The Teaneck 6

There is more than enough blame to go around for the controversy and ill-feeling 
surrounding an incident in which six students from Thomas Jefferson Middle
School were briefly detained and ticketed for walking in the street after dismissal. 
After reading the Suburbanite's front page account of the hubbub, I am left 
wondering which of the aggrieved parties will show the character and maturity to 
apologize and admit their role in the escalation.

The Teaneck Police Department is one candidate. While law enforcement
officials can legitimately claim that officers were just doing their
jobs when they slapped fines on a group of young violators and returned
them to school, a department that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on
community policing and efforts to improve its relations with residents should
know better than to frighten, intimidate, and humiliate our children in
the process of carrying out its duty to keep order and protect public
safety. How about an admission from the TPD that this could have been
handled better and that in the future, officers will use better judgment
when making an example of people, even if those people had been
previously warned to obey the law?

Another group who may want to step back from the brink is the parents
of the children who were ticketed. Sure, any parent in the same position
would loudly protest the way in which this situation was (mis)handled
and the way their child was treated. However, it seems clear that
administration of the middle school cooperated with the police and issued numerous
instructions and warnings to the students not to engage in the very behavior
their children allegedly engaged in.

"[TJ Principal Antoine Green] said he told the students, but kids will
be kids. If he had informed us that the police would be issuing
summonses, we would have instructed our children not to walk in the street,"
one parent said, according to the Suburbanite. One may express anger at
how certain parties may have acted, but excusing the children's failure
to heed warnings or obey the school principal on the grounds that the
parents were not aware of the punishment and therefore did not
explicitly tell their children to follow this specific rule suggests that the
parents may not be blameless here.

Finally, a couple of other individuals ought to retract statements made in the heat 
of the moment. One prominent resident is quoted as threatening the Township with
"the biggest demonstration you ever had in Teaneck" in response to the incident.
Given past history, that is quite a loaded comment. And though it is possible that
he is being quoted somewhat out of context, new Board of Education President Dr.
Henry Pruitt should know better than to take sides here. Snidely commenting that
"if the police want to empty their ticket books, they should spend their time on Cedar
Lane," is neither helpful nor a good example for the youth in the school system, who
should not see the elected leader of the school system expressing disdain for the
police in public.

Let's not forget that this incident began with children and our children are
watching how those they look up to go about responding to it.

Power to the people

The Township Council may be on the verge of taking a wise political step through the adoption of a new zoning ordinance for Teaneck Road, but can it live with the consequences? As today's Record notes, the proposed guidelines, drafted in concert with residents' groups, enjoy popular support, but they are also at odds with the Master Plan. Given the backdrop, political expediency may outweigh other concerns, but there is no question that a precedent is being set here, and it might be one that certain Council members will find burdensome in the future.

Of course, the recently adopted Master Plan itself is far from the ambitious document originally envisioned by members of the Council Majority and their allies on the Planning Board. Public protest in the form of demands for community input into the process compelled officials to scale back some of their favored proposals and incorporate language binding them to protect the character of residential communities. So, in effect, the groundwork for more restrictive zoning ordinances that emanate not from municipal government, but from neighborhood residents themselves, was laid months ago.

But the compromises that ended the standoff over the Master Plan could be viewed as part of a government-led process that reserved the right to make planning decisions from elected officials and their appointees. This more recent episode clearly cedes that power to a vocal group of involved residents who hold no position and are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Other community members will certainly demand the very same consideration in their own backyards. Time will tell whether that will be a good thing.

Seizing the center

While dueling letter writers quibble over who came out looking worse during Teaneck's summer of discontent, one individual at the center of much of the swirling controversy is quietly padding his credentials and look toward the future. While political enemies continue their attempts discredit Mayor Katz and his Council allies, the Mayor himself has begun using the media more effectively to position himself as a moderate leader and dedicated public servant. This constitutes quite an improvement from earlier efforts and may serve to reposition him as a formidable figure in Township politics just in time for the next round of Council elections.

In Sunday's Record, Katz made all the right moves in commenting on an issue of importance to him. For years, Katz has been a promoter of additional parking in some form or another, especially in the Plaza area, though his proposals and the Council's RFPs have been met with limited enthusiasm. Katz wisely took advantage of the opportunity to balance his views with a declaration of the importance of protecting residential areas. Similarly, in local coverage of recent meetings on the future of North Teaneck Rd., Katz managed to come off a sensible and concerned participant in the deliberations who was willing to advocate for the residents. And to cap it off, the latest edition of the County Seat contains a photo that will do more for Katz's political fortunes than the infamous pastrami shot, as he is shown at a lunch with Hackensack officials to discuss a shared services arrangement.

There was little doubt that after a strong performance in the 2006 elections, Katz had lost a bit of his luster once installed as mayor. Around the time of the controversy over the parking lot in Brett Park, it became clear that Katz's widespread popularity and carefully cultivated image as champion of all of Teaneck was somewhat imperiled by his method of governing. To his credit, he seems to have learned from his mistakes and it appears that his opponents' continued petulance and negativity has allowed him the opportunity to move back to the center and regain his place as a pragmatic and likable leader. He may emerge from all the political sniping as a stronger and more mature public figure.

Restored to life

An interesting feature in this past Sunday's Record covered the remarkable resurgence of the Hackensack River. There is no doubt that the return of wildlife and recreational opportunities to the river is potentially a great boon for the residents of the region. But a clean and attractive river winding its way through our town isn't only desirable for the hikers, fishermen, photographers, birdwatchers, or boaters among us. It also represents a potential source of revenue for the town that cannot be ignored. That is why it is unlikely that the relatively brief debates that have taken place in recent months over the future of Teaneck's riverfront are the last we'll have.

While the Master Plan recommends that "Township commit to maintaining all existing zoning along the waterfront," no such commitment seems to have been made. Sure, back in January, Councilman Rudolph's dramatic excision of a section of the Birdsall report urging the creation of a "Waterfront Redevelopment Area" seemed to close the book on rezoning for the time being. But what happens when a developer shows up with a proposal in hand to transform several parcels of riverfront property into a significant ratable for the town? Up to now, there were few economic considerations involved in decisions to set aside areas adjacent to the river for recreation or environmental purposes. Now that the river is on the rebound, towns such as Teaneck would have to make a conscious choice to forfeit the potential benefits of exploiting a newly restored natural resource in order to preserve the status quo. Will they do so?

