CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - WE NEED A CLOSER LOOK!
PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES
| |
Contents View this issue in your browser
Conflicts of Interest - - We Need a Closer Look!
Will the Planning Board Reverse Course?
Continuing the Massive Giveaways to Non-Teaneck Developers
How Does Teaneck Choose Its Mayors?
Invitation to Apply for an Anticipated BOE Vacancy
This Week in Teaneck – Public Meetings
The Week that Was
Vacancy on the Board of Adjustment?
Contacting Teaneck Voices
| |
CONFLICTS OF INTERST - WE NEED A CLOSER LOOK!
Will the Planning Board Reverse Course?
| |
Definitions:
Conflict of Interest – A conflict of interest occurs when there is a clash between the private interests and the official or professional responsibilities of a person in a position of trust; when it occurs, an individual becomes unreliable because of a clash between personal (or self-serving) interests and professional duties or responsibilities. Such a conflict occurs when a company or person has a vested interest—such as money, status, knowledge, relationships, or reputation—which puts into question whether or not their actions, judgment, or decision-making can be unbiased.
Recuse – To recuse is to disqualify oneself or another because of a conflict of interest. Any individual who has a conflict of interest as defined above, MUST disqualify themselves because their actions, judgment or decisions may be unreliable and biased. An example: Councilmember Mary has just engaged a fencing contractor to enclose her backyard. Council is discussing hiring a contractor to add fencing to several parks. Mary must recuse herself from the discussion and any vote because she has a relationship with one fencing contractor. She cannot even listen to the relevant discussion.
Abstain – To abstain from participation or voting must not be confused with recusing oneself. To abstain means that an individual chooses not to participate in a discussion or a vote. It is a personal choice. An example: Joe felt he did not know enough about the issue to vote either yes or know. So he decided to abstain from voting.
In relatively small municipalities like Teaneck with approximately 39,000 residents, it is necessary for elected and appointed officials to be extremely aware of the potential for conflicts of interest. Local business owners, landlords, employers, employees, doctors, lawyers – just about anyone who earns money, borrows money, pays money, has family or even close friendship relationships may decide to run for election to the Council or the Board of Education or may apply to serve on a commission or advisory board. If they win election or are appointed, they must be acutely aware of any activity or relationship that may conflict with a decision they are asked to make in their official position.
The Teaneck Planning Board and Council have been debating, arguing, voting and then going back and doing it all over again about one specific ordinance. Here is the story:
Conflicts of Interest: Will Planning Board reverse its Outdoor Cafes rejection?
On August 25, the Planning Board held a meeting at which the six attending members carefully considered again whether the introduced Ordinance 20-2022 to approve Outdoor Cafes & Parklets was consistent with the Township Master Plan. Review of Ordinance 20-2022 was literally the only item on that meeting’s agenda. In contrast to every other PB meeting where the PB has evaluated consistency with the Master Plan no Planner was present and the ordinance was introduced/explained to the Board by Councilman Kaplan.
As the meeting proceeded, it became abundantly clear that the Board viewed the ordinance very negatively. A if not the primary reason was Board’s concern that the Ordinance as drafted would likely apply to only one block in the Township. That block of retail on W. Englewood is largely owned and/or operated by Deputy Mayor Elie Katz.
In the end, the Planning Board adopted by a vote of 4-1-1 (4 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention) a resolution explicitly stating that the introduced Ordinance is inconsistent with the Master Plan.
Every Voices reader deserves to watch/listen to the 6-minute video where the PB sharpens its focus on how the ordinance is too location-specific and not applicable town-wide and then follows Chair Bodner in deciding that the entire proposed ordinance it is not consistent with the Master Plan Click Here.
The Council, at its next meeting (9/20), apparently agreed to table – not vote – on Ordinance 20-2022, the Cafes ordinance! That, at least, is what the website’s “ordinances archive” reports (Click Here)– although the draft minutes reflect no vote whatsoever on any of the introduced ordinances that night. Here is what the website’s ordinance archive says happened to the ordinance to which the PB said no! So - Bye-Bye Ordinance 20-2022?
| |
.Not exactly!
Why is that bit of recent history relevant? As Voices explained last week, this Council at its most recent (11/22) meeting approved the introduction of a new ordinance (57-2022), different from the prior ((tabled) Ordinance 20-2022 in only one way: The name is changed so it now refers only to outdoor cafes – all reference to parklets has been scrubbed. Click Here or just check out this image
| |
AND – rather than recuse from voting on this NEW ordinance at the 11/22 Council meeting, DM Katz actually moved to undermine one of its major safety features (the width of the pedestrian walkway between the regular restaurant and the outdoor café); he wanted and got the space reduced from 4 to 3 feet. So much for old folks walking in twos, parents with strollers, etc. .Katz then participated in the vote yes to introduce the new ordinance. (He had had either the good sense or luck to have been absent when the predecessor ordinance was before the Council in August.) As the above discussion of Conflicts of Interest shows DM Elie Katz has a major conflict of interest and when it comes before Council on 12/13 he MUST RECUSE HIMSELF.
