TDMC Results (TRMC Coming soon)

Keith Kaplan / June 5, 2024June 5, 2024 / Elections, Teaneck

Just a note: While these do come from the County, there are still mail-in ballots that may be arriving, rejections that can be fixed and other issues that may alter the final tally.

The clerk will issue a final number in due course.

District	Type of voting	Registered Dems	Votes Cast	Turnout (%)
		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	CARROLL ANNE GRECE	JONATHAN ROSS	Write-ins	G REINER	OSAMA USMANI	AJHA RAHMAN	PALESTINE	Gerard Reiner	Desiree R. Reiner
Teaneck 1	Early Voting	608	17	2.80%	13	12		1	1	1	1
Teaneck 1	Election Day	608	74	12.17%	58	42	7
Teaneck 1	Mail-In	608	43	7.07%	32	29						1	1
Teaneck 1	Provisional	608	0	0.00%
Teaneck 1	Total	608	134	22.04%	103	83	7	1	1	1	1	1	1
Teaneck	Total	608	134	22.04%	103	83	7	1	1	1	1	1	1
Total - Early Voting		608	17	2.80%	13	12		1	1	1	1
Total - Election Day		608	74	12.17%	58	42	7
Total - Mail-In		608	43	7.07%	32	29						1	1
Total - Provisional		608	0	0.00%
Contest Total		608	134	22.04%	103	83	7	1	1	1	1	1	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	IRWIN BENZEL	MELISSA BENZEL	MOHAMED ARIF KHAN	Write-ins	Mahejabeen Kathawala
Teaneck 2	Early Voting	871	31	3.56%	3	12	27		11
Teaneck 2	Election Day	871	106	12.17%	24	33	68	28
Teaneck 2	Mail-In	871	66	7.58%	12	26	46		10
Teaneck 2	Provisional	871	0	0.00%
Teaneck 2	Total	871	203	23.31%	39	71	141	28	21
Teaneck	Total	871	203	23.31%	39	71	141	28	21
Total - Early Voting		871	31	3.56%	3	12	27		11
Total - Election Day		871	106	12.17%	24	33	68	28
Total - Mail-In		871	66	7.58%	12	26	46		10
Total - Provisional		871	0	0.00%
Contest Total		871	203	23.31%	39	71	141	28	21

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	AYELET HIRSCHKORN	REUBEN SHARRET	Write-ins	MUBINA KATHAWALA	Mohamed Arif Khan	Mahejaben Kathawala
Teaneck 3	Early Voting	754	98	13.00%	88	81		5
Teaneck 3	Election Day	754	181	24.01%	122	117	20
Teaneck 3	Mail-In	754	54	7.16%	36	40			3	3
Teaneck 3	Provisional	754	0	0.00%
Teaneck 3	Total	754	333	44.16%	246	238	20	5	3	3
Teaneck	Total	754	333	44.16%	246	238	20	5	3	3
Total - Early Voting		754	98	13.00%	88	81		5
Total - Election Day		754	181	24.01%	122	117	20
Total - Mail-In		754	54	7.16%	36	40			3	3
Total - Provisional		754	0	0.00%
Contest Total		754	333	44.16%	246	238	20	5	3	3

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	THOMAS A. ABBOTT	TAMAR D. WARBURG	GWENETTE REESE	Write-ins	YIBAL GROSS	YIGAL GROSS	MICKEY MOUSE	FREE PALESTINE	CEASEFIRE NOW	GRUBR
Teaneck 4	Early Voting	769	149	19.38%	99	111	36		4	6	1	1	1	1
Teaneck 4	Election Day	769	138	17.95%	90	77	51	3
Teaneck 4	Mail-In	769	82	10.66%	64	33	44
Teaneck 4	Provisional	769	0	0.00%
Teaneck 4	Total	769	369	47.98%	253	221	131	3	4	6	1	1	1	1
Teaneck	Total	769	369	47.98%	253	221	131	3	4	6	1	1	1	1
Total - Early Voting		769	149	19.38%	99	111	36		4	6	1	1	1	1
Total - Election Day		769	138	17.95%	90	77	51	3
Total - Mail-In		769	82	10.66%	64	33	44
Total - Provisional		769	0	0.00%
Contest Total		769	369	47.98%	253	221	131	3	4	6	1	1	1	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	JUANITA BROWN	YASSINE ELKARYANI	Write-ins
Teaneck 5	Early Voting	571	19	3.33%	16	15
Teaneck 5	Election Day	571	77	13.49%	59	46	3
Teaneck 5	Mail-In	571	31	5.43%	24	21
Teaneck 5	Provisional	571	0	0.00%
Teaneck 5	Total	571	127	22.24%	99	82	3
Teaneck	Total	571	127	22.24%	99	82	3
Total - Early Voting		571	19	3.33%	16	15
Total - Election Day		571	77	13.49%	59	46	3
Total - Mail-In		571	31	5.43%	24	21
Total - Provisional		571	0	0.00%
Contest Total		571	127	22.24%	99	82	3

		Registered Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	ALEXANDRA SORIANO-TAVERAS	RONALD SCHWARTZ	Write-ins
Teaneck 6	Early Voting	735	18	2.45%	17	9
Teaneck 6	Election Day	735	74	10.07%	61	39	3
Teaneck 6	Mail-In	735	102	13.88%	83	78
Teaneck 6	Provisional	735	0	0.00%
Teaneck 6	Total	735	194	26.39%	161	126	3
Teaneck	Total	735	194	26.39%	161	126	3
Total - Early Voting		735	18	2.45%	17	9
Total - Election Day		735	74	10.07%	61	39	3
Total - Mail-In		735	102	13.88%	83	78
Total - Provisional		735	0	0.00%
Contest Total		735	194	26.39%	161	126	3

