Where can I see the introduced Advisory Board Ordinance scheduled for adoption on August 11?  click here
Where can I see the agenda & Zoom info for tonight’s Council meeting where the hearing and vote to adopt the Ordinance is found click here

Example Letters already sent to Council opposing introduced Ordinance 15-2020:  Senator Weinberg, the Teaneck Democratic Municipal Chair & others

From: LORETTA WEINBERG <lorettaweinberg@aol.com>
To: Dean Kazinci <dkazinci@teanecknj.gov>
Sent: 8/5/2020 11:51 PM

I understand that the council will be considering a new ordinance to govern their advisory boards which have been such an Integral part of TEANECK‘s governing bodies and indeed of our community at large.

As a resident of Teaneck, a former councilmember myself, and a former chair of the community relations advisory board, I hope you will take the following comments under consideration.

1.  Why are you limiting by local ordinance that no advisory board may be larger than nine members? Some advisory boards (like the community relations board) benefit from a larger membership which can best represent Teaneck’s large and very diverse residents.

2.  Why are you closing advisory board meetings to public observance or participation? I know that under our state law, there is no requirement to have open meetings of the advisory boards. But this has been a long-cherished tradition in Teaneck. In fact, the community relations advisory board used to occasionally hear from any citizen who chose to speak either publicly or in private about any issues of concern. Having a cumbersome process before such a citizen could come forth is counterproductive.

What is the necessity to require a local ordinance that these advisory boards must remain closed? Have there been any issues of concern to require such a draconian move?

3.  The Environmental Commission for some reason is lumped under the shade tree advisory board. I’m sure the council and your attorney know that the environmental commission is a quasi-independent agency that is currently covered under both Opra and OPMA And, therefore, should be listed separately so there is no confusion on the part of the public or our elected officials.

As a long- time proponent of open government – even though our state law is far from perfect – I hope you will take my above comments as those coming from any TEANECK citizen.  I think a good portion of your ordinance, such as establishing clearly defined staggered terms and the mission of each advisory board are excellent and well overdue. But please do not go against the respected tradition that has made these advisory boards so helpful in the past.

Today we need more openness  – not less!

Sincerely
Loretta Weinberg
Teaneck resident

click twice:  TEANECK DEMOCRATIC MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

‎Laraine Jeffers Chaberski‎ to Blue Teaneck

5h ·

Do you want to present an issue for discussion to one of the town’s advisory boards? The newly reorganized Town Council is presenting an ordinance at the August 11th meeting to close advisory board meetings to the public and to limit the number of members to nine.

Some current members have been asked to leave and were replaced. Requests for help or new ideas would be screened by a council member and if approved sent to the advisory board.

Our ability to communicate with the Town Council is already limited. You can speak during the Good and Welfare part of a meeting or you can email a comment or request but no one is required to answer you.

If this latest ordinance passes advisory board meetings will be held in secret. No notice will be given and you won’t know what resulted.

What happened to Moving Teaneck Forward’s promise to be transparent in governing our town?

Why are we paying taxes to a town in which the governing body refuses to allow us to participate?

(Teaneck Democratic Municipal Committee – had already sent a letter opposing initial version of this ordinance (then Ord 12-2020); the TDMC views the new version as worse – its letter is in preparation and the TDMC Chair has sent the letter which follows to the full TDMC membership)

 

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Alexandra Soriano-Taveras <alexsoriano571@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 8:33 AM
Subject: Urgent: LETTER ON ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE SENT TO TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
To: Teaneck Municipal Committee <teaneckdmc@gmail.com>

I am urging you to write to the town council members as individuals. Spread the word.

It will be wonderful if the Council were flooded with letters – and then folks show up for Tuesday night!
Can you imagine the message if there were resident letters from all 23 districts?

Kindly scroll down to view the below message that was sent to the Council regarding the upcoming Advisory Board Ordinance is scheduled to be voted upon at the August 11th meeting.  If after reading you are not in support of the Council adopting this ordinance, let your voice be heard by sending an email to the Council prior to the meeting date.

Council email address:

dkazinci@teanecknj.gov  (Township Manager), jdunleavy@teanecknj.gov (Mayor), Deputy Mayors: mschwartz@teanecknj.gov and katz@teanecknj.gov, Council members: korgen@teanecknj.gov, mpagan@teanecknj.gov, grice@teanecknj.gov, and kkaplan@teanecknj.gov

As FYI, to attend the Council meeting via zoom or to view on public access:
You can logon to the Teaneck Township website to view the agenda.