In the meantime, the agenda for Thursday’s (12/8) Planning Board meeting will include another PB round to review the “new” ordinance’s consistency with the Master Plan. Will the PB stand by its convictions – or will it be pulled as so many recent PB agenda items have been?
In any event, readers, do spend 6 minutes (again Click Here) with the earlier PB video – because the 57-2022 Outdoor Cafes Ordinance will surely, as scheduled, be on the Council’s 12/13 agenda for a public hearing and final vote to accept or reject.
In future issues Teaneck Voices will discuss further conflicts of interest that are occurring and that might occur in our township government. Like why does DM Elie Katz abstain on or just not vote on the township’s Bill List? What is his connection to the money that the township pays to it vendors and other accounts receivable? Hint: do the identities of the election contributors suggest an answer. We residents deserve to know!
| |
CONTINUING MASSIVE GIVEAWAYS
to Non-Teaneck Developers!
| |
Included in this just-adopted tax exemption giveaway Ordinance for 359 Alfred Avenue was the following statement about what the developer’s entity had submitted when it requested the PILOT exemption.
-
“WHEREAS, the Entity has made request to the Township for a long term tax exemption pursuant to the Long Term Tax Exemption Law and has presented a revenue projection for the Project which sets forth the anticipated revenue to be received by the entity from the operation of the Project as estimated by the Entity, and the Township having reviewed same and found it acceptable and of benefit to the Township;”
OK. That tells the public that the developer’s own financial projection exists AND that the Township [sic.] “reviewed same and found it acceptable and of benefit to the Town”. So where was that all-important revenue projection?
That document wasn’t included on any Township website. So a resident requested to see it under OPRA. Why? Because, as Teaneck Voices had earlier shown, this same developer’s prior revenue projection had so manipulated the numbers that it hid the fact that – using the same reference sources as did the developer’s accountant - Teaneck would over 30 years (the agreed tax exemption timeframe) be losing at least $15M. We found that using our property tax payers’ dollars, the Town would be spending to protect, service and educate the new facility’s residents $15M more than the developer would Pay the Town in Lieu of Taxes (its PILOT). (Click Here to see that earlier Voices analysis: Time to Check the Math on the AINR PILOT Deals) Or check out several G&W statements by various residents)
The obvious question was: would the new agreement better protect the Township other residents and its property tax payers than the last one?.
The answer? When that 9/22 projection document (Click Here) was eventually sent to residents under OPRA, lo and behold, the new developers’ accountant’s projection were almost identical to the prior one and were every bit as biased for the developer as the document done in February 2021 to back up the 329 Alfred Avenue AINR PILOT project . The document improperly used the reference numbers, wrongly used obsolete data, etc., etc.
Net Result: Yep, the developer’s projection were once again going to enrich the development entity and effectively rob Town residents for another 30 years. Voices will be doing a more complete analysis – because the Town is poised to keep on adding to this financial misery as it moves from AINR to AINR.
But wait. Maybe Voices is missing something. Didn’t; the wording of the ordinance state that the Township had reviewed the developer’s projection, “found it acceptable and of benefit to the Township”. Problem. That review and its findings is nowhere to be found in any released public document.
Time for another OPRA!! Since this is a settled matter, all that residents need do is ask for the public documents to which the ordinance refers: the review, the documents explaining why the Township found the developer’s projection is “acceptable and of benefit to the Township” The OPRA request was explicit!
The Clerk’s office responded quite quickly – with what many residents report is now routine OPRA practice in Teaneck: Delay and obfuscate!: Here is the Clerk’s email response:
| |
The new Council will have a lot of housecleaning – Voices just hopes it can get there before the current crowd has completely given away the entire store! | |
HOW DOES TEANECK CHOOSE ITS MAYORS? | |
Teaneck does not elect its mayor -- its 7-member elected Council elects the township’s mayor who serves a term of two years. More precisely, it only requires 4 of the 7 members to elect a mayor, 1 of whom can be the hopeful candidate her/himself.
This process is required by the Faulkner Act, NJSA:40:69A-81 et. seq., Council-Manager form of government by which Teaneck is governed.
Our newly elected council members will be installed at the Reorganization meeting on Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 7PM at the Rodda Center.