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	JAMES R. NORMAN	LEYAT MAFOUDA	AVI BERLINER	MARGARET E. FISHER	Write-ins
Teaneck 7	Early Voting	698	49	7.02%	16	30	32	17
Teaneck 7	Election Day	698	116	16.62%	53	45	52	49	3
Teaneck 7	Mail-In	698	57	8.17%	39	11	10	38
Teaneck 7	Provisional	698	0	0.00%
Teaneck 7	Total	698	222	31.81%	108	86	94	104	3
Teaneck	Total	698	222	31.81%	108	86	94	104	3
Total - Early Voting		698	49	7.02%	16	30	32	17
Total - Election Day		698	116	16.62%	53	45	52	49	3
Total - Mail-In		698	57	8.17%	39	11	10	38
Total - Provisional		698	0	0.00%
Contest Total		698	222	31.81%	108	86	94	104	3

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	SHARON VATSKY	ARTHUR VATSKY	MICHAEL KLATSKY	SHANA B. DWORKEN	Write-ins
Teaneck 8	Early Voting	820	61	7.44%	22	18	37	37
Teaneck 8	Election Day	820	195	23.78%	84	74	87	92	2
Teaneck 8	Mail-In	820	90	10.98%	63	59	21	19
Teaneck 8	Provisional	820	0	0.00%
Teaneck 8	Total	820	346	42.20%	169	151	145	148	2
Teaneck	Total	820	346	42.20%	169	151	145	148	2
Total - Early Voting		820	61	7.44%	22	18	37	37
Total - Election Day		820	195	23.78%	84	74	87	92	2
Total - Mail-In		820	90	10.98%	63	59	21	19
Total - Provisional		820	0	0.00%
Contest Total		820	346	42.20%	169	151	145	148	2

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	DANIEL A. BLOOM	ELIZABETH KLEIN	HILLARY KESSLER-GODIN	Write-ins
Teaneck 9	Early Voting	692	120	17.34%	105	25	94
Teaneck 9	Election Day	692	224	32.37%	180	63	160
Teaneck 9	Mail-In	692	60	8.67%	41	34	28
Teaneck 9	Provisional	692	0	0.00%
Teaneck 9	Total	692	404	58.38%	326	122	282
Teaneck	Total	692	404	58.38%	326	122	282
Total - Early Voting		692	120	17.34%	105	25	94
Total - Election Day		692	224	32.37%	180	63	160
Total - Mail-In		692	60	8.67%	41	34	28
Total - Provisional		692	0	0.00%
Contest Total		692	404	58.38%	326	122	282

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	SHARON L. KOLB	RHONA VEGA	NOAH LIBEN	Write-ins
Teaneck 10	Early Voting	663	136	20.51%	132	4	126
Teaneck 10	Election Day	663	199	30.02%	152	51	151
Teaneck 10	Mail-In	663	89	13.42%	41	47	65
Teaneck 10	Provisional	663	0	0.00%
Teaneck 10	Total	663	424	63.95%	325	102	342
Teaneck	Total	663	424	63.95%	325	102	342
Total - Early Voting		663	136	20.51%	132	4	126
Total - Election Day		663	199	30.02%	152	51	151
Total - Mail-In		663	89	13.42%	41	47	65
Total - Provisional		663	0	0.00%
Contest Total		663	424	63.95%	325	102	342

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	CARLEY L. PEVEN	Write-ins	Alan Sohn	ALAN SOHN	ALLEN SOHN	ABDUL WAHEED	TALIA ROSENBERG	SOHN	ALAN SONNE
Teaneck 11	Early Voting	572	133	23.25%	124		3	83	3	4	1	3	1
Teaneck 11	Election Day	572	182	31.82%	161	111
Teaneck 11	Mail-In	572	47	8.22%	41		12	1
Teaneck 11	Provisional	572	0	0.00%
Teaneck 11	Total	572	362	63.29%	326	111	15	84	3	4	1	3	1
Teaneck	Total	572	362	63.29%	326	111	15	84	3	4	1	3	1
Total - Early Voting		572	133	23.25%	124		3	83	3	4	1	3	1
Total - Election Day		572	182	31.82%	161	111
Total - Mail-In		572	47	8.22%	41		12	1
Total - Provisional		572	0	0.00%
Contest Total		572	362	63.29%	326	111	15	84	3	4	1	3	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	EMIL STERN	TERESA R. BAYEWITZ	Write-ins	SCOTT ALTIERI
Teaneck 12	Early Voting	807	128	15.86%	121	122		1
Teaneck 12	Election Day	807	185	22.92%	161	157	4
Teaneck 12	Mail-In	807	94	11.65%	77	77
Teaneck 12	Provisional	807	0	0.00%
Teaneck 12	Total	807	407	50.43%	359	356	4	1
Teaneck	Total	807	407	50.43%	359	356	4	1
Total - Early Voting		807	128	15.86%	121	122		1
Total - Election Day		807	185	22.92%	161	157	4
Total - Mail-In		807	94	11.65%	77	77
Total - Provisional		807	0	0.00%
Contest Total		807	407	50.43%	359	356	4	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	CLARA WILLIAMS	RAYMOND ADDISON	Write-ins
Teaneck 13	Early Voting	809	32	3.96%	29	23
Teaneck 13	Election Day	809	142	17.55%	121	75	1
Teaneck 13	Mail-In	809	55	6.80%	52	34
Teaneck 13	Provisional	809	0	0.00%
Teaneck 13	Total	809	229	28.31%	202	132	1
Teaneck	Total	809	229	28.31%	202	132	1
Total - Early Voting		809	32	3.96%	29	23
Total - Election Day		809	142	17.55%	121	75	1
Total - Mail-In		809	55	6.80%	52	34
Total - Provisional		809	0	0.00%
Contest Total		809	229	28.31%	202	132	1