Opening salvos

It is easy to dismiss the recent political posturing in Teaneck as mere filler during a summer lull in township affairs. With nothing substantive to fight about, one might simply suppose that Teaneck's factions are sparring with one another out of sheer boredom. All signs, however, point to the current clashes being the first engagements of the 2008 Council campaign season.

While the opposition may yet have a few surprises in store, the New Beginnings crowd and its fellow travelers seem to have tipped their hand as to their message well in advance of what could prove to be one of the most bitterly contested Council elections in recent memory. With a coordinated effort that involves packing public meetings and engaging in constant letter writing to local media outlets hammering away at the same themes, the main objective seems to be to undermine the credibility of Council majority first, and to raise questions about policy issues second. With perhaps as much to lose as it has to gain in the 2008 Council race, this faction has clearly opted to go negative, arguing that Mayor Katz and Councilmen Feit, Rudolph, and Gussen are themselves the problem. If they can gain traction with that idea, it is not much of a leap for them to attempt to persuade voters to avoid electing anyone who might align with the Council majority in the future.

It is a bit harder to discern how the Mayor will go to bat for whomever he backs for Council next year. A recent e-mail from Mayor Katz, however, seems to hold some clues. In a "Teaneck Tid-bits" message dated August 6, the Mayor includes a laundry list of accomplishments that he claims have produced "$3.6 million in tax savings this year alone." As a result of the steps taken, the Mayor writes, "we are on the road to tax savings and equity, without sacrifice to our ideals and way of life." Might the Mayor be laying the groundwork for a campaign in which he will present the record of his administration to the voters as the basis for an appeal to support like-minded candidates that will help him build on it?

Though it would certainly make for an interesting race, it is questionable whether it would make sense for the Mayor to involve himself very much in the next Council race. Why risk a repudiation by the voters in an election during which his term is not even up? Calling the question of whether the electorate is pleased with how he has performed makes little sense at this stage. While policy wonks may appreciate some of his accomplishments, the majority of the electorate knows only of what it hears and what it reads (including what it reads in its tax bills). It is doubtful that the Mayor, under continuous attack from a vocal group of detractors and powerless to deliver on his main issue in the near term- stemming the rising tide of property taxes- has enough political capital to spend much when his own seat on the Council is not at stake. On the other hand, he cannot sit idly by and allow his opponents to frame the debate and potentially snatch away his majority on the Council.

Instead of dismissing the current battles as political theater, Teaneck voters should recognize that the confrontation over the makeup of the next Township Council is already underway, with serious implications for the future course of our town.

Everyone is a victim

As Teaneck's tensions become fodder for an ever growing list of media outlets, it is interesting how the warring sides have each sought to claim the mantle of victimhood. The Jewish Daily Forward is the latest to cover the row over the infamous luncheon photo. Its article attempts to place the somewhat absurd controversy within the context of the relations between Orthodox Jews and others in Northern New Jersey. What emerges is a he said, she said pitting Mayor Katz against his predecessor as competitors for the title of most misunderstood and unfairly victimized.

It is, of course, perfectly natural to make such an appeal when outsiders come to inquire about what is going on in town. What is telling is the nature of the victimhood that each side claims. Both believe they are being attributed motives they claim not to harbor. According to the Forward, Mayor Katz is upset that he and his cohorts take a beating for an attitude of exclusivity and Council member Kates resents when people are labeled "anti-Orthodox" for speaking out against the current Council majority.

Whether or not the protestations of Katz and Kates are correct, they are unlikely to be believed. Mistrust is now so strong in Teaneck that the tiniest slight, real or imagined, is enough to trigger another clash in the Council chambers (or online). Whatever happened to the good old days when our elected officials were free to tick off large segments of the population without being called on it?

Vox populi

Thanks to a successful signature gathering effort, Teaneck will get to conduct a little experiment in direct democracy. As the Record reported yesterday, the Township Clerk has 20 days (now 19) to check the 2,200 signatures collected in favor of an ordinance on public contracting reform, aka a ban on pay to play. It would be rather surprising if the ordinance did not pass by a landslide.

That's not to say there are not any legitimate arguments against this type of legislation. As discussed here before, it is possible that the measure could unnecessarily handcuff local officials when they choose contractors for municipal business. Practically speaking, however, it seems rather unlikely that there is a large constituency out there ready to mobilize and get out the vote for preserving the rights of large political contributors. Whether those who might oppose such a measure would be willing to spend the time, money, and effort to mount a defense of their right to grease the palms of local government officials without penalty remains to be seen, but it seems doubtful.

There are, on the other hand, at least a few thousand voters who were willing to sign a petition in favor of rules against pay to play, and given the low turnout expected for this November's elections, that should be more than enough to carry the day. If the vote is even close, there will be a lot to discuss. Boy would that send a message ahead of the next Council elections!

That picture

Scandal of all scandals- Mayor Katz, Councilman Feit, Councilman Rudolph, former Councilman Yitz Stern, and Teaneck Planning Board Chairman Joey Bodner are pictured in this week's Suburbanite while meeting with other Orthodox Jewish elected officials from throughout New Jersey. While many at tonight's Council meeting were quick to condemn this meeting as portraying some kind of disregard for other Council members or conveying the impression that religious ties somehow trump the issues, the individuals appearing in the photo are guilty of nothing more than having a tin ear for politics. Given current sensitivities in Teaneck, it is unwise for people in positions of power to play up their affiliation with the Orthodox Jewish community, unbelievable as that may seem (could anyone imagine members of the public or fellow Council members complaining if Council members Kates, Honis, and Parker joined a group of local female politicians for a meal or if Council members Honis and Parker appeared at a gathering of African-American elected officials?). Political considerations aside, did those who attended the meeting do anything wrong by going there? Absolutely not.

