Resolution confusion
"I don't understand why anyone would reject what I consider a benign resolution condemning the mailings of unsigned letter and character assassination." -Councilwoman Jacqueline Kates, as quoted in Suburbanite, July 26, 2006
Here's why a majority of the Council declined to pass a seemingly harmless resolution condemning illegal campaign tactics. It also happens to be the reason why the previous Council did not consent to a resolution protesting the actions of the Port Authority Police when they allegedly detained Teaneck residents inappropriately earlier this year. And it goes a long way towards explaining why certain Council members will never bend to the will of the Teaneck Peace & Justice Coalition and endorse signing the Council's name on an anti-USA Patriot Act resolution, too.
The role of the Teaneck Township Council is not to right all of the world's wrongs. The role of the Teaneck Township Council is to govern Teaneck. No member of the Council condones illegal campaign tactics. But the Council does not need to pass a resolution to prove it. Councilman Gussen recognized this when he stated that the resolution, as uncontroversial as it may have been, was "a diversion from the clear goals that we have." The last thing we need is a municipal government distracted by non-binding resolutions. We have real issues to tackle.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:18 AM
21 Comments:
This whole thing is starting to get ridiculous. The TNB's campaign manager seems to be screaming the loudest for an investigation when in fact he is the one who started the whole negative campaigning in the first place by accussing Councilmember Stern of being a bigot, as well as his inflamatory anti-semetic remarks about Teaneck's Orthodox Jewish community. Your team lost- by a ton!!! Get over it!!!
Teaneck Blog, I think you're completly wrong about this. You write, "No member of the Council condones illegal campaign tactics. But the Council does not need to pass a resolution to prove it." From there you jump to the conclusion that the Council ought not pass such a resolution, but one does not follow from the other.
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Suppose someone painted a swastika on a synagogue -- would you oppose a Council resolution condemming anti-semitism on the grounds that no member of the Council condones anti-semitism and that the Council does not need to pass a resolution to prove it? Can you imagine what the people in our town would say if Council refused to pass such a resolution on those, or any other, grounds?
No, I think your comments belie the fact that you are not only happy that your guys won (which you have a right to be) but that you don't care how.
And as for Anonymous's statement that the TNB campaign manager started the whole thing -- this is laughable. The TNB campaign manager may have been stupid but he was openly stupid -- he didn't try to hide his identiy nor did he break any laws in his remarks.
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Suppose someone painted a swastika on a synagogue -- would you oppose a Council resolution condemming anti-semitism on the grounds that no member of the Council condones anti-semitism and that the Council does not need to pass a resolution to prove it? Can you imagine what the people in our town would say if Council refused to pass such a resolution on those, or any other, grounds?
Wrong! I don't care what people would say if the Council declined to pass a resolution in such a case. I would calmly explain to them that while Council members are justified in expressing their personal outrage, the Council is not the proper forum for addressing the issue. A resolution from the Council would do nothing to improve the situation.
I know that it gives some people psychic comfort to feel that their local government is taking a stance on an issue that matters to them, but I am not one of those people. What warms my heart is when people apply the principles of good government even in an emotional situations.
Yes, "my guys" won on this issue. But "my guys" are not those who refuse to condemn illegal campaign tactics. I am happy to join the Advisory Board on Community Relations and most other Teaneck residents in expressing my disapproval of unethical campaign practices. "My guys" are those who zealously defend the true purpose of the Council from unwanted distractions.
While it suits many to believe that the negative campaigning started with the email about Councilman Stern, this is far from true. The rumors including the one about the eruv were being spread before the email.
It amazes me that anyone would feel that illegal campaign tactics and practices should be ignored once the election is over.
I believe the councils decision was short sighted. As most of the illegal campaigning was in support of the four who voted against the resolution. Many will believe that was the basis for their decision. This may create the very "diversion" that Mr. Gussen fears.