		Registered Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	GLORIA J. WILSON	JAMES D. EDMONDS III	Write-ins	John Smith
Teaneck 14	Early Voting	1139	53	4.65%	41	30
Teaneck 14	Election Day	1139	178	15.63%	141	90	4
Teaneck 14	Mail-In	1139	69	6.06%	63	50		1
Teaneck 14	Provisional	1139	0	0.00%
Teaneck 14	Total	1139	300	26.34%	245	170	4	1
Teaneck	Total	1139	300	26.34%	245	170	4	1
Total - Early Voting		1139	53	4.65%	41	30
Total - Election Day		1139	178	15.63%	141	90	4
Total - Mail-In		1139	69	6.06%	63	50		1
Total - Provisional		1139	0	0.00%
Contest Total		1139	300	26.34%	245	170	4	1

		Registered Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	TALYA ROSENBERG	ZACHARY YITZCHAK GREENBERG	NATASHA WILLIAMS	Write-ins	KWASI	GLENN WILLIAMS	GLENN WILLIAMS JR
Teaneck 15	Early Voting	789	99	12.55%	78	76	20		1	1	1
Teaneck 15	Election Day	789	133	16.86%	71	69	58	8
Teaneck 15	Mail-In	789	46	5.83%	30	21	23
Teaneck 15	Provisional	789	0	0.00%
Teaneck 15	Total	789	278	35.23%	179	166	101	8	1	1	1
Teaneck	Total	789	278	35.23%	179	166	101	8	1	1	1
Total - Early Voting		789	99	12.55%	78	76	20		1	1	1
Total - Election Day		789	133	16.86%	71	69	58	8
Total - Mail-In		789	46	5.83%	30	21	23
Total - Provisional		789	0	0.00%
Contest Total		789	278	35.23%	179	166	101	8	1	1	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	DENISE SANDERS	CHERYL L. HALL	Write-ins
Teaneck 16	Early Voting	540	8	1.48%	***	***	***
Teaneck 16	Election Day	540	81	15.00%	59	32	1
Teaneck 16	Mail-In	540	33	6.11%	28	26
Teaneck 16	Provisional	540	0	0.00%
Teaneck 16	Total	540	122	22.59%	93	62	1
Teaneck	Total	540	122	22.59%	93	62	1
Total - Early Voting		540	8	1.48%	***	***	***
Total - Election Day		540	81	15.00%	59	32	1
Total - Mail-In		540	33	6.11%	28	26
Total - Provisional		540	0	0.00%
Contest Total		540	122	22.59%	93	62	1

		Registered Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	DONALD STARK	GERVONN C. ROMNEY-RICE	Write-ins
Teaneck 17	Early Voting	881	40	4.54%	26	35
Teaneck 17	Election Day	881	130	14.76%	81	95	2
Teaneck 17	Mail-In	881	64	7.26%	54	54
Teaneck 17	Provisional	881	0	0.00%
Teaneck 17	Total	881	234	26.56%	161	184	2
Teaneck	Total	881	234	26.56%	161	184	2
Total - Early Voting		881	40	4.54%	26	35
Total - Election Day		881	130	14.76%	81	95	2
Total - Mail-In		881	64	7.26%	54	54
Total - Provisional		881	0	0.00%
Contest Total		881	234	26.56%	161	184	2

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	JENNIFER A. MONTAG	STEPHEN GRUBER	QURAN GEE	Write-ins	Sam Passner	DANIELLE GEE
Teaneck 18	Early Voting	843	107	12.69%	93	79	17			1
Teaneck 18	Election Day	843	169	20.05%	131	107	53	2
Teaneck 18	Mail-In	843	91	10.79%	74	32	42		1
Teaneck 18	Provisional	843	0	0.00%
Teaneck 18	Total	843	367	43.53%	298	218	112	2	1	1
Teaneck	Total	843	367	43.53%	298	218	112	2	1	1
Total - Early Voting		843	107	12.69%	93	79	17			1
Total - Election Day		843	169	20.05%	131	107	53	2
Total - Mail-In		843	91	10.79%	74	32	42		1
Total - Provisional		843	0	0.00%
Contest Total		843	367	43.53%	298	218	112	2	1	1

		Registered Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	JUDITH SAMUELS RAMOS	GABRIELLE SOPHIA WASSERMAN	DANIEL M. ROSENBLUM	SEAN HIRSCHHORN	Write-ins	Elie Katz
Teaneck 19	Early Voting	751	83	11.05%	29	50	28	46
Teaneck 19	Election Day	751	131	17.44%	63	62	43	51	5
Teaneck 19	Mail-In	751	80	10.65%	61	11	57	6		1
Teaneck 19	Provisional	751	0	0.00%
Teaneck 19	Total	751	294	39.15%	153	123	128	103	5	1
Teaneck	Total	751	294	39.15%	153	123	128	103	5	1
Total - Early Voting		751	83	11.05%	29	50	28	46
Total - Election Day		751	131	17.44%	63	62	43	51	5
Total - Mail-In		751	80	10.65%	61	11	57	6		1
Total - Provisional		751	0	0.00%
Contest Total		751	294	39.15%	153	123	128	103	5	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	ELIE Y. KATZ	MICHELLE M. BIVINS	RUTH EZRAPOUR	JARREN N. BIVINS	Write-ins
Teaneck 20	Early Voting	497	98	19.72%	86	16	79	11
Teaneck 20	Election Day	497	152	30.58%	120	36	111	25	2
Teaneck 20	Mail-In	497	52	10.46%	32	26	23	18
Teaneck 20	Provisional	497	0	0.00%
Teaneck 20	Total	497	302	60.76%	238	78	213	54	2
Teaneck	Total	497	302	60.76%	238	78	213	54	2
Total - Early Voting		497	98	19.72%	86	16	79	11
Total - Election Day		497	152	30.58%	120	36	111	25	2
Total - Mail-In		497	52	10.46%	32	26	23	18
Total - Provisional		497	0	0.00%
Contest Total		497	302	60.76%	238	78	213	54	2