Mayor Katz's perfectly acceptable explanation for why he and others decided to attend the friendly luncheon meeting (as if any was needed) should close this absurd chapter forever. He and his colleagues have every right to freely associate with whomever they please. In fact, one might argue that their posing for a photo that was voluntarily released to the press by one of their number itself demonstrates that they probably were not up to anything untoward.

Though observers may fault their timing or question their political judgment, there are no apologies required here, and those who suggest otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Squeaky wheels

Among the talked about upgrades to the Teaneck's public transportation infrastructure is the introduction of new jitney bus routes along the town's thoroughfares. Commuter parking problems could be alleviated and quality of life for both commuters and those living along heavily trafficked bus routes would be improved, or so the theory goes.

As always, it is an open question whether theory accords with reality. While it may seem like a good idea to increase options for commuters and other users of public transportation in Teaneck, a recent article in the Record suggests that inviting jitney buses to cruise Teaneck's streets may not be the most responsible course. As the article notes, operators of the jitney buses have been cited frequently for safety violations and in some cases may not exert a great deal of oversight over whom they hire to drive their vehicles. Of course, in their defense, they claim that as largely unregulated competitors to NJ Transit, they are being singled out unfairly for extra scrutiny by local authorities for a variety of reasons unrelated to their actual safety records.

Whatever the course of action Teaneck follows, it is important that traffic and safety concerns be weighed equally alongside the potential benefits of bringing in the jitneys.

South of the border

Word comes today of the latest stunt from our colorful reactionary neighbor, Mayor Steve Lonegan. The Record reports on the Bogota Mayor's plan to enlist his own local police force in the fight against illegal immigration. Naturally, there is a bit of suspicion that the Mayor is not motivated solely by his sincere desire to extend a helping hand to the federal government. Might there be some other reason that the same man who battled McDonald's over a Spanish-language billboard advertisement would be anxious to have Bogota's police officers also serve as immigration agents? To suppose so does not seem far-fetched.

A few miles to the north, the politically engaged minority in Teaneck is gripped with suspicion and resentment. Elected and appointed officials on both sides of the town's comparatively minor political squabbles are demonized by their opponents. There is little recognition that there remains a broad consensus in Teaneck that has endured many far more trying periods in the town's past. While one faction or another lays claim to the mantle of defender of Teaneck's principles and upholder of its legacy of tolerance, it is clear that the vast majority no matter what their outward affiliation remain committed to "live and let live" above all else. It may seem trivial to us, but that's not a given down in Bogota.

Teaneck's top cop snatched by Newark

No, not that Newark... The News Journal of Wilmington reports that Teaneck police chief Paul Tiernan is moving down to Newark, Delaware to head up the police force in that town. As a result, a vacancy is opening up at the top of the Teaneck Police Department only weeks after the Chief's request to add a significant number of officers to combat gang activity was pared down by the Council.

Whether or not friction over that decision played a role in Tiernan's departure is unclear. What is clear is that the next police chief will inherit the gang problem- and the already negotiated terms of the solution. One wonders whether the issue will be reopened by the new leadership in conjunction with the Council and if a candidate's preference for adding staff versus finding less costly ways to address the gang issue will become a new litmus test for potential hires.

Open Space and openness

Today's Record reports on a plan to consolidate power over Bergen County's Open Space Trust Fund in the hands of a single official. Sadly, the fact that the current County leadership wants to be able to circumvent the vetting process when convenient and grant greater influence to the Democratic party donor currently occupying the seat of Director of Bergen County Department of Planning and Economic Development is not the least bit surprising. We've come to expect such galling actions from Bergen County government over the years. While each additional step away from the principles of good government- transparency, multiple checks and balances, and the like- is troubling, we have become so numb to the situation that there is scarcely any protest anymore.

Compare this situation to what we have going on in Teaneck. Here every step taken by municipal government seems to raise hackles. While it is terrific that vigilant citizens are keeping a close eye on the actions of their elected and appointed officials, the righteous anger so often poured out in letters to the Suburbanite or during the public comment period of Council meetings seems somewhat hollow. If the protest is truly on principled grounds, why does the appearance of impropriety in local government matter more than the same thing in Bergen County government? Put another way, might all the energy expended in pointing fingers at Teaneck officials be better spent curbing the egregious excesses of Bergen County insiders, whose power and money is allegedly the root of many of the abuses supposedly occurring in Teaneck?

Not a "worthy and essential goal"

Today's Record contains an editorial decrying a recent Supreme Court decision that banned the use of race as a factor in school admissions decisions as a "step backward." The premise underlying this view is that "racial diversity in the nation's classrooms, as in its communities, is a worthy and essential goal." It appears to me, however, that what is "backward" is the view of the Record staff.

As support for the claim that the nation's march toward integrated public schools has stalled, the paper points out that in Teaneck, a town with a proud history of taking the lead in ending segregation, "three-quarters of the district's student population is minority." This factoid is apparently intended to illustrate that Teaneck's efforts to "achieve racial balance in its schools by slightly altering school boundaries when necessary" is insufficient and that the Court should countenance more aggressive methods of guaranteeing whatever is considered the appropriate mix of skin pigmentation in a given educational institution.

One wonders, however, what it is about the color of one's skin that could possibly enhance the educational experience. Is making sure that classrooms contain a full palette of skin shades really what we should be after? What inherent difference is there among people of different coloring?

We might assume it is some kind of laziness or inadvertent oversimplification rather that leads the Record staff to express itself in this way. However, if what is meant is that we can all benefit by being exposed to people who hold viewpoints different from our own and experiences that are not the same as ours, then "racial diversity" is a strange shorthand for it. Fostering diversity of opinion, of experience, of family background to the extent possible- these may be legitimate educational goals. But these are all still possible after the Supreme Court decision, which continues to permit the use of socio-economic status and other less objectionable markers of diversity in school admissions. So what, again, was the Record's point?

As some in Teaneck seek a more vigorous dialogue over what diversity truly means, we ought to keep in mind that the filing of individuals into neat categories based on superficial characteristics is most certainly not in keeping with the spirit of respect for our fellow citizens as individuals that diversity is supposed to promote. We should take our cues from the younger generation. Those less saddled by the past and more in step with contemporary culture seem to be less cognizant of supposed racial differences. We could be well on the way toward building a colorblind society...if editorials from the Record don't screw it up.