I believe the councils decision was short sighted. As most of the illegal campaigning was in support of the four who voted against the resolution. Many will believe that was the basis for their decision. This may create the very "diversion" that Mr. Gussen fears.
This is a stronger point. But would anyone who harbors these suspicions be satisfied by a non-binding resolution? Certainly not. So why set a unwelcome precedent for issuing pronouncements on issues that do not fall under the purview of the Council?
Can you clarify who "my guys" refers to? Who did you vote for?
"My guys" was a reference to Public School Parent's post (see excerpt below), not a reference to the candidates for whom I cast my vote in May.
No, I think your comments belie the fact that you are not only happy that your guys won (which you have a right to be) but that you don't care how.
Who did you vote for?
How much money do you make?
There are several fundamental differences between the proposed resolution drafted by the Advisory Board on Community Relations (ABCR, of which I am a member), and the other suggested resolutions that have been proposed by residents:
1) Source: Advisory Boards are formed by the Township Council to provide it with guidance on specific issues that it deems to be of importance. This is not a resolution coming from some "fringe organization" asking the Council to support the latest item from the grievance of the day club.
The Advisory Board on Communiy Relations consists of some two dozen individuals who have volunteered their efforts on behalf of improving relations between our Township's residents, were interviewed by the Council and selected to serve. The ABCR is a representative group that has been chartered with identifying issues of importance that should be addressed by the Township Council. In my two years on the ABCR, this is the only resolution vote upon to be passed on to the Council.
2) Breadth: The support for this proposed ABCR resolution came from all those in attendance at the Advisory Board on Community Relations' June meeting. The ABCR represents a cross-section of Teaneck and is not a front for any faction, neighborhood, credo or community within Teaneck, seeking to push its own agenda.
3) Focus: The ABCR resolution does not address world hunger, peace in the Middle East, government spending or police practices on New York City river crossings.
The proposed resolution passed by the ABCR addresses a series of actions that took place right here in Teaneck -- some patently illegal (e.g., unsigned postcards and phone calls); some patently immoral (e.g., emails charging bigotry and spreading rumors re eruv-removal or terrorism connections).
One would assume that if there were other specific Teaneck-related problems that they would be addressed by the Council. See Resolution H from Tuesday's Council session on the "Police and Fire Interset Arbitration Act of 1995" which will be passed on to our legislators.
4) Lack of alternative: For all of the other suggested non-starters, there is an alternative source for redress that is the direct party responsible for taking action on the matter on behalf of the aggrieved parties: be it Steve Rothman or the Director of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.
In the case of the ABCR's draft resolution, the Teaneck Township Council is the court of final adjudication. No other entity can send a message to future candidates that the campaign practices demonstrated in the past election will not be accepted. I find the emails to be just as offensive as the postcards and phone calls, as expressed to ALL of the candidates involved during the election.
Teaneck, as a whole and as the Township Council, needs to consider whether anything will be done or this will just be ignored. To reject the proposed resolution of its own Advisory Board with a sniff and a shrug is completely different from deciding that the Council should not act on the USA Patriot Act. We deserve a public debate AND approval of this resolution.
Alan Sohn
In the case of the ABCR's draft resolution, the Teaneck Township Council is the court of final adjudication. No other entity can send a message to future candidates that the campaign practices demonstrated in the past election will not be accepted.
I fail to see how a resolution that entails no action of any sort accomplishes anything other than opening the door to more toothless pronouncements in the future. Suppose the Council were to formally censure the unnamed party or parties that violated our communal standards during the past election campaign through the passage of this resolution. Would that somehow deter shady characters from engaging in the same behaviors next time around? If so, how?
As you are someone who is justifiably upset about the conduct of the Council campaign, I understand your frustration that there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent a repeat in the future and your desire to see some formal measure taken. However, as you are also someone who appreciates the dangers of bogging down the Council with peripheral issues, wouldn't you think it better to seek some other way of getting satisfaction on this issue? Perhaps the Advisory Board on Community Relations should propose that the candidates' pledge be amended to require that candidates repudiate any inappropriate electioneering on their behalf. Anything but the facile but dangerous suggestion that the Council start endorsing empty resolutions...