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	LORETTA WEINBERG	ROBERT ELKIN	Write-ins	MUHAMMAD BAGASRA	PALESTINE
Teaneck 21	Early Voting	788	25	3.17%	17	17		2	2
Teaneck 21	Election Day	788	86	10.91%	63	43	9
Teaneck 21	Mail-In	788	112	14.21%	107	88
Teaneck 21	Provisional	788	0	0.00%
Teaneck 21	Total	788	223	28.30%	187	148	9	2	2
Teaneck	Total	788	223	28.30%	187	148	9	2	2
Total - Early Voting		788	25	3.17%	17	17		2	2
Total - Election Day		788	86	10.91%	63	43	9
Total - Mail-In		788	112	14.21%	107	88
Total - Provisional		788	0	0.00%
Contest Total		788	223	28.30%	187	148	9	2	2

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	DEVORAH BACKMAN	OSAMA USMANI	AJHA RAHMAN	Write-ins	PALESTINE
Teaneck 22	Early Voting	744	42	5.65%	12	32	28		1
Teaneck 22	Election Day	744	118	15.86%	34	72	72	5
Teaneck 22	Mail-In	744	55	7.39%	24	36	34
Teaneck 22	Provisional	744	0	0.00%
Teaneck 22	Total	744	215	28.90%	70	140	134	5	1
Teaneck	Total	744	215	28.90%	70	140	134	5	1
Total - Early Voting		744	42	5.65%	12	32	28		1
Total - Election Day		744	118	15.86%	34	72	72	5
Total - Mail-In		744	55	7.39%	24	36	34
Total - Provisional		744	0	0.00%
Contest Total		744	215	28.90%	70	140	134	5	1

		Voters	Voters Cast	Turnout (%)	Write-ins	Rhona Vega	Noah Liben	PALISTINE	ZUNERA ZUBAIRY
Teaneck 23	Early Voting	721	19	2.64%				1	1
Teaneck 23	Election Day	721	75	10.40%	12
Teaneck 23	Mail-In	721	35	4.85%		2	1
Teaneck 23	Provisional	721	0	0.00%
Teaneck 23	Total	721	129	17.89%	12	2	1	1	1
Teaneck	Total	721	129	17.89%	12	2	1	1	1
Total - Early Voting		721	19	2.64%				1	1
Total - Election Day		721	75	10.40%	12
Total - Mail-In		721	35	4.85%		2	1
Total - Provisional		721	0	0.00%
Contest Total		721	129	17.89%	12	2	1	1	1

COUNTY COMMITTEE

“The Line”: Is it dead or will it be resurrected? Some Counties are already abandoning the fight. Here’s what has happened…

Keith Kaplan / March 31, 2024 / Elections, Lawsuits, Teaneck

The Line is Dead, but this Easter, plenty of pols are hoping for a Resurrection

What has happened since Judge Quraishi’s opinion?

For those unaware: NJ has been using “the line” to ensure preferential treatment for establishment pols since the 60’s. It works incredibly well. There hasn’t been a pol that won “off the line” in about a decade and a half (since 2009). You can read about the case against the line here: Abolosh The Line

Judge Zahid N. Quraishi (NJ’s First Muslim Article III Judge) ruled on Friday that the line had to go.

Some NJ Pols are… not happy about it.

Here’s what has happened since: Continue reading ““The Line”: Is it dead or will it be resurrected? Some Counties are already abandoning the fight. Here’s what has happened…”

2023 Election Results

Keith Kaplan / November 8, 2023 / Elections

Congratulations to all those who ran for seats on the Board of Education.

Board of Education Results

It appears that the results indicate that the Educational Excellence Slate has won all three seats.

Final Tallies:

Gerald Kirschenbaum: 5392*

David Gruber: 5325*

James Woff: 5299*

Nadia Hosein: 4207

Selene Wong: 4299

Jose Zenon: 4082

For those interested:

Excellence Progress Equity (EPE) Slate won in the VBM category (54.8% to 45.2%)
Educational Excellence Slate won in the Early Voting (78.3% 21.7%)
On Election day, it was fairly even with only 4 votes separating 3rd and 4th place

My spreadsheet will be available on TeaneckToday.com momentarily.

*** Some Votes May Still Be Coming In ***

District:	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	7-Nov	Early	Mail	Total
Gerald Kirschenbaum	57	52	158	154	52	36	198	73	308	306	316	379	30	24	108	27	49	193	100	144	46	43	16	2869	1775	748	5392
David Gruber	54	56	157	152	45	38	193	70	306	306	313	367	29	26	108	33	52	188	98	145	46	45	15	2842	1764	719	5325
James Wolff	55	53	157	150	48	42	193	72	303	307	312	357	24	31	106	29	55	191	94	145	46	43	15	2828	1753	718	5299
Nadia Hosein	117	154	179	130	114	98	210	67	66	65	26	59	210	253	97	102	193	108	106	65	130	177	112	2838	484	885	4207
Selene Wong	114	154	182	140	111	105	215	72	72	74	30	70	206	251	98	101	195	117	106	63	124	170	114	2884	503	912	4299
Jose Zenon	112	152	173	131	108	100	202	63	69	67	26	57	202	248	92	96	181	111	102	65	118	160	111	2746	481	855	4082
Personal choice	0	3	1	0	6	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	7	5	1	4	0	2	2	0	4	6	3	49			49
Mail in per district	56	76	50	66	34	118	57	82	70	99	56	100	48	66	52	40	62	97	70	50	129	59	35

Following the Money at the BOE: Year After Year, TPS District Bilked Taxpayers for Security, Transportation and More

Keith Kaplan / October 31, 2023November 7, 2023 / Board of Education, Budget, Elections, Teaneck

Where do I vote? Click HERE to find out

A Review of Teaneck Public School Filings Show District Overcharged Taxpayers on Several Budgetary Items, including Transportation and Security

Security

Despite significant security issues (including the removal of security guards and threats against schools), the Teaneck Public School District collected 100% of its security budget from taxpayers… but didn’t spend 25% of it. Where did it go?

