SHARE:  
PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES
Managing Editor
Bernard Rous


Editorial Board
Natalee Addison
Laraine Chaberski
Toniette H. Duncan
Charles W. Powers
Barbara Ley Toffler


Supporters
Denise Belcher
Juanita Brown
Margot Embree Fisher
Gail Gordon
Guy Thomas Lauture
Laverne Lightburn
Micki Shilan
Gloria Wilson
Contributors
Bettina Hempel
Henry Pruitt
Howard Rose



Advisors
Theodora Smiley Lacey
Loretta Weinberg

Contents
Pending Court Case: One Town One Vote Goes to Court
  • Summary of arguments
  • Invitation
Notable Women of Teaneck
  • Reshma Khan
Unanswered Questions
Announcements
  • BOE Candidates Launch Campaign
Upcoming events
  • Take Action - How you can Help
Pending Court Case:
Petition to Let Voters Decide when They Want to Vote for Council
One Town One Vote petitioned the Town of Teaneck to place a question on the November ballot so that voters could decide whether to change the election of Council members from May to November. The Town Clerk, Doug Ruccione, rejected the petition. The Petitioners then took him to Court to challenge his rejection. They are the Plaintiffs in this case. Doug Ruccione is the primary Defendant since he rejected the petition.

The Plaintiffs also asked for, and were granted, a preliminary injunction to prevent the November ballots from being printed before this matter was decided.

Tomorrow morning, Monday, September 13, at 10am-12pm, Judge Robert C. Wilson is scheduled to hear the case of One Town One Vote’s Plaintiffs, the Committee of Petitioners, (Theodora Lacey, Loretta Weinberg, Jeremy Lentz, Teji Vega, and Reshma Khan) vs. the Defendants, (Doug Ruccione Teaneck Town Clerk and Tom Hogan Bergen County Clerk).

This is a public hearing and you are invited to attend by zoom:

Meeting ID: 831 3023 5402
Passcode: 752525
Attorneys, Scott Salmon and Renne Steinhagen, have filed a brief on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

The brief addresses arguments made by the defendants.

1. The Defendants criticize the Petitioners for seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
 
“What is preliminary injunctive relief?” you might ask and “Why were the Plaintiff’s seeking it?”

In this case, it is a court order to stay the printing of the November ballots until this matter can be resolved.

The Plaintiff’s argue that it is standard procedure in a case like this because it is the only remedy "given the time-sensitive need to be heard before ballots are printed and an election conducted.”

2. The defendants make highly technical arguments about which New Jersey statutes apply to amending the date of Teaneck’s municipal elections.

The law is a living thing. It evolves over time in light of changing circumstances and experience.

New Jersey has several statutes that address how to change municipal government. They were written at different times and they differ depending on the form of municipal government and the type of change sought, that is, whether it is a change in the form of government or just an amendment to an existing form of government. And the process by which a change is made also differs depending on whether the change is sought by the residents or by the governing body.

The One Town One Vote Plaintiffs have not sought to change Teaneck’s form of government, which is known as the Council-Manager form under the Faulkner Act. The Plaintiffs have sought only one specific amendment to our existing form - an amendment regarding the timing of municipal elections.

And, most importantly, the Plaintiffs did not petition for a change from nonpartisan to partisan elections.

The gist of Defendant Ruccione’s lengthy argument is that these statutes are in conflict with one another. He interprets one, the Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law, to override another. He claims that the Plaintiff’s brought their petition under the wrong statute and that the statute the Plaintiff’s cite may only be used to amend the date of the election when the election itself is being switched from nonpartisan to partisan, or vice versa.

The Plaintiff’s argue that the statutes are not in conflict at all, but must be understood in light of each other, as they have a common purpose to define the processes by which a form of government may be changed or amended.

The Plaintiffs say that Defendant Ruccione’s

“…argument is based on an incorrect reading of the statute that requires one to squint to see words that are not actually present.”  

Furthermore, they note that Defendant Ruccione shores up his argument by citing a bill introduced in 2000 that

“…was never brought up for a vote, never passed by the Legislature, and never signed into law”

Defendant Ruccione also argues that an amendment (A5404) to one of the statutes in question, which did indeed become law in 2019, changed the required number of petition signatures from 10% to 25%.