“The Council reorganizes every two years [formerly on July 1, now, with the election moved to November, on or soon after January 1st]. Council selects the Mayor and Deputy Mayor(s). At the reorganization meeting, Council appoints the Municipal Attorney, Municipal Prosecutor, and [by its choice of Mayor] the Class I and by vote the Class II member of the Planning Board. At that time the Code says Council adopts the meeting schedule for the rest of the year.” See: teanecknj.gov
Those are the basic facts. But a hotly debated issue every two years is “Who will be elected mayor?” It’s not as if the mayor is really something special under our form of government.
What does our mayor actually do? The mayor chairs the council meetings, plans the agenda with the manager, signs official documents, can perform marriages for payment, but has no appointment or veto power. In terms of authority, the mayor has the same authority and voting privileges as every other council member. The one critical role of the mayor is to sit as a Class I member of the Planning Board. (For the past several years, in defiance of the town code Mayors Hameeduddin and Dunleavy have not wished to sit on the Planning Board and assigned others to fill their role – in breach of the Code).
Yet anyone who follows Teaneck government know that the role and title Mayor is highly prized and eagerly sought by most councilmembers. There are legendary mayors in Teaneck:
· Milton Votee who created and dedicated what was originally Central Park in 1943 Teaneck, and for whom the park, Votee Park, was renamed in 1958.
· Mayor Matty Feldman, the first Jewish Mayor, who brought presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to Teaneck in 1960, and as a state senator instituted the “if one, then all school busing” law.
· Mayor Eleanor Kieliszek, the first Woman Mayor who served twice, 1974-78 and 1990-92 and for whom the park at Belle Avenue West is named.
· Mayor Bernard Brooks, the first Black Mayor, who served from 1982 until 1990, and for whom Tryon Park was renamed.
Until 1988 (and those noteworthy mayors were all before 1988), the full council of 7 members was elected every 4 years for four-year terms. Legend has it, and history more or less proves it, that the candidate who received the highest number of votes in the most immediate election was elected mayor by their peers for a four-year term. This determinant was widely approved and accepted by residents as it best reflected the people’s choice.
However, in 1988, Teaneck changed its municipal elections to every two years, with 4 members and 3 members elected in alternate elections. In all this it is well to remember that the ever since 1988, the every two year elections have different impacts on what is the Council majority. To illustrate, 2020 saw 3 members elected, this year, 2022 it was a 4 member year.
So what to do? Change mayors every two years? Our review suggests that there is no new tradition tied to superior vote getting – that explains who the successive Councils have selected as mayor - although in some cases, the top vote getter has been elected mayor.
Remember, the successful mayoral candidate needs only 3 other votes beside himself or herself to win. Whoever can form or hold the 4-member majority can elect the mayor and claim the future of the town – at least for 2 years. So, in fact, no new tradition about who Council elects as Mayor has emerged.
-
Mayor Jackie Kates had beginning in 2000, thrice been elected Mayor but in 2006 Elie Katz was both the highest vote getter and led a group of three others who were elected. He was elected Mayor for only two years before being replaced by Kevie Feit in 2008 who was never the top vote getter but was chosen by a new majority coalition. But Feit did not run again. So two years later, in 2010, Mohammed Hameeduddin who had come in last in 2008 was elected Mayor by still another coalition, despite Lizette Parker being the highest vote getter. But two years later (2012) he was the highest vote getter and Hameeduddin remained mayor for a second term until 2014 when Lizette Parker, again the highest vote getter, was finally elected mayor. After Parker’s untimely death in April 2016, then Deputy Mayor Katz was acting Mayor until Hameeduddin was again highest vote getter in 2016 and elected mayor and then re-elected in 2018 by a majority coalition thus by-passing 2018’s top vote getter Gervonn Rice.
-
In 2020, a new majority elected James Dunleavy who had run 3rd of the 4 elected Council members in 2018. Dunleavy has served the two-years to the present but did not run in the new November elections in 2022. The top vote getter in the 2022 election (with the highest voter participation Council election in this century) was Danielle Gee. Gee who with the other two top-vote getters is, on the other hand, not part of the 4-member coalition of Pagan, Schwartz, Orgen and [2022’s last-elected finisher] Katz, a coalition which, though evolved, has selected mayors for most of the time since 2006.
WHO WILL OUR NEW COUNCIL ELECT AS MAYOR? That question is undoubtedly being decided as we speak. The voters have been consulted but won’t be at the table.
However, this time the future course of Teaneck municipal governance may well not be clarified by looking at who becomes mayor on January 3, 2023. As diverse Teaneck’s sub-communities have become more and more divided in their views of what should be Teaneck’s future, the mayoralty to be selected two years from now – following the election of November 2024 - may become the better indicator of the future of the Teaneck of the mid-21st Century.
| |
INVITATION TO APPLY FOR ANTICIPATED BOE VACANCY | |
With the election of BOE Trustee Danielle Gee to the Teaneck Council, her appointment on January 3 to Council will create a vacancy on the Township’s Board of Education. To invite applicants to fill the anticipated vacancy see the public notice published by the BOE.