Busing / Transportation

Despite complaints about the cost of busing and the inability to meet required busing needs, records show that the District collected FAR IN EXCESS of what it spent on busing. In fact, in the last 3 years alone, the District pocketed $3M into “Fund Balance” to use as surplus funds… all from our tax dollars.

What is happening within the Teaneck Public School Budgets?

25% of the District Security budget went to discretionary fund balance?

Over $3M in local taxes set aside for busing students, instead went to discretionary fund balance over the past 3 years?

2022/23: Teaneck Schools – $6.94M ALLOCATED for Transportation
2022/23: Teaneck Schools – $5.73M ACTUALLY SPENT for Transportation
2023/24: Teaneck Schools – $7.67M, a 10.46% RAISE to the Transportation Tax Levy, for an unprecedented $7.67M bill to taxpayers.

You read that right — after pocketing $3M in local tax levy funds from residents that we were told would be used for busing & transportation, the line item for busing in 2023-24 WENT UP AGAIN by 10.46% to $7.67M according to the 2023-24 Final Budget presentation,

How could that be possible?

A few days after scores of parents attended a Board of Education meeting asking about the lack of security, I found myself asking these questions to the Teaneck School District Business Administrator.

The ACFR (Annual Comprehensive Financial Report)

The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is a set of U.S. government financial statements comprising the financial report of a state, municipal or other governmental entity that complies with the accounting requirements promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

“Exhibit C” of the ACFR contains “Budgetary Comparison Schedules”.

These schedules indicate the:

Final amount of the budgeted line item
Actual amount spent for the budgeted line item
Variance, or difference in the final amount budgeted and what was actually spent

Here are some examples from the ACFR”

	Final Budget	Actual Spent	Variance (Difference)	Year
Total Student Transportation Services	$6,069,994	$4,489,077	$1,580,917	2021
Total Student Transportation Services	$6,499,755	$5,736,648	$763,107	2022
Total Student Transportation Services	$5,706,667	$4,975,660	$731,007	2020
Total:	$18,276,416	$9,464,737	$3,075,031

	Final Budget	Actual Spent	Variance (Difference)	Year
Total Security Budget	$1,134,695	$855,873	$278,822	2022
Total Security Budget	$383,161	$383,161	$0	2020
Total Security Budget	$548,073	545,723	$2,350	2021

ACFR Data (available on NJ State Website):

Confirmation

I reached out to the District’s Business Administrator to confirm these findings.

My email appears below:

While the difference between Final Budget and Actual is fairly small for many categories (e.g. Total instruction, which comes in at 5%), other categories seem to have a very different variance betweenfinal budget and actual expenditures.
As an example….
Security:
The original budget is listed as $516,101.00
The final budget is listed as $1,134,695.00 with $618,594.00 under “transfers”
The actual is listed as $855,873.00, leaving a variance of $278,822.00
The variance would appear to be 25% of the final budget amount.
If that’s the case, did the variance go to fund balance?
Am I missing something here?
Appreciate any feedback you can provide.
Keith

The response from the Business Administrator came on 10/19/2023:

Haqquisha Taylor <htaylor@teaneckschools.org>
Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 4:45 PM
To: Keith Kaplan <keith@teanecktoday.com>
Cc: Andre Spencer <aspencer@teaneckschools.org>
Good Day,
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan, for your patience and for your follow up. The answer to your question regarding the variance listed in the 2021-2022 ACFR for Security is yes, the variance goes to fund balance. For Capital, $388,328 of the variance goes to fund balance. The remaining $18,600 of variance, relating to Facilities Acquisition and Construction Services, is returned to the Capital Reserves.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Question about budgets

Where did the money GO?

This is a tricky question, as once you put massive amounts of money into “surplus”, it can be spent in a discretionary manner across different expense categories.

Obviously, as per the Business Administrator, we can see that the 25% of last year’s “Security Budget” which went unused was disbursed as follows:

$388,328.00 to “Capital”
$18,600.00 to “Facilities Acquisition and Construction [sic] Services”

If you recall, Teaneck Schools spent $5.35M for Renovation of a Kindergarten Building (from Eugene Field School office space to the current Lacey School) & Admin Offices by Thomas Jefferson Middle School.

Where did an “extra” $5,300,000.00 come from without bonding? Now you know.

Let’s start with some basic facts:

Value of all land in Teaneck (as of 10/01/2020): $5,188,972,400
Value of Average Residential Assessment: $387,405
- Percentage of total land value: .007466%

(stats from “User-Friendly budget” available on Township website)

Share of each $5.35M project for the average homeowner = $399.43

The $399.43 can be paid through the tax levy (all at once) or bonded (at near-zero interest) to be paid back over decades.

Bonding a project or paying for it through direct levy is a policy and financial decision that affects YOU!

So what would you prefer? Pay it all now or $19.97 a year for 20 years?