The Plaintiff’s argue that his interpretation of this amendment is incorrect, that A5404

“was intended to increase the signature requirement only to changes from nonpartisan to partisan elections and vice versa, and no other type of charter amendment [such as the timing of the elections].

And finally, the Plaintiffs point out that

“Defendant Ruccione concedes that the Committee has more than satisfied both requirements by obtaining in excess of the higher 25% standard…Therefore, it [the argument that 25% rather than 10% is required] is not critically relevant...”  

3. The defendants argue that the petition is invalid because it did not include an ordinance.

Defendant Ruccione argues that the form of the petition submitted to him was incorrect because it did not include an Ordinance for the signatories to see, but merely posed the question that the Petitioners wanted to place on the ballot.

The Plaintiffs respond that including an ordinance is unnecessary and makes no practical difference. They hold that Defendant Ruccione's convoluted arguments only muddy the waters. They note that Defendant Ruccione does not argue that the question posed by the Petitioners would be substantively different than what an ordinance might contain. Therefore, the Plaintiffs say  

“…any ordinance would just be an affirmative declaration of the same language that is now posed in question form on the Committee’s petition…which was read by the signatories to the petition before signing… Requiring petitioners to initiate an ordinance when changing the charter is therefore superfluous and, in effect, meaningless.”  

4. The defendants argue that the Petition must be rejected because it is confusing to voters.

After One Town One Vote rushed to gather additional signatures demanded by the Town Clerk, Defendant Ruccione then added a new reason for rejecting the petition in his Second Notice.

Not only did he claim that the necessary ordinance was missing, but that the question itself would confuse the voters because it conflates two different statues. 

The Plaintiffs first point out that Defendant Ruccione only introduced this new reason after the time period when the plaintiffs could have fixed it. As the town’s election official in this matter, the Clerk is obligated by law to state this objection in the Initial Notice to the Petitioners when there was still time to act on it. They say,

“It cannot be stressed enough that the rejection of a petition is not meant to be a guessing game. It is not the Committee’s obligation to divine what Defendant Ruccione’s “real” basis for rejection might be at some point in the future. If Ruccione believed there was a valid basis for rejecting the petition, it was his obligation to inform the Committee of that basis in his Initial Notice—if not during earlier communications with the Committee—so that the Committee may have had an opportunity to cure the deficiency, as permitted by law”  

The Plaintiffs also assert that by making this claim that voters would be “confused”, Defendant Ruccione has exceeded his assigned role, which is simply to certify whether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of qualified voters and a proper statement.

And they go on to note that Defendant Ruccione himself admits that the question posed by the Petitioners and its interpretative statement make it clear that elections would remain nonpartisan even if the referendum were passed.

The Plaintiffs thus assert that Defendant Ruccione himself is the one creating confusion.

What the Plaintiffs are trying to do, i.e., put the timing of the election on the ballot for voters to decide, is abundantly clear, and that is really all that matters here.

5. The defendants argue that the technical defects of the petition should result in its rejection by the court.

The Plaintiffs respond by asserting that even if an ordinance were required, legal precedents have firmly established that “perceived minor technical noncompliance” is not a sufficient reason to keep a public question off the ballot.

Since it is obvious that an ordinance would contain the same content as the question posed, they summarize by quoting precedent,

“Indeed, ‘a technical ballot error should not override the clear choice of the electorate to save taxpayer dollars and increase voter participation’ by holding municipal elections in November…Here, the voters have clearly spoken that they want this question to be placed on the ballot, so they have a choice to accept or reject it...Ultimately, the question may pass or fail, but it deserves to do so at the hand of the voters, not an unelected clerk.”  
 
Notable Women of Teaneck
Reshma Kan  
“We need to collect 2,000 signatures in 10 days! That’s impossible!” We heard the anguished cry of the members of One Town One Vote. For Reshma Khan, a dynamic, energetic, and incredibly organized woman of Teaneck, it wasn’t impossible. It was a challenge; it was a challenge that had to do with people. And as Reshma says, “I love people!”

She also clearly loves a challenge. In 10 days, a grassroots team, led by Reshma, knocked on doors, “talking to people, talking to people,” and with added new team members along the way, collected 2,100 signatures!