PUBLIC NOTICE TEANECK BOARD OF EDUCATION REQUEST FOR FILLING OF ANTICIPATED BOARD MEMBER VACANCY
The Board of Education in the City of Teaneck, New Jersey hereby advertises for request for filling of a Board Member Trustee vacancy in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-15(f) until the next Annual Organization Meeting, in January, 2024.
Letter of interest and Resumes must be sealed and delivered to: Teaneck Board of Education Interim Board Secretary 651 Teaneck Road Teaneck, New Jersey 07666 OR via email ba@teaneckschools.org By 3:00 p.m. Wednesday, December 21, 2022
Click this notice for description of legal requirements to become a BOE board member: Public Notice: Request for Filling Anticipated Board Member Vacancy
| |
THIS WEEK IN TEANECK - PUBLIC MEETINGS | |
This Week in Teaneck –12/5 to 11/2022
Breaking News? As of noon on 12/6, there is no OFFICIAL information available about the agenda of the Planning Board meeting to occur on Thursday. Will access be limited to in-person attendance somewhere in the Rodda Center? It is likely to be a very pivotal meeting!
Teaneck Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse - Monday 12/5/2022 at 6:00 pm
New Resident Event sponsored by the Advisory Board on Community Relations Wednesday 12/07/2022 at 6:00 pm. Rodda Center
- No other information available
Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation Advisory Board (PPRAB) Wednesday 12/07/2022 at 7:30
- Public access and opportunity for input limited by the Advisory Board ordinance (*See ordinance below)
Teaneck Board of Education Regular Public Meeting -Wednesday 12/07/2022 at 8:00 pm. -The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid fashion, both in person (Cheryl Miller-Porter Student Center inside Teaneck High) and virtually via ZOOM Click Here and for the agenda see Schools website
Library Board of Trustees – Thursday 12/08/2022 at 6:30 pm
Members of the public who wish to attend can participate. Please check back on the Library website for the link on Tuesday 12/6 prior to the board meeting; link which is now TBA.
Planning Board - Thursday 12/18/2022 at 8:00 pm –Rodda Center
No other information (agenda, or access information) is currently available about this meeting as of noon 12/6/2022. But see the Conflict of Interest article in this edition. This PB meeting is expected to address 2 AINR approvals and an introduced ordinance which the Planning Board has already rejected twice but Council persists in re-introducing.
…………………………….
*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”.
| |
The Week that Was – 11/27 to 12/4, 2022
Another very quiet week for Teaneck public meetings, certainly more so after the scheduled (11/28) Planning Board meeting was cancelled. The next review of Holy Name’s proposed site plan approvals is now not scheduled, even tentatively, until 1/26/2023.
One of the two meetings which did occur this week (the Board of Adjustment on 12/1) addressed just three applications each seeking the Board’s variance approvals for residential renovations. It took the Board less than an hour to review and approve all three.
Of much greater interest was the 11/29 meeting of the Teaneck Historic Preservation Commission (THPC) which, while perhaps overlong (2 hours and 28 minutes) was mostly focused on a single agenda item – the Commission’s appropriateness review of a request by the new owner of the historic home at 1286 River Road to remove much of the river facing stone wall of the original home with a large glass window.
In the end, the Commission asked the owner and his architects to come back with a renovation proposal that preserves more of the original.
Teaneck residents interested in seeing how a town Commission whose leadership designs meeting agendas with competence and whose well-chosen membership knows how to conduct a properly-noticed hearing with skill, care and expertise can actually carry out its statutorily assigned responsibilities – in this case, historic preservation. It will take our readers several hours – but Click Here – its worth it!
| |
VACANCY ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? | |
On Friday December 2, 2022, after prodding by alert Teaneck residents, the Township Clerk placed the following notice on the Township website. It is not specific as to which position on the Board of Adjustment is vacant. Nevertheless, interested residents are – as is seen below - encouraged to apply.
Watch this Voices space so as to keep aware of how the membership of this important land use board is addressed by the Council.
Vacancy on the Township Board of Adjustment
There is a vacancy on the Township Board of Adjustment:
Regular Member, filling an unexpired term, to expire June 2026 (Township Council Resolution #166-2022)
Learn more about the Board of Adjustment here!
If interested, please fill out an application here - https://www.teanecknj.gov/board-member-application
https://www.teanecknj.gov/board-of-adjustment
| |
Contacting Teaneck Voices
By Email: teaneckvoices@gmail.com
By Phone: 201-214-4937
By USPS Mail: Teaneck Voices, PO Box 873. at 1673 Palisade Ave. 07666
Teaneck Voices' Website is www.teaneckvoices.com
| | | | | |