This is NOT how schools are supposed to operate. Here’s why:

If you were to move out of Teaneck today, you would have paid 100% of your share of the $5,300,000.00. But had this been bonded, at historically low rates over 30 years, you would only pay a share of the amount that corresponded with your time living in Teaneck.

The new resident moving in would continue to pay their fair share.

That’s how bonding – which is sometimes called “generational equity” – works.

But to do that, the Schools would have to go to the public with a bonding referendum on a ballot. And the fear is that the public would vote down a bonding referendum because they think the schools ALREADY have enough money. So rather than chance a defeat (which also acts as a barometer on resident satisfaction with the district), they inflate certain line items, year after year after year, in order to have you, the taxpayer pay MORE THAN YOU NEED to ensure a free and appropriate public education.

This is NOT how schools should function and the public should be incensed at how they are treating us at the Teaneck BOE.

Teaneck Cannabis Survey: Why Haven’t Results Been Released?

Keith Kaplan / September 19, 2023 / Development, Elections, Health, Ordinances, Teaneck

Until today, results from the survey conducted by the Cannabis Subcommittee have never been published.

Who created the Cannabis Survey and sent it out to residents?
Who created the Cannabis Forum at the Rodda Center?
Who directed employees to attend/work at the event?

The answers matter because the Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of the council formed to discuss issues)

“It is the intention of this article that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager… The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.”
source: NJ Rev Stat § 40:69A-91

Sebastian Castillo

On April 5, 2022, Mr. Sebastian Castillo appeared before Council to give a presentation as to why the Township should grant him a letter authorizing him to apply for a license to open a Cannabis Dispensary in Teaneck. [video]

In Resolution 106-2022, the Council granted Mr. Castillo local support for the granting of a license to his company, Galaxy Express NJ, LLC.

Mr. Castillo continued coming to council meetings through December, requesting zoning expansion (beyond Alfred Avenue) for Cannabis dispensaries.

Then, after the new Council was seated in January, Mr. Castillo wrote to the Cannabis Subcommittee indicating that he created a google form, which they could use to determine whether the residents were willing to see an expansion of Cannabis zoning for retail stores.

Through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, you can see he email below. The link for the form is still active and is available on archive.org.

The Survey and the Forum

As you may be aware, the council sent out this survey earlier this year, seeking resident comments regarding cannabis zoning in Teaneck.
(Note: The original municipal page with the survey has been deleted from the Township website, but is available here via archive.org)
The survey link indicates it is no longer open or available:

“The form Township of Teaneck | Cannabis Zoning Survey | January 2023 is no longer accepting responses.”

That survey had raised many questions (see our former Mayor Dunleavy’s post here), and Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests seeking to find the derivation of the survey have thus far gone unanswered (the post will be updated if any additional responses are received).

Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee promoted the forum as well as the survey

Cannabis Survey Results (obtained via OPRA):

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:	Yes	325	No	638
		33.7%		66.3%

For Manufacturer:	Yes	317	No	646
		32.9%		67.1%

For Wholesale:	Yes	315	No	648
		32.7%		67.3%

For Distribution:	Yes	331	No	632
		34.4%		65.6%

For Retail:	Yes	376	No	587
		39.0%		61.0%

For Delivery:	Yes	354	No	609
		36.8%		63.2%

Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?	Yes	677	No	286
		70.3%		29.7%

So what happened to the survey?

Residents questioned the validity of the survey and forum held by the township. Some sought information about cannabis zoning/council actions on Facebook. In response, the husband of Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee indicated:

“Just to be clear, only Mayor Pagan, CW Goldberg, and CW Belcher along with the Manager etc were involved in planning this forum.”
(source)

This again raised several questions, namely:

Who planned the forum?
Did the Subcommittee take action outside of a council meeting?
Who directed town personnel to hold the forum?
Was the Council involved in the decision to hold the forum?

The clerk’s office responded:

“This was discussed at the Jan. 10, 2023 Meeting. The subcommittee report and accompanying minutes may be found here: http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx

This the record responsive to this portion of the request.”

The minutes for the first three meetings held this year did not indicate any vote for the survey, its language, or the forum (page 24 of the minutes from the 1/10 meeting indicates it was already scheduled). So who is running the show?

An email from Councilwoman Goldberg states:

Pages 29-30 from 2023-02-14 Township Council – Full Agenda-1764

“The current cannabis subcommittee planned and executedthe successful Town Hall which tookplace on January 25th at the Rodda Center, with more than 100 attendees in person andonline, marking the first such event held by the township in several years. Thank you again toDean, Tom Rowe, Doug, Ronn Goodman, MIS, and the panelists and participants for all of thehard work that went into planning and executing the event.” (emphasis added)

also from the Goldberg email:

“Additionally, a google doc survey was created by the cannabis subcommittee and shared with residents. Several
hundred people submitted their responses and the results are still being collected and reviewed by the subcommittee.
The feedback we have received from the town hall, the survey, comments at good and welfare, conversations andemails from residents and stakeholders, as well as consultation with experts including our planner and the explorationof retaining legal counsel will all be used to determine next steps.” (emphasis added)

and

[W]e have asked the attorney to draft an ordinance to limit publicconsumption of cannabis in public spaces.”

The subcommittee, apparently through some authority has:

Planned and executed events on behalf of the municipality including the direction of township personnel
Created documents sent and shared with residents
Directed the town attorney to draft ordinances

SIX MONTHS LATER: Where are the survey results?

Teaneck Today submitted an OPRA request and received the survey results (which included some data on the individuals filling out the survey). Using emails and IP address info, along with a review of responses, it appears that several people submitted the survey results multiple times, making any assertions from the survey’s results, problematic.

Council Minutes from August 8, 2023, indicate “Cannabis” was a closed-session discussion topic.