The Khan family has lived in Teaneck for 15 years. Reshma talks about how she loves Teaneck, and how, because they are so far from home, friends have become family. She says that Teaneck also offers her a way to live out her intense internal desire to bring about change for the better and to be part of a close community.

As she says, “Community work is in my blood.”

Reshma, wife of Arif and mother of three, began her community service at an early age. She was born in the south of India in the city of Chennai, formerly Madras, to hardworking parents. Although her family was upper middle class – having sufficient food, shelter, clothing, and education – they lacked many amenities, like running water in her home. Water was carried from a central pump in pots that were carried on the hip.

But the relative comfort in which her family lived led her, from the age of 5, to help communities on the outskirts of Chennai, where people lived in shacks with no electricity and no water, by providing basic amenities.

“Seeing poverty around me, I wanted to make a difference. I wanted these people to feel the love.”

As Reshma grew older, she felt compelled to find sustainable incomes for the women in these impoverished communities. For one project, she got a grant from a large corporation to buy sewing machines. Local merchants donated fabric, and they were off and running - establishing microbusinesses and training their neighbors.

By the time she was a teenager, Reshma recognized her passions: Grassroots leadership, community activism, diversity and women empowerment.

As she says, “Women are smart physically, mentally, emotionally. From a young age we deal with a lot.” Further, she says, “If you want to get something done, give it to a busy woman.”

Her challenge was how to prepare to act on her passions.

Reshma received her Bachelor of Commerce degree at the University of Madras in India, where she was valedictorian of her class. She followed that with an MBA from T.A.Pai Management institute in India, and then made a momentous decision. Reshma decided to move to the United States on a work visa. Arif, too, decided to make that move.

They lived for over 5 years in Chicago, where Reshma attended Northwestern’s Kellogg Business School and the Medill School of Journalism, receiving an M.S. in Integrated Marketing Communications -- and the Outstanding Student Award.

Prepared with the education for success, the Khans headed for New York (If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere!). Driving on Route 80 shortly after they arrived, they passed the Darul Islah mosque in Teaneck which beckoned them with the promise of a comfortable new place to settle.

Meeting Teaneck residents of so many ethnicities, nations and religions who were as passionate as she was about building community, Reshma and Arif chose Teaneck to make a home and raise a family.

She and her husband founded and run two organizations here in the U.S.:
 
They set up Muslim American Changemakers to empower youth from 7th grade up to lead through community engagement and civic action.
 
Somehow they also found the time to establish Nasheed Nightingales. This is for kids ages 3-14 who perform ‘Nasheed’ - Islamic songs expressing good values - at interfaith events. 

Working full time in the city (American Express, Amazon), as was her husband, raising children, and doing all the things that take so much of a young family’s time, Reshma slowly began to engage in Teaneck Community activities. When she heard about One Town One Vote, she knew it was an extraordinary chance – a chance to bring the whole town together and to engage in an exceptional marketing opportunity for truly the greater good.

“I couldn’t believe that a lot of people did not know there was an election in May!” she said. So many said that even if they knew, they likely would not have the time to vote – bosses didn’t give time off to vote in May, they only did in the November election season. She said she felt that One Town One Vote was an effort everyone in Teaneck could get behind. “Our leadership should be excited about it!”

For Reshma, one of the most powerful reasons to move the election is to save $50,000.00 every two years. “I hear some say, ‘$50,000 is nothing in a $70 million budget.’ Obviously, there is a difference between the savings to a town and saving money for individuals like me.

Nonetheless, my thought is that it takes a lot of hard work to make $50,000. Even more to save that much. Most people, like me, can relate to that. As a town, we can put that money into our parks, our library, our schools.

The One Town One Vote challenge has brought together my passions. My goal is to unite Teaneck to be a model town for democracy in New Jersey. I love working on it; I enjoyed door knocking so much; and I got to see so many of my friends. I’m looking forward to bringing my passion and energy to more opportunities to make our great town of Teaneck, even better!”