Naming names

Unable to get any satisfaction from Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli, who has ended his investigation of alleged transgressions of campaign laws during the 2006 Council race without bringing charges, Teaneck's disaffected opposition appears to be taking a new tack.

This week's Suburbanite contains a letter from outspoken Council critic Naomi Cramer questioning the motives behind the decision to halt the investigation, and comments by a number of individuals at Tuesday night's raucous Council meeting showed that many are still committed to keeping this issue alive.

What's new, however, is the announcement by a local political organization that it will hold a meeting during which a report that "gives names of those who allegedly had a part in the production and dissemination of the campaign literature" will be presented to the public. The agent of this vigilante justice? The Teaneck Democratic Municipal Organization, who is no doubt holding the event only because of its high regard for the rule of law and a clean and transparent political process, and not because of any affinities with the Teaneck New Beginnings slate, in keeping with the non-partisan nature of Teaneck local politics.

Whether this story still has any traction with the wider public more than a year after the defeat of the majority of the Teaneck New Beginnings slate by a sizable margin is an open question. What is clear, however, is that the hardcore support for TNB, which has also constituted the most vocal opposition to the current Council majority, is determined to attempt to delegitimize current elected officials rather than engage them in policy debate. This desperate effort to regain some influence is perhaps the clearest admission that the TNB fringe, once very much part of the establishment, is increasingly out of step with public opinion in Teaneck.

The nanny municipality

Among the issues commanding the attention of the Council recently has been the question of Teaneck's response to the alarming uptick in gang activity in town. Last night's Council meeting featured an impassioned discussion about a resolution ratifying a costly proposal to add police officers to help combat the gang problem in town. Ultimately, with some apparent reluctance, a majority of the Council agreed to back the plan in response to the gang threat. As one of the voices calling for serious consideration of the issue in consultation with the Teaneck Police Department command, I am pleased to see that Township officials have taken the issue seriously, despite the unwelcome financial burdens associated with the proposed solution. Hopefully, the recommendations of our law enforcement officials will prove effective enough to put an end to gang activity in town.

What did not please me were the comments of a number of residents and officials who spoke at the meeting. It seemed that several speakers were subtly assigning blame to the Township for the gang problem. As they rattled on about the need to demonstrate to the youth of Teaneck that the community is behind them through expanded programming and handouts of public funds to local non-profit organizations, it became clear that certain individuals simply cannot pass up an opportunity to advocate for additional services, more government spending, and a greater role for public institutions in community life, all at taxpayer expense.

One might argue that the root cause of gang membership and violent criminal activity is poor parenting, low self-esteem, boredom, or whatever other excuse one might offer and that attempts to stamp out such anti-social behavior that do not address these root causes are doomed to failure. It does not then follow that it is the responsibility of every Teaneck taxpayer to furnish entertainment options for local teens. It would be terrific if we had the resources to prevent every young person in town from getting mixed up with gangs and falling into a life of criminal behavior. We do not. In fact, Teaneck does not even have the resources to pay for the additional police officers needed to contain the existing problem, though we have little choice but to do so. The best we can do at this stage is take steps to protect the innocent from the pernicious side effects of gang activity in town. There is no way we can protect the criminally inclined from themselves, too.

It's time to look away from government and towards ourselves as individuals if we want Teaneck's children to turn out better. What kind of parents, grandparents, or siblings are we? Are we volunteering our time with local organizations as mentors, coaches, tutors, or the like? Are we giving what we can afford to give financially to the causes that matter to us, or are we just putting our hands out to others, hoping to compel them to make up the difference?

The Township of Teaneck handles public safety and law enforcement, and for that reason, the Council has just agreed to saddle our community with a significant ongoing expense to protect public order. The people of Teaneck as family members, neighbors, and friends are responsible for steering our youth down the right path. It is time for us to individually assume an equal responsibility for achieving the outcomes we hope for.

Poison arrows

Oh my! Pandemonium in the Council Chambers. A telling scene at approximately 11:30 pm on a Tuesday night: in the foreground, Councilman Gussen gets a tongue lashing from a resident for his public castigation of former Planning Board member Barbara Ley Toffler. In the background, Councilman Rudolph and Councilwoman Honis can be seen arguing and gesticulating after Honis took Rudolph to task publicly for what she perceived to be impolite behavior during the meeting as part of a longer tirade filled with innuendo.

Is this the end of civil discourse in Teaneck? Has the "Comments" section of the local blogosphere spilled into the real world? Stay tuned. There's probably more to come after the time out called by Mayor Katz.

Candor and its consequences

Four months after its appearance in the Metro section of the New York Times, Peter Applebome's article about diversity and Teaneck is making waves on the local scene. At the time of its appearance, I surmised that the very public airing of dirty laundry in Applebome's piece had the potential to "shake up the Teaneck landscape." Surprisingly, the inital fallout from the article, which depicted growing alarm and resentment towards Orthodox Jews, "the most conspicuous and fastest-growing group in town," seemed limited. Until now.

Among those residents who spoke on the record about views of the Orthodox community was Barbara Ley Toffler, a member of the Planning Board. "People worry that there's a group that wants this to become an Orthodox community like some of the ones in Rockland County," she told the Times. "This has always been an incredibly diverse community, and from my perspective, I don't want it to become any one thing."

While this statement may be open to some interpretation (the first part suggested that it was "people," and not necessarily Toffler herself, who held that view), it upset Councilman Kevie Feit enough that he joined a majority in blocking Toffler's reappointment to the Planning Board. In widely circulated correspondance, Feit outlines some of the reasons why he felt he could not support Toffler's reappointment. Feit characterizes Toffler's statements as "insensitive, at best, and highly offensive, at worst." "Either way," he continues, "[they are] inappropriate for a member of the Planning Board to state publicly."

By Feit's own admission, his rationale for opposing Toffler is that she has conducted herself in a manner not befitting a member of the Planning Board and called her impartiality into question rather than any qualm he had with her actual performance as a member of that body. It is the quotation itself, and apparently some subsequent follow up comments that were circulated over e-mail that were at issue here. So here we do indeed have some tangible fallout from the Applebome piece. What will be the next shoe to drop?

