The letter, but not the spirit, of nonpartisanship
On the eve of Election Day, there is word that three Teaneck Council members are actively campaigning for a particular party, having written letters to many Teaneck households endorsing the Democratic slate for County Executive, Surrogate, and Board of Freeholders. I have obtained a letter mailed out to an unknown number of Teaneck households by Mayor Elie Katz and Council members Gussen and Rudolph urging their constituents to cast votes for Dennis McNerney and his fellow Democratic candidates. The letter refers to McNerney as one of the "great people" the three have met in the course of public life and lauds McNerney as a "friend of all the communities of Teaneck" who has offered "continuous support for our town."
Whatever the background to this letter, it seems to represent an extraordinary lapse in judgment on the part of the three Council members. They have foolishly politicized their offices and undermined the spirit of nonpartisan trust that has always set Teaneck apart form neighboring communities whose local affairs are permeated by the stench of Bergen County partisan politics. Katz, beloved in so many quarters of the community, has chosen to spend his considerable political capital for the benefit of outsiders. And Gussen and Rudolph, already under suspicion of being involved with the much reviled Democratic Party machine for the benefits they allegedly received from what was presumed to be Ferriero-sponsored campaign literature late in the Council campaign, have now left little doubt as to where their allegiance lies. Sure they refrained from making any mention of the Democratic Party in the letter, but they endorsed every single member of the ticket, including the Freeholder candidates that are widely viewed as tools of the party machine. What were they thinking?
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 5:53 PM
44 Comments:
"They have foolishly politicized their offices and undermined the spirit of nonpartisan trust that has always set Teaneck apart form neighboring communities whose local affairs are permeated by the stench of Bergen County partisan politics."
There is probably some vast history of which I am ignorant, so I'll ask - what is so terrible about "partisan politics." Put another way, how has a "non-partisan" government helped make Teaneck a better run town.
Teaneck is already pretty divided along several lines - why would the addition of Democrat and Republican make a difference.
For my own explanation of why Teaneck ought to cling steadfastly to its non-partisan system, see here.
The point, however, is not whether the system itself is good or bad, though I believe it is good for Teaneck overall. In this case, three officials serving in a strictly non-partisan system wrote a letter to constituents that is covertly, if not overtly, partisan. This could certainly be perceived as a breach of trust, as Teaneck voters have elected these local representatives without party affiliations so that they would owe no loyalty to outside political parties. Now they have turned around and called that into question, and that automatically raises the question of why they would do such a thing.
Whatever the background to this letter, it seems to represent an extraordinary lapse in judgment on the part of the three Council members. They have foolishly politicized their offices and undermined the spirit of nonpartisan trust that has always set Teaneck apart form neighboring communities whose local affairs are permeated by the stench of Bergen County partisan politics.
Practically every Democratic-aligned Councilmember in recent years has done the same thing (Kates, Honis, Veach, etc.) in recent years. The only reason we don't see that happening this year with the other Democratic Councilmembers (Kates, Honis, Parker and Feit) is that our State Senator has not given them the green light to do so.
In the spirit of diversity, I think there should be some undeclared voters and republicans on council
The saddest one of the three is Elie Katz, who by his actions seems to have abandoned the non-partisan stance he has embraced so fervently in the past. Yes, individual council members have endorsed other candidates, but usually for other township non-partisan offices, not for county, state or federal offices. The problem with the three endorsing the Democratic ticket is not their desire to support it (although I really question their judgement in being such cheerleaders for the county Democratic "pay-to-play" machine) but that they identified themselves by their offices in the mailing. In the past, officeholders were scrupulous in saying they would endorse a candidate only if they were identified by name only, and not by the elective office they held. For instance, Paul Ostrow always endorsed candidates as himself, not as "Mayor Paul Ostrow". It's an important distinction in the minds of many Teaneck residents.
Anonymous 10:43 I just read the letter, and no place in the letter does it say Mayor or Councilman.
Yes, it should be noted that the letter made only oblique reference to the fact that the three were elected officials themselves and did not use any titles or official stationary. This was clearly deliberate, and it is why I gave the post the title I did.
However, it was still a mistake to have the letter come only from the three of them, as the only way at least two of the three are known to residents is through their elected positions. If they had to get mixed up in this, they would have been well-advised to sign on to a letter from a larger group of people instead of one which was clearly exploiting their Council seats to lobby residents.
I received the letter and due to the specific mention of McNerney's role in providing security for Jewish institutions, I wondered whether it was targeted to people with Jewish-sounding surnames.
