Charting the Goings-On in Teaneck
Author: Keith Kaplan
//For the first time, residents of NJ were able to vote in-person, before election day in various spots throughout the county.
Continue reading “Early Voting: A brief overview of the early data”
//Here’s what I know as of 7am on 11/3:
The ability of the County to add 3 numbers and provide a “Total” does not appear to be a thing.
The County has results of various sorts listed here:
As per the “Unofficial General Election Results link, the winners are currently Klein, Rodriguez and Greene.
But….
The link appears to only show two of the sets of numbers above. There are three:
Adding the election day totals and early voting totals appears to give the results that the County is currently posting on their site and that I posted last night.
When adding the Vote by Mail at the link above, the results change:
Why didn’t the County add the VBM to the results?
Were these all of the VBMs?
Are there more VBMs coming in?
These are open questions and I do not yet have the answers. But these are the links and numbers available thus far.
//In 2019, the Teaneck Board of Education hired Whitehall Associates, Inc. (a qualified demographer by the New Jersey Department of Education) to conduct an independent analysis of the effects of new development on the Teaneck Schools. The analysis
(available here) projected enrollments based on particular projects and to the overall school system through the 2023-24 school year. Some of the numbers were purely projections (as the pre-k and K classes hadn’t been born yet), but the rest were based on trends and the scientific methodology as outlined in the report and consistent with NJDOE practices.
To find that out, I contacted Superintendent Dr. Christopher Irving and asked for information regarding the number of students in these locations.
Below is a list of the predictions from Table 4 of the report and the corresponding chart indicates how well those predictions have been borne out in reality.
| Location | # of Apartment Units | Predicted # of school age children | Actual # of school age children | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1500 Teaneck Road | 226 | 44 | 14 | -30 |
| 1775 Windsor Road (Avalon) | 248 | 63 | 28 | -35 |
| 890 Palisade Avenue | 7 | 4 | 0 | -4 |
| 1387 Hill Street | 7 | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| 764 New Bridge Road | 19 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| 1475 Palisade Avenue | 120 | 28 | 4 | -24 |
| 227 Teaneck Road | 24 | 7 | 11 | +4 |
| Totals | 651 | 149 | 57 | -92 |
Broken down by school, the numbers show an average of 1-2 kids per class, max. In short, there is roughly zero impact on the top line item in the school budget: staff, based on the people moving into new developments.
| School | # of students |
|---|---|
| Bryant Elementary School | 6 |
| AUCC‐ PK Location | 1 |
| Theodora Smiley Lacey School | 4 |
| Lowell Elementary School | 8 |
| Whittier Elementary School | 10 |
| Benjamin Franklin Middle School | 5 |
| Thomas Jefferson Middle School | 2 |
| Teaneck High School | 19 |
| Out of District | 1 |
| Charter School | 1 |
| Total | 57 |
Teaneck BOE: Independent Demographic Study of Impact of New Development
//There are 2 Municipal Questions on the Ballot this year.
Question #1: Moving the date of Council Elections
Question #2: Community Choice Aggregation.
//Every year, the township’s finances are audited by an independent Auditing Firm.
The Audit Results are in for 2020.
You can read the entire audit report and see the results (deficiencies) here:
//These days, there’s a lot of misinformation and it’s very hard to know what to believe.
For Municipal Question #2, Community Choice Aggregation, here are the experts:
“I think it’s important we’re careful with our language. Community Choice Aggregation [CCA is Municipal Question #2] will not improve the environment of Teaneck. It will support renewable energy credit swaps which overall, in the long term, can help mitigate climate change. The more that we’re encouraging renewable energies um – and I think for the broader environment – absolutely makes a huge difference.
But it’s not gonna affect Teaneck’s environment, in any way um — measurable way.
Joseph Gillers
Chair, Teaneck Environmental Commission
(October 20, 2021)
“What seems like a good idea, with a very small actual impact on climate change, is structured in such a way that a small group of former utility officials stand to benefit handsomely if this legislation passes for a dubious amount of actual work. That seems wrong to me. There are far better ways to incentivize local green energy purchases than enriching people who were once the regulators and grouped NJ with the highest polluting states, all coal dependent. We need a disinterested 3rd party to analyze this and given the animosity between the Council majority and proponents on both of these measures, it is hard to see how this helps or hurts. At this point, I would vote NO, but reserve judgment on the idea itself.”
Michael Rogovin
Former Chair, Teaneck Environmental Commission
(October 22, 2021)
////This morning Judge Wilson heard oral arguments on the OTOV petition and delivered a prepared decision from the Bench.
The order has been filed, allowing the question to proceed to the ballot in November. The Township indicated it would appeal based on various issues.
The order appears below (the full decision hasn’t been entered on the docket. The petitioners did not receive attorneys’ fees, so petitioners will bear their own costs.
//Title X mandates that any meeting of the Municipality (Council or BOE) must be made in public, upon notice and with an opportunity provided to members of the public to speak on any matter they wish.
Whether at the council, Board of Education, Planning Board or Environmental Commission, there’s a chance to speak directly to those in power to decide issues, before those issues are voted upon.
But there’s another principle at play with the public’s right to speak: namely, the right of everyone to have business conducted by their elected representatives.
Imagine what would happen if someone didn’t like something the council was proposing and lined up enough people to speak for hours until we could no longer hold a vote?
In essence, it would be a veto by a filibuster (sometimes called the “heckler’s veto“). Therefore, while I’ve rarely seen it employed, the ability to cut off speakers at a reasonable point exists, to ensure that the business of the public is properly capable of being conducted, while still protecting the right of the public to speak.
OPRA has a similar issue in terms of balancing priorities.
The law was enacted to enable public access to public records. If you want to see Ordinance 33-2018, all you need to do is request it and the clerk’s office is obliged, under statutory authority to provide a copy to you within 7 days. You can even get it via email.
OPRA is a wonderful law, in terms of moving forward with transparency.
But like OPMA, it has the ability to be abused. We’ve seen this in the past.
The Government Research Council (“GRC“) has dealt with this as well.
In a decision on Complaint 2012-82, the GRC was asked to decide what to do when the request was for:
“All e-mails between Executive Director Mr. William Fellenberg to NJCU OPRA Officer Alfred Ramey”
You see, this isn’t asking for the email sent regarding X. It’s just a request for everything.
OPRA is meant to allow access to public documents, but it’s not meant to enable snooping through files for anyone who wishes to do so. Continue reading “OPRA and OPMA: Balancing important principles”
//DCA Grants announced recently show that the Shared Services award the Township and Hackensack received for fire dispatching.
A total of $218,693 will be used to further this project.
With much thanks to the Township Manager, Dean Kazinci for spearheading this project, along with fire Chief Zaretsky.