Thanks for calling attention to it

As it prepares to send the Class of 2007 out into the world, Teaneck High School has a wide range of things to be proud of, from team and individual athletic successes to an impressive array of college acceptances. The school's recent ranking among the top five percent of public high schools in the Unites States by Newsweek magazine, however, should not necessarily be a point of pride. While Teaneck Superintendent of Schools John F. Czeterko told the Suburbanite that officials are "very pleased with [their] recognition by Newsweek" and the "validation" it provides, the Newsweek ranking, when placed in context, is actually a manifestation of what many in Teaneck say is wrong with the schools.

A quick glance at the methodology employed by Newsweek demonstrates how this is so. The magazine ranks schools by the total number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Cambridge exams taken by the student body each year and divides that number by the number of graduating seniors. There are, of course, many reasons why such a statistic is not a valid way of drawing conclusions about the quality of a school. In Teaneck High's case, the particular fallacy is that while the total number of exams taken in the school may exceed the number of graduating seniors and therefore place the school in elite company, those tests are being taken by a subset of the population of 11th and 12th graders, many of whom sit for multiple examinations across a number of subjects. More than three quarters of the student body takes no Advanced Placement examinations or AP level courses whatsoever. And with an average SAT score that hovers below the mean for New Jersey and a pass rate on proficiency examinations that lags the state averages as well, it is clear that a large proportion of the student body is not doing anything near college-level work. Given this mixed bag of performance indicators (none of which tells the whole story), school rankings such as these are basically worthless. Worse, in this case, by awarding the school such a high ranking on the basis of its ratio of AP exams to graduating seniors, Newsweek is actually highlighting the extreme disparities in achievement among students at Teaneck High School.

To be sure, if there is going to be a wide achievement gap in the Teaneck, it is certainly better that it arise due of the presence of a cohort of fine students taking challenging courses whose experience stands apart from that of a large portion of the student body. Still, given the emphasis placed on remedying the yawning chasm separating the best from the rest during the most recent Board of Education campaign, one would think this kind of publicity would be somewhat unwelcome- for now. Hopefully, we can look forward to a day when rankings such as these will come alongside better overall performance figures and broader participation in Teaneck High's most advanced academic offerings. That's the kind of "validation" Superintendent Czeterko and company should be seeking.

Top ranking unwelcome

In the course of a report about one "bright spot in the state's otherwise sluggish commercial real estate sector," regional business news website NJBiz.com cites a troubling statistic that ought to be incorporated in any discussion over future development in Teaneck. Statewide, the vacancy rate in commercial property is approximately 18 percent versus a national vacancy rate of about 13.5 percent in the office market, according to estimates from the National Association of Realtors. The Teaneck/Ridgefield market, however, is experiencing an eye-popping 40.43% vacancy rate, the highest in the area, according to the article.

The article does not contain any analysis of the reasons behind the apparent glut of office space in our area. Any number of factors might explain the phenomenon. It could be a temporary aberration, or evidence that existing space is unsuitable for the current market and needs to be renovated or improved. But it would take a lot of spinning to conclude that the time is right to create additional capacity in our area, even if there are developers out there willing to take on the risks.

You have got to be kidding

Last week, the Bergen County Board of Elections gained a new member. The body charged by tallying votes, staffing the polls, and certifying elections now counts Hackensack Police Chief Ken Zisa as one of its four members. Look him up if you are not familiar with his past exploits. Suffice it to say that this will do little to inspire confidence in the integrity of our democratic process.

The timing of the cushy appointment by Governor Corzine suggests that it came in fulfillment of a condition attached to the "amicable" resolution of the Democratic Party's primary battle that pitted State Sen. Loretta Weinberg and Assembly members Gordon Johnson and Valerie Vainieri Huttle against Party boss Joseph Ferriero's slate earlier this year. Ferriero's man is now comfortably ensconced in another publicly funded position, which should make up for whatever disappointment he may feel at being compelled to abandon a hopeless campaign for state office. Loyalty has its rewards.

At this point, it is going to take a bit more than the occasional complimentary breakfast with a county official to win the trust of this Teaneck resident. The more I see of county politics, the less I understand why we put up with it. To me, Bergen County means blue laws, political patronage, and paying an extra layer of taxes for the privilege. Not exactly a compelling value proposition. Looks like Todd Caliguire had it right after all...

Dog bites man

If something takes place every week, is it still news? The Suburbanite seems to think so. Howard Prosnitz reports week in and week out about protests, vigils, and other gatherings held by Teaneck's very active anti-war movement near the Teaneck Armory. Granted, Teaneck may not have all that much going on in a given week, but the relentless focus on the activities and opinions of one local group risks blurring the line between reporting about them and promoting them.

This week's Suburbanite dishes out the anti-war news in two portions: a cover article about Teaneck Police Department ticketing of motorists for honking to show solidarity with protesters followed by another article inside the paper about a Memorial Day vigil. The first of these actually makes for an interesting story, though it may be overlooked by the many readers whose patience for the constant reports on the protests has been exhausted. Should the Teaneck Police deliberately overlook repeated violations of state statutes at the behest of a citizens group that wants to make as much noise as it can? Or alternatively, are the Teaneck Police selectively enforcing an obscure law to harass lawful protesters who are looking to rally public support?

These interesting issues might get a better hearing if the Suburbanite were a little more selective with its news coverage.

Fixing what is broken

At what point do seemingly isolated incidents involving the endangerment of students in the Teaneck public school system become a cause for community concern about the system itself? With three troubling high profile stories alleging wrongdoing and negligence by adults entrusted with the care of Teaneck's youth swirling in the media in recent weeks, it may be time to stop viewing these three unfortunate episodes as misfortunes that have befallen Teaneck and start asking what is being done by officials to fix a school system that is developing a very poor reputation for protecting the welfare of youngsters.