—– Forwarded Message —–

Subject: LETTER ON ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE

Dear Mayor Dunleavy, Councilmembers Kaplan, Katz, Orgen, Pagan, Rice, Schwartz, and Manager Kazinci:

I understand that the council will be considering a new ordinance to govern their advisory boards which have been such an integral piece of Teaneck’s municipal government and an important tradition of our community at large.

As a resident of Teaneck and former councilmember, I hope you will think seriously about the following comments as you consider your vote.

Comment I.

Five of the twelve advisory boards listed in the ordinance are NOT advisory. The description of purposes for each establishes that these boards are administrative, i.e. they are task driven, and depend on managerial resources and support to accomplish the stated tasks. The five boards are

1. A Pride Awareness Advisory Board, “to raise public awareness of… aspects that make up the mosaic of the Teaneck Community. To foster a respect an honor for all persons and celebrate and build a culture….”
2. A Teaneck Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse, for “the prevention of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse and the development and support of prevention programs.”
3. A Patriotic Observance Advisory Board, to “plan …and implement patriotic observances within …Teaneck.”
4. A Youth Advisory Board to “empower, express ideas, bridge the gap …”
5. A Stigma Free Advisory Board to” raise public awareness of the stigmas … with the goal of eliminating such stigmas and encouraging individuals…to seek treatment and to urge individuals who are subjected to discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying to report same to appropriate authorities.”

Please note the words I have bolded. They are ACTION words and describe the mission of these 5 boards in terms of the actions they must take. These are boards of which the township can and should be extremely proud.    BUT they are not Advisory to the Council. These are Township Manager’s Administrative Boards, are they not? And, shouldn’t the Manager be involved in the selection of members, and be responsible for choosing the Chair of each, with whom he/she (Manager) will work to accomplish the tasks?

To fulfill their purposes, these Administrative Boards must be open to the public, to attend, to address, to seek individual meeting to provide information, to share materials, and to keep board membership informed and knowledgeable about happenings around town so they may fulfill their responsibilities. These Boards must be extremely transparent and exist under OPRA and OPMA statutes.

Comment II.

With the exception of the Shade Tree Advisory Board which requires appointing residents who have expert arboreal knowledge to advise the Council on the appropriate trees in terms of growth rate, ultimate size, root spread, etc. (and who should be collaborating with the tree experts in DPW), do not all other advisory boards depend on active communication with the residents, community leaders, and local organizations to fulfill their purposes?

• How can Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation members be aware of and knowledgeable about the needs of sports teams and all users of town recreational facilities? How can they know about local area debates over open space vs. recreational use of land? How can residents request new activities/facilities or changes to present ones if they cannot attend meetings or have access to meeting minutes?
• How can the advisory board on Community Relations advise on “strengthening the bonds and improving relations between and among diverse citizenship of …Teaneck and to foster better communication and interaction across racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, economic, gender, age, and geographical lines” when it has no contact with any residents of any racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, economic, gender, age and geographical communities? How will the board members know what the concerns are? the points of conflict? the incidents of bullying, discrimination, confrontation, etc. unless they are in frequent contact with the residents, have residents present at their meetings, provide open lines of communication within sub-communities and between the residents and the town government?
• How can the Senior Citizens Advisory Board know and communicate the concerns of the senior citizens in town without active communication among the residents and without senior residents attendance at meetings?

I think you understand my concerns, so I won’t proceed through every advisory board. In sum, how can community advisory boards advise Council when they have no way of accessing information about what is happening in their areas of responsibility? Are you asking advisory boards to simply rubber stamp what the Council wants to do? It is essential that these advisory boards be subject to OPRA and OPMA statutes.

Comment III.

Which brings me to my third and final comment. Resident Advisory Boards serving as the communication mechanism between township residents and their elected officials and as support and guidance to township residents are a long-established TRADITION in Teaneck. They are part of the history of Teaneck at least from Model Town, through voluntary desegregation of public schools to a beautifully diverse population which sadly has been and is being marginalized by an increasingly authoritarian and secretive municipal government. This Advisory Board ordinance seeks to demolish an essential tradition of Teaneck. PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE:

As Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof,

“Tradition! Without our tradition our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on the roof.”