OK. We agree that it is an issue that could be addressed by the Council, the question is now its effectiveness.
Despite protests to the contrary, the Township Council regularly passes resolutions that would best be described as "facile" and "toothless." Again, see Resolution H from Tuesday's Council session on the "Police and Fire Interest Arbitration Act of 1995" which was approved unanimously by our Council and will be passed on to our legislators in Trenton, who upon receipt will almost certainly do whatever they would have done without the benefit of this resolution.
Will a resolution help? It might, if enclosed with the candidate packages in 2008. Will it stop the practice? I doubt it, after all, dirty campaigning worked far too effectively this year.
But the alternative of doing nothing sends the message LOUD AND CLEAR that no one cares about the issue.
Oh, the suggestion "that the candidates' pledge be amended to require that candidates repudiate any inappropriate electioneering on their behalf." It's already there, and already been proven ineffective. I've yet to hear a repudiation.
Alan Sohn
OK. We agree that it is an issue that could be addressed by the Council, the question is now its effectiveness.
I'm not sure we agree on that. I was willing to grant you that for the sake of argument, but since you insist that the only way the Council could address the issue is through a high-minded but ineffective resolution, something which I think is a waste of time and a poor precedent, I'll go back to saying the Council has no reason to address the issue. If, on the other hand, there is some way in which Council can affect the course of future events and prevent these travesties in the future, they ought to do so. But you seem to think they cannot.
Your point on Resolution H is a good one. Councilman Gussen and others should answer for why their principles did not cause them to withhold their votes on that one (though I suspect the real reason is that it was never addressed as an individual item and therefore it just slipped through the cracks). The Council was wrong to pass Resolution H too, just as it would have been wrong to adopt Councilwoman Kates' suggestion that the Financial Advisory Board be charged with lobbying Trenton for property tax relief had it done so.
Slipped through the cracks!!!
Less than a month in office and you're suggesting our council people are already too careless to check what they're voting on.
What a can of worms squirming in all directions!
Let me just reiterate what I've said on this blog before: sleaze and divisiveness did not originate in this last election. I previously mentioned the rather low-tech 1992 mailing by the anonymous "Committee to Preserve Synogogue Life," which smeared Eleanor Kieliszek as "not a friend" of the Jewish community. That was the year of Ron Schwartz's first council campaign, and as far as I am aware, he ever repudiated this mailing. I do know that it came up at a council meeting (probably not as a resolution) and that Loretta Weinberg, who was a council member at the time, pooh-poohed any expression of outrage as hypocritical.
One thing I forgot to mention in my last Teaneck Blog post on this subject was that far more recently, in 2002, some automated phone calls went out to Jewish households from an ostensibly "Christian" group endorsing Michael Gallucci for his "Christian" values. (What brilliant targeting!) Again, the presumptive beneficiaries of this dirty tactic had nothing to say about it. Instead, their friends instigated an anonymous Justice Department complaint against the Township's form of government, which is still hanging over us four years later.
All that said, I think it might have been useful if the council had passed this resolution. As Alan Sohn points out, it was presented by a council Advisory Board. And while morality may not differentiate this year's abuses from those of years past, one thing might: the scope and apparently well-funded slickness of this year's sleaze. Council's "bully pulpit" is no guarantee that this burgeoning tide will be stemmed, but it's not entirely worthless if we ever hope to discourage this type of campaigning. In fact, Council's silence on this could be interpreted as a future green light.
...the previous Council did not consent to a resolution protesting the actions of the Port Authority Police when they allegedly detained Teaneck residents inappropriately earlier this year. And it goes a long way towards explaining why certain Council members will never bend to the will of the Teaneck Peace & Justice Coalition and endorse signing the Council's name on an anti-USA Patriot Act resolution, too.
