Beating a dead horse

This week's Suburbanite devotes its cover to a public spat between defeated Council candidate John Annillo and outgoing Councilman Rev. Randall Day. At the May 22nd Council meeting, Annillo justifiably raised concerns about the legality of Day's last minute campaign effort on behalf of Teaneck New Beginnings. The more interesting question, however, regards the propriety of the automated telephone messages recorded by Day.

To what extent should Day, who gained his position on the Council by uncontested appointment rather than popular election, refrain from full participation in political activity? Does the fact that Rev. Day's appointment was made as a conciliatory gesture after the stormy departure of Councilman Gallucci obligate him to maintain a more neutral stance on town issues than an elected official?

Defeated candidate Lenny Hennig appears to believe that Day overstepped the bounds by wading into the Council campaign. Mayor Kates, on the other hand, is quoted expressing the view that once appointed, no matter what the circumstances, a Council member has full standing with all the privileges and responsibilities that entails.

For his part, Day has attempted to deflect Annillo's criticism of his own missteps and refocus attention on the injustices of the anonymous campaign against the Teaneck New Beginnings. This only brings the question of his active political involvement into sharper focus. If community members had known that Day would make use of a position he had been granted without public debate to influence the choice of his successor, might they have scrutinized his appointment more? Many may feel that Day has violated the trust placed in him to serve out an unfinished term in a quiet and uncontroversial manner, and it is hard to disagree.