If so, it will be interesting to see whether Katz's lending his immense political capital will pay off for the dems in an increase in support from the orthodox community.
Anonymous (10:43PM) said...
The saddest one of the three is Elie Katz, who by his actions seems to have abandoned the non-partisan stance he has embraced so fervently in the past. Yes, individual council members have endorsed other candidates, but usually for other township non-partisan offices, not for county, state or federal offices.
1. Katz never embraced anything, certainly not non-partisanship, fervently.
2. Other council members, especially Kates, Honis, Veach and Parker, have always endorsed county, state and federal (Democratic) candidates. As they should, as partisan Democrats.
swurgle said...
...it will be interesting to see whether Katz's lending his immense political capital will pay off for the dems in an increase in support from the orthodox community.
What "immense political capital" would that be?
Those who are either defending this or dismissing it as insignificant are claiming that it is business as usual, as other Council members have done the same in the past years. I personally have no recollection of township officials endorsing county political tickets in the past, but I will take others at their word that it has happened before.
This still leaves a number of important questions unanswered. Does that make it right? Is this sort of behavior consistent with Teaneck's non-partisan system of government? Does it have anything to do with what is good for Teaneck, or have the individuals in question attempted to wield their influence for personal gain?
It's really a shame that an endorsement goes out to a select community, and then misrepresents the larger segments of the town. If McNerney "great", let's all celebrate in his greatness.
Please tell me what McNerney has done for officials of Teaneck to refer to him as one of the "great people"?
How is McNerney a "friend of all the communities of Teaneck"?
What communities have benefited financially from McNerney?
Who was the select community that received this endorsement?
Why did't everyone receive the endorsement if McNerney was a "friend of all the communities of Teaneck"?
SO WHAT ARE YOU SAYING....
THAT FORMER MAYOR KATES IS OUT OF LINE BECAUSE SHE IS ON SEN. WEINBERGS PAYROLL. I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM HERE. DO YOU ??????
BESIDES LETS BE HONEST...TEANECK IS NOT NONPARTISAN-----THERE IS THE
LORETTA DEMS AND THE REAL DEMS,LOOKS LIKE 2 PARTIES TO ME, HOW ABOUT TO YOU !!!!!
SO WHAT ARE YOU SAYING....
THAT FORMER MAYOR KATES IS OUT OF LINE BECAUSE SHE IS ON SEN. WEINBERGS PAYROLL. I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM HERE. DO YOU ??????
BESIDES LETS BE HONEST...TEANECK IS NOT NONPARTISAN-----THERE IS THE
LORETTA DEMS AND THE REAL DEMS,LOOKS LIKE 2 PARTIES TO ME, HOW ABOUT TO YOU !!!!!
Teaneck Blog, I agree with many of your observations on this blog, but the link you provide to your May posting on partisan politics leaves me unconvinced.
I think all politics is partisan and it is a question of how overt. I assume that most of our Council members are registered members of one party or the other and their approach to government reflects, at least in part, their party affiliation.
Again, how has this (at least formal) spirit of "non-partisanship" helped make Teaneck a better governed town?
On the other hand, I wonder (don't claim to know the answer on this) whether our formal non-partisan position has put us below the radar of both parties and might explain why we see little in state aid coming back.
8:40 Blogger, I believe you are correct. The township's formal non-partisan position has not helped us in Trenton. I applaud Mayor Katz, Councilman Rudolph and Councilman Gussen for taking action in this election. I don't see this as a "breach of trust". I bell that this will have a positive effect on on Teaneck. Teaneck blogger, did you ever stop to think that this "loyalty" might be directed TOWARDS Teaneck now.
Let's show our gratitude towards Deputy Mayor Parker(along with Councilmen Gussen & Rudolph) for her tireless efforts to send a message to county and state officials that Teaneck will not be forgotten. For the past several days I have observed Ms Parker outside the Teaneck Democratic Office on Cedar Lane with Senator Weinberg.
It's great that 3 of our newly elected Council members and our Mayor are stomping for County & State Officials.
Hopefully, this will be the end of Teaneck being forgotten on the County & State levels.
AMEN
Does anyone know for a fact that former Mayor Kates is on Senator Weinberg's payroll. If there is any truth to this, do any bloggers perceive this as a 'breach of trust' towards either Mrs. Kates or Mrs. Weinberg???
So you're pleased that our politicians have decided to "pay to play" so to speak- in exchange for a select group of our Council members attempting to gather votes for outside officials, we the residents of Teaneck will see some sort of payoff... Well, I suppose it's a good thing they backed the right horse this time.