The three events in question are, of course, the ongoing criminal proceedings against former Teaneck High School Principal Joseph White, the tragic story of the death of a local teenager on an allegedly poorly supervised THS-sponsored trip to Africa this spring, and the shocking charges that an acclaimed middle school teacher repeatedly engaged in sexual activity with a student for several years, on school grounds and elsewhere. While a presumption of innocence certainly applies, this is quite a lot for a district of only about 4,000 students to be dealing with at one time. Is it mere coincidence, or is there a systemic problem?

On Friday, Bergen County prosecutor John L. Molinelli was quoted in The Record in conjunction with a story about the various charges filed against teacher James Darden. While his ominous comments may have been directed only at the circumstances surrounding this particular case, they apply nearly as well for the others.

"I have to wonder about security in the building and how something like this can take place as frequently as it did over such a long period of time the way it did," Molinelli said at a news conference. "It concerns me, and I hope tonight it concerns some school board members in Teaneck -- at least I hope so."

Any district can be victimized by a lone sicko or a freak mishap on a trip. What does it say about those in charge when the Teaneck schools is suffering through three very public investigations into such incidents at once? Are we just extremely unlucky, or is nobody watching over the employees in the Teaneck public schools?

The apparent complacency voiced by Superintendent John Czeterko in response to the Darden case does not provide much reassurance that officials feel they have anything when it comes to ensuring student safety, or even any indication that the district may be failing in its responsibilities to students and parents alike.

"We value teachers who stay after school," Czeterko told The Record about Darden. "He was a valued and trusted employee. If he violated that trust, we're stunned."

There are many reasons underlying the dented confidence in the public school system. Some are demographic, and are almost completely beyond the control of the district. Others are financial, for which the district can bear no more than partial responsibility. Still others are created by the proliferation of incidents such as these. The question is, can anything be done to reassure the community that the schools remain a safe place for our children, and if so, will those things be done?

Update: See this piece from Tuesday's Record detailing some new measures to be put in place in response to the Darden case.

Update #2: There is more on the district's efforts to calm the community in Wednesday's Record, including an account of a meeting for middle school parents.

Nice, but will it backfire?

This week's Suburbanite reports on the parallel efforts of a local citizens group and the Township Council to enact anti-pay-to-play ordinances in Teaneck. Given the contempt so many Teaneck residents have for the corrupt practices that characterize politics on the state and county level, the measures advocated by Bergen Grassroots, on the one hand, and Council member Jackie Kates, on the other, should have little trouble winning popular support.

As Bergen Grassroots official Paul Eisenman told the Suburbanite, "Teaneck is the cleanest town in Bergen County, if not the state." But given the current state of affairs elsewhere, it seems to be a safe bet that local voters would set aside any freedom of speech concerns to follow the lead of nearby towns such as Hillsdale, Hasbrouck Heights, Oradell, and Ramsey in enacting strict limits on contributions to local officials from vendors seeking municipal contracts.

The question is whether a pay-to-play ordinance like those under consideration would address the real threat to good government in Teaneck, i.e. interference in Township affairs by partisan political organizations.

While the Bergen Grassroots draft legislation contains a provision that would restrict vendor donations to political parties, how well would such a rule actually work? Given that Teaneck officials are not officially affiliated with political parties (at least in their elected and appointed roles) and yet may still be subject to manipulation by political organizations that provide them financial and logistical support during campaigns for office, the inclusion of such a clause seems necessary. However, without a similar change in the law on the county or state level, were Teaneck to exclude any vendor who has donated more than $500 to any political party from the contract bidding process, the Township might leave itself few viable options for major improvement projects or outsourced services. The net effect of the legislation could be to drive up the Township's costs without realizing a tangible benefit, given that Teaneck is already recognized as a clean and transparently managed municipality.

Appealing as it may be to send out a strong message on pay-to-play, let's be sure any ordinance enacted is not done so just to prove a point or to serve as an example to others who need it more. Our first priority is to protect the interests of Teaneck.

Weekend fun

As reported in this week's Suburbanite, several dozen realtors and residents met with Mayor Katz and Township Manager Fall last week to review issues of mutual concern. By all accounts, the dialogue was fruitful as a variety of topics were discussed candidly. As Howard Prosnitz writes in his account of the meeting, Teaneck Firefighter John Grado made a cryptic remark about a "adversarial feeling" that is evident when dealing with township officials, especially in one particular department. This week's question is: who could he possibly be referring to? Post your guesses in the comments section.

PS: Don't cheat by looking at Mayor Katz's response to the comments in the course of which he spills the beans.

I can't wait to see all the guesses! It is quite the shock to hear that a builder has had a negative experience with one of the Teaneck departments and that "a friend's wife had returned in tears" from the department in question. Could it be the Health Department? No, maybe it was that nasty Purchasing Department...

Kidding aside, it is appalling that the answer to this question is so obvious. By what right does a certain group of Township employees, paid out of taxpayers' pockets, lord its authority over residents and their contractors alike? Rudeness has no place in any municipal office, let alone one which is charged with dealing with the public and helping people to comply with Teaneck's complicated code. Let's hope Mayor Katz's claim that they are "trying to make changes" it is true and that the Township is rid of this embarrassment soon.

Safe precedent

Today's Record reports on a new policy adopted by a nearby town that is a few steps ahead of Teaneck in dealing with the commuter parking issue. Aside from the useful reminder that there is no need to reinvent the wheel as we search for workable solutions to the quality of life issues posed by Teaneck's scattershot approach to balancing the needs of commuters and neighborhood residents, the article contains other items that may prove relevant to our own community discussion at some point soon.

The Borough of Hillsdale, about 10 miles up the Parkway from Teaneck, has just instituted a $100 annual fee for resident commuter parking in a municipal lot, over the objections of some Borough Council members. The town was already charging non-residents $360 per year for a one-year parking permit. While the total fees collected in a year on a 120-space lot with prices like these probably don't come to much more than $20,000, the majority of the Borough Council thought the introduction of parking fees on resident commuters was a fair way to help offset the costs associated with improving and maintaining the lot. The article does not mention whether the Borough has ordinances in place restricting parking in surrounding areas.