Barbara Ley Toffler

Teaneck resident

——————————————————

An open letter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        August 7, 2020

Dear Teaneck Town Council Members,

How scary that Trump-like policies have crept into the Teaneck Town Council! Ending public observation of and participation in Advisory Board meetings is just plain undemocratic. It is that sunshine from public participation that enables Council members to be better informed when you make decisions. I plead with you to vote against limiting public observation and participation in Advisory Board meetings.  Help save our democracy!

Again, I want to remind you that your act of electing 3 white males to the leadership of the Town Council was wrong. It’s yet another way the Council majority voted to lock out the diversity of Teaneck from the leadership. Again, I ask the Mayor and 2 Deputy Mayors to consider stepping down from that position and nominating Councilwoman Gervonn Romney-Rice.

Some of you marched and even said that Black Lives Matter. Show that in your policies and your votes.

Sincerely,

Paula Rogovin, Teaneck Resident

————————————————————–

To: Teaneck Town Manager Kacinci

From: Bernard Rous

Re: Ordinance 6099

I have read the Ordinance 6099 and the accompanying Memorandum from Township Attorney Shahdanian II, Esq.

I have also read chapters 1 and 2 of the Teaneck Administrative Code that is posted on the Teaneck site, and paid special attention to Article XXX of Chapter 2 since Ordinance 6099 proposes to replace it in its entirety.

As a long-time resident of Teaneck I am persuaded that Ordinance 6099 as it is written should not be adopted. My reasons are given below in a series of comments and questions that I would like you to share with the Council prior to their vote on this Ordinance.

1. Ordinance 6099 proposes to amend rule IX of Appendix I, Council Rules of Procedure. Although there is a reference to Appendix I on the Teaneck site, it does not appear there in order to compare it with proposed amendments. Neither the Memorandum nor the Ordinance really make clear what the old provisions for Advisory Board appointments, procedures, and meetings were, and why they are being changed. What is wrong with the old rules and why they are being amended? Specifically, what proposed changes to the Rules of Procedure will fix the problems you identify?

2. The Memorandum says “Based on a review of all the Council’s advisory boards, it has been determined that the following boards shall continue…” But Section 4 of the proposed Ordinance 6099 states, “Upon the effective date of this ordinance, all Council’s advisory boards heretofore created are hereby abolished.” And then adds that all the existing Advisory Board members’ terms expire as well. This Ordinance clearly wipes the slate clean with respect to existing Advisory Boards and all the advisors sitting on them. Why is there this discrepancy between the Memorandum and the Ordinance? What is wrong with all the current advisors that they must be terminated?

3. Of the listing of 12 “continuing boards” in the Memorandum and Ordinance, only seven are listed in Article XXX of the Code. Why is that?

4. There are four advisory boards in the current Article XXX that do appear to be abolished. They are on Sustainability, Affirmative Action, and Affordable Housing, and Cable TV. There is no stated reason why they are abolished. Have they all finished their work?

5. The Memorandum states that this ordinance is necessary because “Council’s advisory boards have expanded their roles beyond their respective legal authority” but neither it nor the Ordinance give any examples of current advisory boards exceeding their respective legal authority. Which Advisory Boards have exceeded their authority? And how have they exceeded it?

6. The Memorandum states that “meetings of the Council’s advisory boards are closed to the public” because they are not “public bodies” and therefore not governed by the New Jersey Public Open Meetings Act. But surely this simply means that that law does not mandate open meetings for advisory boards, not that it prohibits them. The Ordinance mandates that Advisory Boards can only hold a public meeting if they receive prior approval from the Council. So is it then rather the intent of Councilto prohibit advisory boards from having public meetings at their discretion? If so, why?

7. The Ordinance not only mandates that Advisory Board meetings are closed to the public, but it also details a number of rules and procedures that erect significant hurdles that would inhibit any public participation at all. What is the purpose of this proposed change?

The Ordinance also mandates that Council’s personnel subcommittee will vet all members of all Advisory Boards and the full Council will nominate and appoint them. It would be helpful to know if this procedure differs from the previous procedure. Specifically, is the Council trying to tighten control over its Advisory Boards? Have the previous procedures resulted in Council’s having to deal with unwanted advice?