Make no mistake about it, whatever bones get thrown to us from Hackensack or Trenton now will not make up for the corrosive influence on local affairs from owing fealty to McNerney and will help us not a bit should the administration change again in the future.
I believe Mrs. Kates is on the payroll of State Rep. Valerie Huttle as her legislative aide, and NOT Sen. Weinberg's staff.
O thats o.k. then.....
Anonymous said...
I believe Mrs. Kates is on the payroll of State Rep. Valerie Huttle as her legislative aide, and NOT Sen. Weinberg's staff.
Same office.
Teaneck Blog, your postings on this subject are really pretty out of line with your general fact- based approach in most other threads.
"corrosive influence on local affairs from owing fealty to McNerney" What exactly would this "corrosive influence" be? It's time you started listing specifics, to this point your argument has been high on scary words and low on content.
As to the "backing the wrong horse" argument, I think you missed the point. I think many of our Council members have and have had party loyalties - this is not a bad thing given the fact that the 2 party system does seem to govern politics outside of that special place known as Teaneck.
If I knew the loyalties of council members I could factor in the likely winners at the county and state level as ONE of the factors in my decision. In other words, if I felt that McNerney and other Democrats were likely to win, the fact that they are likely to be more responsive to Democratic Council members would be ONE factor (by far not the only factor)in my evaluation of Council candidates.
I think that a formally "non-partisan" council only makes this subject more opaque - the political dancing takes place anyway - I just favor transparency.
I have no issue at all with an individual councilman supporting a political candidate. Mayor Katz has worked with the democrats for years so Theres No problem with Mayor Katzes name on the letter. I don't see any problem at all with a councilwoman working for Loretta.
But Gussen and Rudolph know nothing about local politics and their names on the letter smells like payback for the tens of thousands of tainted money from Joe Ferrero that went to their campaign through Gonzalez. Political payback for this endorsment is thru ads in the phony Insider newspaper and in political appointments for Yitz Stern and his yutzes on the council. BirdsAll is a part of the Ferrero machine and hiring them will help bring big Teaneck $$$$ to the machine and back into campaign contributions for these three down the road.
The stench of Bergen County partisan politics was all over that letter.
8:40blogger-
I do not deny that as individuals, Council members may possess certain party affiliations. Might it even be helpful for voters to be conscious of those party affiliations when they choose among Council candidates? Sure, in the sense that it may make it easier for voters to choose among candidates without having to really know what the individuals stand for (so-and-so is a Democrat, I generally support the things that Democrats claim to stand for, ergo I should vote for so-and-so).
Is this genuinely helpful to the political process or Teaneck as a whole? No. Partisan politics generally impede progress by creating incentives for politicians to exhibit party loyalty rather than to vote their conscience in doing what is best for Teaneck.
While strong political parties might be necessary for practical reasons on the state or national level, there is no reason to believe that bringing it down to the micro levels of municipal management brings any benefits to the Township, other than the sorts of political patronage that are neither long term solutions to structural problems nor at all dependable (for example, if our Council members' support for McNerney wins us a one-off county grant or gets a county facility built in town, the benefits are fleeting and the band-aid type solution does nothing but distract our government from addressing root problems). Furthermore, partisan politics encourage candidates to jostle for control of the organization instead of focusing on the issues, as the surest route to re-election becomes securing party endorsements and campaign funding rather than performing well in one's elected role. We do not need to introduce this into Teaneck.
The Grandmas in Teaneck politics were likely home sleeping last night while the rest of our leaders were out partying (LOBBYING
for TEANECK). Thank You
They weren't out LOBBYING for TEANECK. They were out lobbying for themselves. They were out partying and grabbing at the scraps the Ferriero machine will throw their way in jobs and contributions.
Jobs for political hacks and nothing for Teaneck.
Leaving aside Monica Honis and Lizette Parker, both of whom were chairs of the Teaneck Democratic Municipal Organization at the same time they ran for council, fairness still requires us to acknowledge that other more ostensible adherents of non-partisan government have also endorsed candidates in partisan elections.
In 2003 Jackie Kates, Elie Katz and Deborah Veach jointly signed a letter urging the re-election of Loretta Weinberg and Gordon Johnson to the NJ Assembly. I wasn't happy about that -- especially having worked on the 2002 council campaign for Katz, Ostrow, Stern and Gallucci, a campaign that made non-partisanship the issue. However, I did have to ask myself whether my unhappiness had more to do with one of the candidates than the principle of non-partisanship. If they had endorsed someone like Matthew Feldman, for instance, would I still have been unhappy?