While Teaneck would need to create a commuter parking area before any debate over fees can begin, a few points that arose in Hillsdale may be worth raising now. Firstly, the concern raised by Council members about out-of-towners coming to Teaneck and snatching up prime parking spots in the area around State Street and Teaneck Road would be more effectively addressed by instituting a revenue-generating program of resident and non-resident parking stickers than by implementing tighter restrictions on parking for all in existing lots. Secondly, Borough of Hillsdale Council member Andy Weinstein's opposition to charging for commuter parking on account of the "dangerous precedent" it sets by "[implying] that services should be paid for exclusively by those who utilize them" is absurd. That precedent is not dangerous nor is its supposed implication at all incorrect. Further, his contention that "the revenue gained from the parking fee [is] not worth the expense to commuters" overlooks the fact that covering the extra expense is certainly more worth it to commuters than it is to anyone else. One could just as easily (and more fairly) say that the cost of maintaining the commuter parking lot is not worth the expense to non-commuters.

Of course, Hillsdale is not our concern, Teaneck is. As it stands now in Teaneck, commuters are inconvenienced by the difficulty of reaching public transportation routes, and neighborhood residents are paying part of the price for it by being forced to put up with parked up streets and people coming and going throughout the day on their otherwise quiet residential streets. As it seems that public interest in finding a solution to the daily headaches is relatively high, now would be as good a time as any to make some progress on the issue.

Dwindling options

The planned changes to Ward Plaza, featured in this week's Suburbanite cover story, provide yet another object lesson about the intractability of so many of Teaneck's problems. In this case, one of the most logical sites for additional parking has been officially taken out of contention as a partial solution to the commuter parking issue.

Whether or not the decision to drop the 50 planned parking spaces from the project is the best one for neighbors, area residents, public safety, etc. is not the issue here, for if this were the only option taken off the table, we could just move on to explore the next possibility. But with the Council's recent actions to restrict parking in the Teaneck Road area and the existing parking restrictions on streets alongside major transit routes which are strongly supported by homeowners, the revised Ward Plaza plan severely limits the possibilities. At this point, few existing resources have the potential to alleviate the commuter parking problem.

Some might contend that this consequence is actually an intended one. Could there a plan to bring the public around to the conclusion that the only viable option is a major development that includes a parking deck in the West Englewood Plaza? Perhaps, though is unlikely that such a project would face much community opposition to begin with. It is more likely that this is just another case of an attempt at problem solving shot down by community protest. Business as usual in Teaneck, for better or for worse.

Wallflowers

One of the most frequently mentioned buzzwords in New Jersey politics is "shared services." Whether or not a program of consolidating resources and forming partnerships across town and county lines to save taxpayer money is the answer to all, or even a significant portion, of the state's fiscal problems remains to be seen. Nonetheless, most observers would allow that there are some relatively simple steps that could be taken to cut costs by joining forces with neighboring municipalities to eliminate redundant infrastructure or to secure discounts by purchasing supplies in bulk.

That said, we have heard relatively little about such initiatives in Teaneck. Given the fixation shared by Mayor Katz and the Council majority on finding ways to lower property tax bills, one would think this largely painless method of lowering expenditures would constantly be in the headlines. Instead, we have been occupied with ambitious development plans that are both contentious and, at least in the short term, unlikely to yield any real tax savings. The Mayor's suggestion to explore the use of shared services to combat the gang problem last week was one of the few times the concept has been invoked publicly over the past few months.

While we in Teaneck have battled over future direction, neighboring towns have already taken some tentative steps toward putting theory into practice. As the Record reported yesterday, "Hackensack and seven other towns -- Rochelle Park, Maywood, Elmwood Park, Saddle Brook, Garfield, Fair Lawn and Paramus -- formed the Central Bergen Consortium six months ago" to find ways to reduce costs through sharing as the Northwest Bergen Consortium of thirteen towns in our area has been doing for a while. As other towns pair off with their dance partners, we in Teaneck could be left standing alone with only our spiraling tax bills to keep us company.

Though it may not command a prominent place in the proceedings, the most important item up for discussion on tomorrow's Council agenda may be item #3 under "Old Business": Shared Services. There may be more glamor in talking up major new developments than implementing plans for joint bidding for road paving, but the only thing that really matters is the bottom line. Officials must remember that it's lower tax bills and not higher ratables or any other metric that is the ultimate objective here.

Fuzzy math

According to a report by the Record earlier this week, our wallets are lighter by $254,174 more than they need to be. That sum might not seem like a rounding error, but that's exactly what it is. Apparently, bean counters across the State of New Jersey have been exercising their legal right to shave extra digits off of the municipal tax rates and round them up to the nearest penny, and the Township of Teaneck collected over a quarter of a million extra dollars from us last year as a result. The extra revenue generated by this practice is recorded as a surplus and socked away for later.

The light shined upon this practice has, predictably, created an uproar. With sensitivity to high property taxes already heightened throughout the state, nobody is pleased to learn that they are paying in more than their share. Well, nobody but the politicians who can now embark on a crusade to fix the flaw in the system that they allowed to persist up to now. This morning, word comes that State Sen. Loretta Weinberg and others are pledging to turn their attention to the matter.

You can't blame politicians for licking their chops at this opportunity to portray themselves as tax reformers. Here you have a quirk in the system that can be eliminated with much fanfare at no cost to services, personnel, perks, etc. Free political points are there for the taking. Even those local officials who have spoken out in defense of the practice as necessary to ensure that municipalities do not run into funding shortfalls in the middle of the budget year due to incomplete collections or other unforeseen circumstance can go along with this, as they know that as the architects of their budgets they can (and will) find the money elsewhere, though they will have to be a bit more creative about it.

While any little bit of tax relief is welcome, and a hidden charge on law abiding citizens is certainly galling, this episode will not necessarily benefit the taxpayer. By allowing incumbent legislators to slip a tax reduction feather in their caps without taking a single one of the hard decisions that need to be made, it diverts time, energy, and attention from the systemic problems that plague New Jersey.