8. The memorandum states that these Council advisory boards are by law “purely advisory”. This is repeated in the Ordinance. However, of the 12 advisory boards to be newly created under the proposed Ordinance 6099, explicit administrative roles are specified for the following five of them as their primary purpose (and not advice to Council):
9. Pride Awareness Advisory Board – the purposes are “to raise public awareness…to foster a respect and honor for all persons…and celebrate and build a culture of inclusiveness and acceptance” There is nothing about providing advice to Council.
10. Teaneck Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse – the purpose is “the prevention of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse and the development and support of prevention programs.” There is nothing “purely advisory” about this.
11. Youth Advisory Board – the purpose is “to empower, express ideas, and to bridge the gap between Teaneck Township officials and Teaneck’s youth”. Here, too, the role is administrative and programmatic rather than advisory.
12. Patriotic Observance Advisory Board – the purpose is “to plan…and implement patriotic observances”. There is no statement about advice given to Council.
13. Stigma Free Advisory Board – the purposes are “to raise public awareness…with the goal of eliminating such stigmas…”

How can these five “advisory boards” even hope to carry out their assigned tasks without having public meetings and communicating directly with various town officials?

Why are these five “advisory boards” even created under this Ordinance at all? As stated in the Ordinance, their primary purposes are not advisory at all but administrative and programmatic.  If by law these are “purely advisory”, should these not be constituted as “boards” or “commissions” and as such would they not come under the direction of the Town Manager rather than Council? Does it contravene the law to make them Advisory Boards?

9. The primary purpose of the Municipal Open Space Trust Advisory Board (MOST) is indeed to advise Council on the expenditure of this Trust’s funds. But the Ordinance also says “Council may authorize…funds without first referring such expenditures to the MOST Advisory Board.” Why create a new Advisory Board if you specifically plan to act without its advice? Is the Ordinance here changing a previous procedural requirement to consult with this advisory board before expending MOST funds? If so, why?

10. The Ordinance states “Any recommended actions or positions of…Advisory Board are subject to and must be approved by the Township Council”. What does this statement mean? If it means that only Council can enact legislation, then that has already been stated elsewhere and this provision is entirely redundant and unnecessary. As the statement stands, it suggests that Advisory Boards cannot take a position or make a recommendation that Council does not approve. Is this the intent? Please clarify.

11. The Ordinance mandates that advice/recommendations from Advisory Boards are brought to Council by the liaison, who is a member of Council. Since the Chair is also appointed by Council, it is unclear why the liaison rather than the Chair would be the one to report. What were the previous reporting methods and is this now different? If so, why?

12. The Ordinance states that the advisory boards are formed to advise the Council and not to advise the public. But this statement is contradicted by the five Advisory Boards listed above whose explicit purpose requires direct communication with officials and with the public. This same provision in the Ordinance prohibits an advisory board from soliciting outside expertise without explicit approval by Council. What is the reason for this provision? Does it not undermine the ability of the advisory boards to provide good advice to the Council?

In sum, I think some of the newly created “Advisory Boards” proposed in this Ordinance sound very good. However, even for those which are indeed truly advisory rather than administrative, as entities whose responsibility is to make recommendations to the legislative body, there is no conceivable way that they can do this without taking positions on policy; and if those positions are not formed independent of Council, then there is no need for their advice. So the very tight controls and constraints on advisory boards proposed by this Ordinance appear ill advised at the least. If the Council is aware that significant segments of Teaneck are disaffected, then this Ordinance appears more Machiavellian – it proposes a number of progressive Advisory Boards to deal with problems in Teaneck but then, by choking off the possibility that the public can participate in any meaningful way, it would seem to preclude that the advice provided could lead to any significant change that reflects Teaneck’s diversity.

Sincerely,

Bernard Rous

Teaneck Resident

————————————————–

Hello All,

Kindly scroll down to view the below message that was sent to the Council regarding the upcoming Advisory Board Ordinance is scheduled to be voted upon at the August 11th meeting.  If after reading you are not in support of the Council adopting this ordinance, let your voice be heard by sending an email to the Council prior to the meeting date.

Council email address:

dkazinci@teanecknj.gov  (Township Manager), jdunleavy@teanecknj.gov (Mayor), Deputy Mayors: mschwartz@teanecknj.gov

and katz@teanecknj.gov, Council members: korgen@teanecknj.gov, mpagan@teanecknj.gov, grice@teanecknj.gov, and kkaplan@teanecknj.gov

As FYI, to attend the Council meeting via zoom  or to view on public access:

You can logon to the Teaneck Township website to view the agenda.