The conclusion I reached then is not unlike what the Teaneck Blogger said in another discussion:
While Teaneck rightly adheres to a non-partisan system of government, there is no requirement that the individuals elected to serve be free of any party affiliation in their personal or professional lives.
I do think the point the Blogger makes about it being better for Teaneck public officials to lend their names to larger lists of citizens is well taken. Even if the three council members in this recent letter, as well as the letter of three years ago, didn’t identify themselves as such, it would be hard for anyone who knows about their elected office to ignore it.
There is, however, another important distinction to be made: I think it is far more a violation of the spirit of non-partisanship for non-partisan candidates to solicit or accept partisan support (particularly financial support) than it is for non-partisan officeholders to give support in the form of personal endorsements.
Of course, those who give support often do so because they received it. Having worked on Elie Katz’s campaign last spring, I don’t think that was the case with him. But I do think he should be careful going forward.
Keeping Mr. Ferriero’s machine at arms length should be a major concern for Teaneck. Especially if we are going to pursue a pro-development agenda.
Very true, Jeff -- and a balanced response to this tough issue.
The biggest question is why have Gussen and Rudolph sign on to this letter. They have no background or credibility in county or local politics that would amount to anything.
The fact that their there, and that the letters were addressed at Rudolphs house, should raise questions about whose behind this whole thing.
Gussen and Rudolph got big bucks from Ferriero and a mailing like this is a nice way to say thanks for the thousands in cash sent their way. Birdsall was another nice thank you very much from Team Rudy to Team Ferriero.
In returnrn, look for this group to get money for their pseudo newpapser "The Inciter" and to get a nice cushy job or two out of the deal.
In return for the newspaper funding and the cushy jobs the democrat machine will.... who knows, but the cycle will continue again over and over.
The democrats machine gets more money and sinks their tentacles deeper into Teaneck's development pot o' gold. Our new council memebers get low skill high paying jobs for themselves from the county and a steady pipeline of campaign funds.
Teaneck gets... screwed.
To anonymous of 4:52:
How do you know who is behind the Bergen Insider? I'm sure we'd all like to know.
Even the mob and the cops have somewhat of a working relationship.
the expression about keeping your friends close and your enemy closer does have some logic. For this town government to get its fair share for TEANECK we must keep all doors open.
Furthermore we need our reps in Trenton to fight for us in the State House instead of constantly meddling in local issues.
I think when Sen Weinberg
leaves Trenton she will try to retire to Teaneck Town Council,it seems that is where her heart still remains.(not a bad thing)
It looks like a decent number of Council members already seem to have some pretty solid party links - what is the downside of bringing that out in the open. I think the postings on this thread demonstrate that we are non-partisan in name only. Candidates who are true independents could run as such and the voters of Teaneck could decide how much they value "non-partisanship" v. the potential of greater links to county and state politicians who might increase support of Teaneck.
8;40 comlete agreement
8:40blogger-
Suppose we agree to disagree about whether Teaneck politics ought to be non-partisan. Given that there already exists, at the very least, tacit agreement in Teaneck that outward displays of partisanship are unacceptable, the community standards have still been violated in this instance. Furthermore, the willingness of the Council members to do this raises questions about what their motives were. You have made it clear that you see this incident as inconsequential because you find Teaneck's avoidance of party politics to be unnecessary, but this does nothing to justify unilateral actions that subvert the non-partisan status quo nor does it explain why the three Council members got mixed up in this.
What is the source of this "tacit agreement" and how can we rescind it? On what basis do you believe that it has wide support? Further, I don't think the "status quo" of Teaneck has been such an amazing success at governing that it is beyond questioning.
Finally, it does not speak well of our community if its standards are that you can have partisan beliefs as along as you do not share them in public. I for one would like to know as much as possible about what goes into my elected officials' decision making. The status quo, as you describe it, forces me to guess at the motivations of my elected officials and seems designed to feed the Oliver Stone-like conspiracy theories that appear in multiple posts in this blog.
"Furthermore, the willingness of the Council members to do this raises questions about what their motives were."
Teaneck Blog - it does not raise questions, it eliminates them. I now understand that their actions have to be viewed in light of the possibility that they may be seeking favor in the Democratic party. That is the beauty of full disclosure.