Teaneck tackles the gang issue

Back at the end of March, in the immediate aftermath of a frightening (and eye-opening) gang-related incident in town that led to ten arrests, I wrote:

Teaneck must be free of all gang activity. Public safety officials should study the problem carefully, putting egos aside and drawing on outside resources with the necessary expertise and experience when appropriate, to tell us exactly what they need to make sure we do not have to fear this anymore. And we ought to be ready to consider their requests carefully and do all we can to equip our officers to blot this out of Teaneck for good, even if it means putting other longstanding priorities aside.

Now, as Brian Aberback reports in today's Record, I have gotten my wish. Police Chief Tiernan has presented the Council with what he believes the Teaneck Police Department requires to end the scourge of gang violence in town. His proposed solution, the addition of 14 additional officers to the force, may well break the backs of the gangs in Teaneck, but in the process of doing so, it could also break the bank. With a first year projected cost of $676,000, it is not surprising that Council members, who are loathe to heap additional financial burdens on an already heavily-taxed populace, gave the proposal a lukewarm reception.

The Deputy Mayor summed up the difficult position local officials are in.

"I'm not against [hiring new officers], but I just don't know to what extent," said Deputy Mayor Lizette Parker. "On an emotional level, I'd hire 50 officers because it's a frightening situation. But it's not that easy."

This is certainly quite the bind. It is politically impossible to reject the Police Chief's request outright. With an alarming rise in gang incidents over the past year and media reporting that a second grade teacher at the Lowell School "frequently stops students in the class from flashing hand signs and finger messages that mimic gang style communications," there is no way the Township can avoid taking vigorous action.

At the same time, with a huge jump in the municipal budget this year and little prospect of any near term progress in finding ways to spread the tax burden away from homeowners, this Council would almost guarantee that it would fail to achieve one of its most important goals if it were to approve an almost 15% increase in police manpower.

If there were a broad consensus among residents that the gang issue was a top priority, the voters might forgive such an outcome. But the fact is that much of the population has been insulated from this issue, and awareness of the problem is low in neighborhoods that have not been impacted by the rise in gang activity. That's not a bad thing, per se. It shows that the problem has been contained thus far. However, it also has the potential to cause a backlash if significant increases in spending are passed to help clean up this festering problem. Hence the ambivalence among Council members.

Whether or not the Police Chief's approach is the right one or the most cost effective one, it is worth noting once the potential costs (financial, social, and otherwise) of shying away from addressing this problem head on. Will additional officers and extra funding make sure that innocent bystanders don't get in the way of stray bullets? Will they end the defacement of public and private property with graffiti? Will they make sure that no part of Teaneck ever becomes a "no go" zone? I don't know. But the potential damage those things can do to Teaneck cannot be measured in dollars alone.

The answer to Chief Tiernan's plan need not be an unqualified yes, but it also cannot be "no way." The time for debating whether a problem exists is long past. The only thing left to discuss are the details of the solution.

Turnover at the Board of Ed

The Board of Ed's reorganization meeting last week brought change, not only through the installation of newly elected members Margot Embree Fisher and Sebastian Rodriguez, but also through a new leadership slate for the body. With the help of Fisher and Rodriguez, Dr. Henry Pruitt and Dr. Ardie Walser displaced Judith McKay and Dr. David Diuguid as president and vice president, respectively. The 5-4 vote broke entirely along tenure lines, with the five newest trustees overruling the wishes of the four longtime members to maintain the status quo. Does this signal a new direction for the BoE?

While there were a few hints here and there during the campaign that certain of the candidates had made common cause with one another and that existing members clearly preferred that incumbent Barbara Ostroth win reelection, it was not readily apparent to most voters exactly what was at stake. Those who carefully examined the pattern of endorsements and the names listed in various campaign adds might have deduced something about the preferences of certain insiders. However, as there was no overt call by the victorious candidates for a refocusing of priorities or a new direction on the school board, it is as yet unclear to us outsiders whether a new faction has formed or whether the majority now held by newer members signifies much of anything for the future.

In the aftermath of a bland campaign that granted the victors no clear mandate to do much of anything, it remains to be seen whether the imprint left on the Board leadership by the newer members will translate into bold new steps on the policy side. At this point, the only thing we can be certain of is that a few different names will grace the glossy newsletters in our mailboxes.

Awesome power

Teaneck residents have a knack for courting controversy. Whether it's the periodic attempts to browbeat the Council into commenting on national political issues or the tumult surrounding the rather tame Master Plan revision, we seem to relish confrontation and debate. So it should not be surprising that despite the absence of any plans to seize private property through eminent domain, some residents have been up in arms about the issue.

While recent planning documents have downplayed eminent domain as an option for private redevelopment in Teaneck and counseled against using it in anything but the most extreme circumstances, the very mention of the practice has apparently stimulated some to urge the Council to voluntarily renounce its right to employ the method in the future.

There is certainly a lot to fear when it comes to eminent domain. The Court-protected power of a municipality to override one party's private property rights to benefit another in certain instances does in fact pose a direct threat, especially to poorer individuals who are more liable to own property in areas designated as "blighted." Rather than leaving the fate of such citizens up to the whims of future elected officials, why not lobby the Council to take a proactive step to insulate residents from the use of government power to dispossess them?

Though this may seem sensible on paper, it is basically a non-starter. The Council would be foolish, and perhaps irresponsible, to surrender its legitimate right to act in the best interests of the Township sight unseen. A Council that would toss out an option on the future without knowing what the future will bring would be doing itself, its successors, and all of Teaneck a disservice. It is not the role of the Council to circumscribe its own powers ex ante, but rather to act judiciously and with the proper sensitivity when cases arise. The public, and ultimately, the courts, serve as the check on that and should be all the protection Teaneck needs against potential abuses through unjustified appropriation of private land.

To their credit, members of the Council spoke eloquently in their roles as representatives of the Township against any effort to curtail municipal government's powers prematurely, all the while acknowledging that eminent domain should not be applied casually. Under current circumstances, it is hard to see a situation in which Teaneck would resort to this practice. Nevertheless, if it is protection against government encroachment on our property rights we seek, our best course of action is to stand up and make our voices heard in the event that an actual injustice occurs instead of whipping up hysteria now. As the next election approaches, we might also resolve to compel future candidates for office to articulate a clear statement of their own reluctance to employ this extreme method.