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:	Yes	325	No	638
		33.7%		66.3%

For Manufacturer:	Yes	317	No	646
		32.9%		67.1%

For Wholesale:	Yes	315	No	648
		32.7%		67.3%

For Distribution:	Yes	331	No	632
		34.4%		65.6%

For Retail:	Yes	376	No	587
		39.0%		61.0%

For Delivery:	Yes	354	No	609
		36.8%		63.2%

Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?	Yes	677	No	286
		70.3%		29.7%

		Percentage
Total Number of Responses	981
Unique Responses	963
Individuals Identified	406	42.16%
Individuals Not Identified	555	57.63%

	Number of Responses	Percentage
District 1	6	3.20%	0.80%
District 2	6	3.20%	0.80%
District 3	13	7.00%	1.80%
District 4	13	7.00%	1.80%
District 5	2	1.10%	0.30%
District 6	5	2.70%	0.70%
District 7	11	5.90%	1.50%
District 8	12	6.50%	1.60%
District 9	19	10.20%	2.60%
District 10	16	8.60%	2.20%
District 11	14	7.50%	1.90%
District 12	14	7.50%	1.90%
District 13	2	1.10%	0.30%
District 14	1	0.50%	0.10%
District 15	6	3.20%	0.80%
District 16	0	0.00%	0.00%
District 17	4	2.20%	0.50%
District 18	15	8.10%	2.00%
District 19	9	4.80%	1.20%
District 20	8	4.30%	1.10%
District 21	3	1.60%	0.40%
District 22	7	3.80%	0.90%
District 23	0	0.00%	0.00%
Unknown	555		74.90%
Totals

Township of Teaneck Cannabis Survey Jan. 2023 Results(1)(1)_Redacted_Redacted

2023 Teaneck BOE Ballot Positions

Keith Kaplan / August 14, 2023August 14, 2023 / Board of Education, Elections

The Bergen County Clerk has chosen Ballot Positions for the Teaneck Board of Education Race

The ballot positions will be:

Gerald B. Kirshenbaum (Achieving Excellence Together)
David Gruber (Achieving Excellence Together)
James Wolff (Achieving Excellence Together)
Nadia Hosein (Excellence Progress Equity)
Seleene Raquel Wong (Excellence Progress Equity)
Jose Zenon (Excellence Progress Equity)

Best of luck to everyone participating.

You can watch the drawing for ballot placement below

August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update

Keith Kaplan / August 9, 2023 / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

If you wish hard enough, you too can be an environmentalist…

The voters in Teaneck went to the polls to decide whether or not we should join the Community Energy Aggregation program. The vote was overwhelmingly approved, ~~and Teaneck joined the program immediately saving money~~ but because third-party energy is a constantly changing target, pricing was affected by factors such as the war initiated by Russia, supply, and demand, as well as a plethora of other factors.

The Sustainable Essex Alliance (SEA) announced that it awarded a contract for Round 2 of the program to Energy Harbor, the low bidder, for a 17-month contract which began in April 2021 (through September 2022).

Under the new contract with Energy Harbor, the baseline product will again provide participating residents with power supply that has nearly double the renewable energy content required of PSE&G, at a price of $0.12696/kWh, which is below the current average Basic Generation Service tariff price of PSE&G.

Part of the problem unique to Teaneck is the threshold values. Continue reading “August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update”

Wayne Puppies took Hillary Goldberg to Court. What happened next might shock you…

Keith Kaplan / May 30, 2023June 9, 2023 / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

UPDATE: Judge denies motion brought by [Councilwoman] Hillary Goldberg, to dismiss the action.
(note: Ms. Goldberg was sued in her individual capacity)

UPDATE 2: Counsel for Ms. Goldberg sent a response^***. It is appended below in full.

UPDATE 3: Teaneck’s Township manager sent a response****. It is appended below in full.

UPDATE 4: Hillary Goldberg submitted an Answer, Demand for Discovery and Jury Demand on June 5th.

A request for comment was sent to all parties and the post may be updated with replies

For those unfamiliar with the saga that is Wayne Puppies, Teaneck, I will offer a brief recap:

2018: Teaneck banned the sale of dogs and cats in retail stores^*.
2021: Wayne Puppies (which has existed in Wayne, NJ for some time) sought to create a “store” on Cedar Lane. That store would sell dog supplies, food, etc… and would house puppies too young for sale (which would eventually go to the Wayne location when appropriate).

“All puppies will be delivered approx. at the gestational age of 8 weeks and will be thoroughly checked by a licensed veterinarian before classifying as fit for sale. If at any case the animal is not fit for sale, we will set the animal for adoption. The puppies will continue to be under veterinary supervision for weekly checkups. The only supply sold in our store will be the same pet food (wet and dry) that is used in our store to feed the puppies with.”
– email from Alexandra Hofman, owner of Wayne Puppies to Teaneck Zoning Officer dated 9/9/21

The idea was a sort of “take a look at this doggie in the window… and buy it elsewhere” type model.

The Township initially gave Wayne Puppies a certificate of occupancy, with the understanding of all parties that they could not sell animals in Teaneck.

Description of Work / Use:
LIVE PET STORE – PUPPIES ONLY AS PER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THROUGH 10-20-2021.
NO SALE OF LIVE CATS OR DOGS PERMITTED
PER SEC. 6-68

2022: The plaintiff alleges that the Township eventually changed positions and the company sued Teaneck and Hillary Goldberg, claiming:

“…the Township of Teaneck is not entitled to any deference in its revocation of its approval of the business plan as it was not based on an interpretation of any statute or Code, but rather based on outside forces, including political pressure placed on the Township members; especially with an election upcoming in November 2022.”
– Complaint at paragraph 39

Why Hillary Goldberg?