So in essence, you are agreeing that these Council members have exposed themselves as partisans who seek to curry favor with the local Democratic party machine, and you are saying that this is a good thing because now you can go into the next election with your eyes wide open? OK, I can accept that. In fact, I agree that from that standpoint, we as voters now have a better understanding about what is going on behind the scenes and can incorporate that into our future decision process.
I am just taking this a step further and suggesting that from their perspective, no matter what secret ambitions and loyalties they have harbored up to now, the three Council members have blundered in doing this, and to the extent that they have now opened the doors to greater meddling from the county political parties in Teaneck, it is a negative development. While you seem to feel that having this stuff out in the open is better than having it going on behind the scenes, I think that having a stigma attached to it has worked up to now to restrain open warfare and that this has helped keep Teaneck politics more civil, more open to participation from unaffiliated and unselfish citizens, and perhaps more clean up to now. As I said, we can agree to disagree, although I think if you took a peek at the conduct of local affairs in some of our neighboring municipalities you might start seeing things more my way.
in the third posting commentit is said that Feit KATES PARKER AND HONIS DID NOT DO A LOT OF CAMPAIGING ETC BECAUSE SEN WEINBERG DID NOT ENCOURAGE THIS.I BELEIVE THIS TO BE A FALSE
MR FEIT DOES NOT TAKE ORDERS FROM ANYONE
Let a genuine "non-partisan" slate (not a "partisan, but we don't say it loudly" slate) run against Republican and Deocratics slates and let the voters decide how much they value non-aprtisanship - but don't create an environment where you set up a communcal value of keeping your partisan preferences hidden in the name of "civil discourse."
As to keeping "Teaneck politics more civil, more open to participation from unaffiliated and unselfish citizens," I am beginning to feel that you equate party affiliation with rancor and the promotion of selfish career aspirations. In doing so, I believe that you are unfairly taring with a very wide brush many dedicated public servants at all levels of government throughout our country.
Blogger--for the benefit of those of us who did not receive this letter, if it's not too much trouble, would it be possible to scan it (assuming you have a scanner) and upload it?
This discussion brings to mind a famous quote attributed to the somewhat legendary New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, a New Deal Republican who was elected in 1934 on an anti-corruption fusion ticket (Wikipedia). I believe his quote goes something like, "There is no Democratic or Republican way to fill a pothole."
This I think is the nutshell argument for professional non-partisan local government. It's not a guarantee against corruption, but it's more likely to keep the Ferrieros of this world out of our potholes, so maybe they can be filled the right way -- with our our taxpayers in mind and fundamental fairness in how we choose the people who will fill them.
As a reaction to shady dealings on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, Teaneck abolished partisan government in 1930 and brought in professional management overseen by a non-partisan council. Since that time, our non-partisan system has been the agreed-upon social contract in Teaneck.
8:40blogger, I don't know if you were living in Teaneck in 2002, just four years ago. If you were, you cannot possibly be unaware of the council election that year. Both the chair and vice chair of the Teaneck Democratic Muncipal Organization were candidates, and the chair was soliciting outside party support for their election. In response, the incumbents -- Paul Ostrow, Michael Gallucci*, Elie Katz and Yitz Stern -- turned the election largely into a referendum on the preservation of non-partisan government. They came in first, second, third and fourth, respectively.
Yes, I am sure there were other reasons why they were elected. But to the extent that any election confers a mandate for any single issue, this election was a mandate for continued non-partisan government, both in letter and spirit.
About the "transparency" this recent endorsement letter supposedly exemplifies: Do you really think that everything is out in the open now?
________________________________
* For anyone who may have wondered, former councilman Michael Gallucci is not the person by the same name who wants to develop a parcel near Fort Lee Road, a project in which Dennis McNerney decided to involve himself as well as some county resources. Mr. Gallucci is the cousin of the prospective developer but is not involved in the project.
Have lived in Teaneck for much longer than 4 years. Lived through the 2002 elections, consider myself reasonably well informed and the partisanship issue blew right past me. Among my probably equally ignorant friends, no one seem to talk about this issue (I know, an unscientific survey, that proves little).
As to the letter, I think it exposes nothing more than Katz and 2 other Councilmen support Dennis McNerney and other Democrats. Does this mean that they voted for Menendez - I don't know. However, to those who view partisanship as some intrinsic evil, wouldn't you want to know as much as possible about your representatives' political views and activities.
For those of you Animal House fans in the audience "Knowledge is Good."
MR FEIT DOES NOT TAKE ORDERS FROM ANYONE
Doubtful.
In closing, why else endorse a candidate or party except to kiss ass...
Post a Comment
<< Home