Reshma Khan, with her energy, enthusiasm and talent personifies both the spirit of Teaneck, and the essence of women’s leadership.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
What ever became of the report of the Council's Subcommittee on Cannabis?
The Council passed its important Cannabis Ordinance to have a commercial cannabis factory on Alfred Avenue. Residents asked how and why the decision was made. The Subcommittee said many members of the public were consulted at numerous meetings and promised to make its report public.
Where is the promised Cannabis Subcommittee Report?
Where is Teaneck's new Master Plan to guide development in our town?
More than a year ago, the Planning Board said it would develop a new Master Plan which was already three years overdue.
Where is the Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP)?
The OSRP is mandated to be part of a complete municipal Master Plan.
A complete draft was produced two years ago. Why has the Planning Board not completed its review?
Without this plan, Teaneck cannot get substantial state funding for its recreation and open spaces.
Where is Teaneck's Master Plan to guide development in our town?
And where is the Open Space and Recreation Plan?
Why are these important documents so delayed?

We urge our subscribers to identify questions you have raised but which were ignored or dismissed. Send your questions to Teaneck Voices <teaneckvoices@gmail.com> 
Announcements
Editor's Note: Teaneck Voices has not as yet endorsed any candidates.
UPCOMING MUNICIPAL MEETINGS
Social Services Advisory Board (SSAB)
Monday September 13, 2021 at 1:00pm
by Zoom but public access by approval of the Chair only. Contact Town clerk

Teaneck Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse (TMAASA)
Monday September 13, 2021 at 5:30pm
by Zoom but public access by approval of the Chair only. Contact Town clerk

Advisory Board on Community Relations (ABCR)
Monday September 13, 2021 at 7:00pm
by Zoom but public access by approval of the Chair only. Contact Town clerk

Teaneck Council
Tuesday September 14, 2021. Public Session at 8:00pm
Click Zoom link with passcode 424284
For the full agenda packet Click Here

TAKE ACTION
HOW YOU CAN HELP
There are some Council Agenda items you may wish to address during public input periods on Tuesday:

  • Ordinance 33-2021 will give the Manager the power not only to appoint all Environmental Commission members, but also to appoint the Commission’s chair. Currently the members choose their own chair of this statutory board. Click Here to see the new Ordinance. Ask Council "Why the Committee should not choose their own Chair?"

  • During the Communications agenda item, the Council will finally acknowledge having received a letter from the Teaneck Democratic Municipal Committee. This letter severely criticizes both the process and result of the cannabis Ordinance Council passed, approving an unlimited-use commercial factory on Alfred Avenue without any social equity provisions. Comment on the letter about the cannabis during Good and Welfare.

  • Proposed Resolution 248 asks Council to approve the Attorney’s agreement with the new Alfred Ave developer to remove the single-family-residence-only deed restrictions from the property. But Council already approved a 255-unit apartment building to be erected on that property. Ask the Council "Why the restrictions should be removed when the residential neighbors of the property universally oppose that apartment building?"

  • Ordinance 38-2021 introduces a change that requires use of the Votee Field House kitchens and meeting rooms be restricted to organizations with permitted use of Votee Fields/Sportsplex. The ordinance claims the change is being instigated by Green Acres. Ask the Council to "Please clarify this change since the only known permitted use of the Field House to-date is access to the restrooms." 
THIS WEEK AT THE LIBRARY
Note: The Library Auditorium which has been closed since the onset of the pandemic was badly flooded during IDA and will likely require significant renovation.

All American Dinosaur
Sunday September 12, 2021 at 2:00pm
Children’s Reading Garden

Read to a Dog
Monday September 13, 2021 at 3:30pm
Children’s Reading Garden.
Register for specific time and specific dog at Click Here

Eco Book Club
Tuesday September 13, 2021 at 6:30pm
Children’s Reading Garden
To Register Click Here

Baby & Toddler Time
Tuesday September 14, 2021 at 10:30am
Children’s Reading Garden (weather permitting)

Story Walk Story Time
Tuesday September 14, 2021 at 4:00pm
Sagamore Park Playground
Click Here to register

Teen Tuesdays on Zoom
Tuesday September 14, 2021 at 4:00pm
Click Here to register and for zoom address

Wild Things Storytime
Wednesday September 15 at 4:00pm
Children’s Reading Garden
Click Here for weather updates

Live Guided Meditation
Wednesday September 15 at 6:30pm
Click Here for Zoom Link

Baby & Toddler Time
Thursday September 16, 2021 at 10:30am
Children’s Reading Garden (weather permitting)

Saturday Storytime
Saturday September 18, 2021 at 11:00am
Children’s Reading Garden (weather permitting)