Without getting into the relative merits of the various resolutions mentoned (and those not mentioned), this analogy is just plain false.
We're not talking about foreign policy here, or New York City's Bridge and Tunnel police. We're talking about a relevant local issue (albeit a longstanding one) on which the council-appointed Advisory Board on Community Relations has drafted a resolution. I would have preferred that they acknowledged past abuses as well. But that need not paralyze us going forward.
TomAbbott said...
While it suits many to believe that the negative campaigning started with the email about Councilman Stern, this is far from true. The rumors including the one about the eruv were being spread before the email.
Wow! Since you seem to be one of the blog historians, do you think the person who sent the e-mail about Councilman Stern did so as a result of the rumor being spread about the eruv?
Without getting into the relative merits of the various resolutions mentoned (and those not mentioned), this analogy is just plain false.
We're not talking about foreign policy here, or New York City's Bridge and Tunnel police. We're talking about a relevant local issue (albeit a longstanding one) on which the council-appointed Advisory Board on Community Relations has drafted a resolution.
The difference is only one of degree. I concur that it is far more outlandish for the Council to issue pronouncements on national or international issues that don't specifically concern Teaneck, but violations of campaign law also constitute an issue that is outside Council's jurisdiction.
Given the amount of ill feeling the Council appears to have generated in taking a perfectly justified action, it probably makes political sense for individual Council members who voted against the resolution to publicly voice their disapproval of dirty campaigning, but they absolutely do not owe an apology for attempting to keep the Council as a body focused on official business.
...violations of campaign law also constitute an issue that is outside Council's jurisdiction.
I've looked over the resolution, and nowhere does it urge the prosecutor or any other jurisdiction to take or refrain from action. The Advisory Board on Community Relations asked the Council to join in its own statement of moral dismay. I realize that this falls more into the "touchy-feely" category that raises the fur on your neck (and mine, too, sometimes), but outside "jurisdiction" has nothing to do with it..
...a perfectly justified action...
My first impulse was to correct you on "action," saying it was an "inaction." But you're right; it was an action. There had been discussion, and a vote was taken. In essence, the Council had already been "distracted by a non-binding resolution," to allude to your wording in the post that started this thread. A vote in the other direction would not have wasted another nanosecond of the council's valuable time "tackling" the "real issues."
No doubt you'll say that they established some kind of needed precedent, but I cannot envision any council refusing to consider a resolution submitted by an appointed Advisory Board, not even one that was appointed by a previous council.
...it probably makes political sense for individual Council members who voted against the resolution to publicly voice their disapproval of dirty campaigning...
Good idea. That's how Elie Katz handled his vote not to consider the Patriot Act resolution.
...but they absolutely do not owe an apology for attempting to keep the Council as a body focused on official business.
I for one am not demanding an apology. But what is the consistent principle used in determining the council's "offical business"?
As far as I can recall the eruv issue was due to comments made by someone very close to the TNB leadership, NOT the candidates or the voters opposed to them. When you equate the eruv to the posting of yard sale signs on utility poles, right or wrong, people draw their own conclusions. As many are aware, such postings are illegal in Teaneck. If anyone feels that yard sale postings are as important as tax stabilization and public safety perhaps it would be prudent to attend the next Township Council meeting to request a change. Please take responsibility for your comments and stop blaming others!
As far as I can recall the eruv issue was due to comments made by someone very close to the TNB leadership, NOT the candidates or the voters opposed to them.
I believe the close association was part of the rumor.
Frankly, although these anonymous mailed flyers may have been illegal according to NJ law, I rather suspect that the law itself is unconstitutional. In fact the U.S. Supreme court has ruled as such in 1995. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
The whole investigation is a joke and a waste of taxpayers money since no prosecution could possibly succeed or be upheld on appeal.
Post a Comment
<< Home