Sincere regards,

Toniette

—– Forwarded Message —–

Subject: LETTER ON ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE

Dear Mayor Dunleavy, Councilmembers Kaplan, Katz, Orgen, Pagan, Rice, Schwartz, and Manager Kazinci:

I understand that the council will be considering a new ordinance to govern their advisory boards which have been such an integral piece of Teaneck’s municipal government and an important tradition of our community at large.

As a resident of Teaneck and former councilmember, I hope you will think seriously about the following comments as you consider your vote.

Comment I.

Five of the twelve advisory boards listed in the ordinance are NOT advisory. The description of purposes for each establishes that these boards are administrative, i.e. they are task driven, and depend on managerial resources and support to accomplish the stated tasks. The five boards are

1. A Pride Awareness Advisory Board, “to raise public awareness of… aspects that make up the mosaic of the Teaneck Community. To foster a respect an honor for all persons and celebrate and build a culture….”
2. A Teaneck Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse, for “the prevention of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse and the development and support of prevention programs.”
3. A Patriotic Observance Advisory Board, to “plan …and implement patriotic observances within …Teaneck.”
4. A Youth Advisory Board to “empower, express ideas, bridge the gap …”
5. A Stigma Free Advisory Board to” raise public awareness of the stigmas … with the goal of eliminating such stigmas and encouraging individuals…to seek treatment and to urge individuals who are subjected to discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying to report same to appropriate authorities.”

Please note the words I have bolded. They are ACTION words and describe the mission of these 5 boards in terms of the actions they must take. These are boards of which the township can and should be extremely proud.    BUT they are not Advisory to the Council. These are Township Manager’s Administrative Boards, are they not? And, shouldn’t the Manager be involved in the selection of members, and be responsible for choosing the Chair of each, with whom he/she (Manager) will work to accomplish the tasks?

To fulfill their purposes, these Administrative Boards must be open to the public, to attend, to address, to seek individual meeting to provide information, to share materials, and to keep board membership informed and knowledgeable about happenings around town so they may fulfill their responsibilities. These Boards must be extremely transparent and exist under OPRA and OPMA statutes.

Comment II.

With the exception of the Shade Tree Advisory Board which requires appointing residents who have expert arboreal knowledge to advise the Council on the appropriate trees in terms of growth rate, ultimate size, root spread, etc. (and who should be collaborating with the tree experts in DPW), do not all other advisory boards depend on active communication with the residents, community leaders, and local organizations to fulfill their purposes?

• How can Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation members be aware of and knowledgeable about the needs of sports teams and all users of town recreational facilities? How can they know about local area debates over open space vs. recreational use of land? How can residents request new activities/facilities or changes to present ones if they cannot attend meetings or have access to meeting minutes?
• How can the advisory board on Community Relations advise on “strengthening the bonds and improving relations between and among diverse citizenship of …Teaneck and to foster better communication and interaction across racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, economic, gender, age, and geographical lines” when it has no contact with any residents of any racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, economic, gender, age and geographical communities? How will the board members know what the concerns are? the points of conflict? the incidents of bullying, discrimination, confrontation, etc. unless they are in frequent contact with the residents, have residents present at their meetings, provide open lines of communication within sub-communities and between the residents and the town government?
• How can the Senior Citizens Advisory Board know and communicate the concerns of the senior citizens in town without active communication among the residents and without senior residents attendance at meetings?

I think you understand my concerns, so I won’t proceed through every advisory board. In sum, how can community advisory boards advise Council when they have no way of accessing information about what is happening in their areas of responsibility? Are you asking advisory boards to simply rubber stamp what the Council wants to do? It is essential that these advisory boards be subject to OPRA and OPMA statutes.

Comment III.

Which brings me to my third and final comment. Resident Advisory Boards serving as the communication mechanism between township residents and their elected officials and as support and guidance to township residents are a long-established TRADITION in Teaneck. They are part of the history of Teaneck at least from Model Town, through voluntary desegregation of public schools to a beautifully diverse population which sadly has been and is being marginalized by an increasingly authoritarian and secretive municipal government. This Advisory Board ordinance seeks to demolish an essential tradition of Teaneck. PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE:

As Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof,

“Tradition! Without our tradition our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on the roof.”

Barbara Ley Toffler

Teaneck resident

——————————————————————-