina Hempel
Dennis Klein
Henry Pruitt
Howard Rose
Advisors
Theodora Smiley Lacey
Loretta Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|