According to the complaint, while running for a seat on the council, [now Councilwoman] Hillary Goldberg is alleged to have created a petition on change.org which the plaintiff (Wayne Puppies) claimed was not only defamatory but done in order to raise her position as a candidate.

Hilary Goldberg Defames Wayne Puppies to Gain a Political Advantage:
(emphasis in original)

In the legal action (a copy of the docket is available here), attorneys for Ms. Goldberg sought to dismiss the case, saying that nothing Ms. Goldberg said was, in fact, defamatory or created tortious interference.

The claims made against Ms. Goldberg include:

Defamation
Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advance

Ms. Goldberg filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, contending that:

The mischaracterization of the Petition is in bad faith and further proves that Plaintiff’s defamation claim is meritless.
The fact that Plaintiff specifies that the only alleged interference was with prospective clients demonstrates that no actual contracts existed for Ms. Goldberg to interfere with and this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Ms. Goldberg’s actions are not malicious and do not meet the necessary requirements to be deemed tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.

The full briefing of the motion is available below.

BER-L-001240-23 2023-04-25 (Hillary Goldberg MTD)

BER-L-001240-23 2023-05-18 (Hillary Goldberg MTD Opposition)

BER-L-001240-23 2023-05-22 (Hillary Goldberg MTD Reply)

The plaintiff (Wayne Puppies) states in their opposition to Goldberg’s motion to dismiss:

“Goldberg’s argument reminds me of my childhood teachers accusing “someone” of wrongdoing, staring right at them, and stating “I am not naming names, but you know who you are.” The purpose of the petition is clear, and it was not to simply argue the virtues of adoption. Instead, it was a targeted and purposeful attack on Wayne Puppies, that amounts to actionable defamation.”
– Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

In response, Goldberg states in reply:

“Folksy wisdom aside, this is what is required for a defamation claim as a matter of law, and thus, Ms. Goldberg’s Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

“Unfortunately for Plaintiff, this motion will be decided in a New Jersey Court, not in counsel’s former elementary school. Here, where the Change.org petition does not actually make the alleged defamatory statements about Wayne Puppies, this motion to dismiss must be granted.””
– Reply to Motion to Dismiss

The motion was indeed heard and decided in a New Jersey Court on May 26th.

Unfortunately for Hillary Goldberg, the motion to dismiss the complaint was denied (for the reasons stated on the record^**)

A request was sent to all parties to obtain the reasons stated on the record and the post will be updated with additional information / replies / comments.

Stay tuned.

June 5, 2023: An answer was submitted by Hillary Goldberg

BER-L-001240-23 2023-05-26 (decision denying MTD for Goldberg)

* At the time this law was passed, I objected to the passage because it was poorly written and ~~could~~ would lead to a scenario such as this one.
** I was not able to watch the proceedings (held via zoom) because they took place over a religious holiday. I did reach out to all sides of the litigation to request the video/transcript as well as if they had any comment on the decision. I will post any responses received, in full, under this post.

*** At 4:40pm on 5/30/2023, Counsel for Ms. Goldberg, John Coyle responded to my request for comment:

Hi there:

This is John Coyle, counsel for Ms. Goldberg.

When Wayne Puppies was not able to open up in Teaneck, it filed this frivolous lawsuit against Ms. Goldberg, the Town, and others. Against Ms. Goldberg, the Complaint claims she defamed it by calling Wayne Puppies a “puppy mill.”

However, counsel for Wayne Puppies admitted that at no point in the Change.org petition did Hillary Goldberg actually say that Wayne Puppies was a puppy mill. Despite this, he argued to the Court that people who read the petition would have thought she meant it about Wayne Puppies and the motion to dismiss was denied.

It is undisputed that the New Jersey Attorney General found that Wayne Puppies committed 27 violations of the Pet Purchase Protection Act for its failure to adhere to laws designed to protect consumers from purchasing unhealthy pets.

The truth is the ultimate defense in a defamation action. We fully expect Ms. Goldberg and all defendants to be vindicated and this frivolous lawsuit to ultimately be dismissed.

John D. Coyle, Esq.

COYLE & MORRIS LLP

201 Littleton Road, Suite 210

Morris Plains, NJ 07950

jcoyle@coylemorris.com

T: 973.370.3519

F 973.860.5520

2023-05-30_Email Reply From John Coyle

**** At 8:50am on 5/31/2023, Township Manager Dean Kazinci responded to my request for comment:

Good morning. The Township possesses no record/transcript regarding the motion recently heard in Court on the matter involving Ms. Goldberg as a private citizen. Also, the Township does not comment on pending litigation in which we’re listed as a defendant.

Thanks,

Dean B. Kazinci, CPM CHR
Township Manager
Township of Teaneck
818 Teaneck Road
Teaneck, NJ 07666
201-837-1600 ext. 1001

Has the Teaneck Cannabis Subcommittee been operating in violation of State law?

Keith Kaplan / February 8, 2023February 10, 2023 / Development, Elections

Who created the Cannabis Survey and sent it out to residents?
Who created the Cannabis Forum at the Rodda Center?
Who directed employees to attend / work at the event?

The answers matter, because Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of council formed to discuss issues)

“It is the intention of this article that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager… The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.”
source: NJ Rev Stat § 40:69A-91

Continue reading “Has the Teaneck Cannabis Subcommittee been operating in violation of State law?”

Election Results: November 2022

Keith Kaplan / November 9, 2022November 23, 2022 / Elections, Teaneck

The “unofficial” results from the town are below.

Note: These do not include Early Voting or VBM, which will be added in by the County (not all numbers are yet available on their site).

But the “live” numbers (available here) seem to include the early voting totals. Based on this data, it would appear that at least 3 of the challengers Continue reading “Election Results: November 2022”