Tempest in a teapot
This week's Suburbanite devotes its cover story to a recent incident that appears to reflect poorly on the Council, or at least the majority of the Council. How's that for a surprise? Despite the controversy over the Council's vote against reappointing a resident to a statutory commission responsible for Historic New Bridge Landing Park, allegedly on account of said resident's opposition to the Council's plan to consider paving over a portion of Brett Park for use as a parking lot, this is hardly a case of injustice, bullying, or ill-treatment by the Council. At worst, the Council or the Township Manager is guilty of a lack of consideration in not promptly informing the resident of the Council's decision. The gnashing of teeth and dire warnings about a Council intolerant of dissent contained in the Suburbanite article are misplaced here. This is business as usual and it is a-okay.While it may seem as if a long serving and very dedicated volunteer was shunted aside because she did not pass a rather arbitrary and unfair litmus test, the truth is that the Council majority simply decided that a long serving and very dedicated volunteer did not represent its views or share its priorities. Should a widescale purge of existing advisory boards and commissions ensue, so be it. It is the prerogative of the Council to be represented and advised by those who share its views. Previous Councils packed boards and commissions with appointees that were kindred spirits and future ones will do the same. A politically savvy Council concerned about its future will tread lightly in doing this in order to avoid making too many enemies, but it will do this just the same.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:37 AM
18 Comments:
Again, it seems the council majority (along with the mayor) doesn't give a #$%* about correct procedure or handling people in a sensitive manner. While some may argue this is just one long-serving volunteer being replaced, what message does that send to the dozens of residents currently on council advisory boards or those who are thinking of volunteering for one? I for one would think twice about putting myself through the "interview" process with this new council... not very welcoming at all, or inclined to embrace different points of view. Just look at how they treat each other. I guess these particular "youth" have not had good upbringing to respect those whose considerable experience isn't valued anymore in Teaneck.
I don't disagree that the Council ought to take pains to treat people, especially volunteers, in the proper manner, but if that was the point of the story, it wouldn't have been worthy of a newspaper cover. The dissatisfaction here was with the fact that the reappointment was denied, and the Council cannot be faulted for seeking to fill vacancies with volunteers who support its agenda.
Whatever else one thinks, it seemed in poor taste for the town to advertise for the position in the same issue. A bit of salt in the wound?
some changes have taken place already.....other changes will follow....rumor mill has been very HOT this week concerning major reshuffling. we have run out of time.....certain musts have to happen 2007................
Anonymous, THese times they are a changin'
Not Always Easy ,But Very Important To Grow and For Progress To Really Happen.
Their not going to get their parking lot anyway.
This move was purely punitive and an another example of the squandering of their waning political capital.
Hey Swurgle-
What do you mean waning? Did YOU ever see them in a positive light? They are shunting the dead wood aside, as the majority of residents (who don't necessarily frequent meetings to try to keep progress from happening) want them to do. The 30 somethings have to do what the 60-80 somethings can't imagine doing.
Hey anonymous - I'm all in favor of thinking outside the box in order to ameliorate the town's fiscal problems, HOWEVER, I don't think that the local population breaks down along your binary system of:
old people = "dead wood" versus young people = "progress"
While many people (young and old) may consider themselves to be "pro-development" and would accept some amount of high density commercial development somewhere in Teaneck, I would venture to say that most people would oppose a high density commercial project in the direct vicinity of their single family house.
As for this parking lot in an ecologically and historically sensitive public park built to serve the economic interests of private business that's not even located in Teaneck, I don't see any 30-somethings picketing in front of the municipal building in support of the project.
This deal is dead. The public (including 30-somethings) doesn't support it because it's bad policy, it's a bad precedent, the financial deal has never really been spelled out so that people can understand what the town stands to gain, members of the council tried to rush it through the approval process (because they must've realized in their heart of hearts that it's a dog, and now members of the council are looking to punish an individual who has spent decades working in the public interest because she opposes the project.
anonymous said:
They are shunting the dead wood aside, as the majority of residents (who don't necessarily frequent meetings to try to keep progress from happening) want them to do.
Does Teaneck now have its very own silent majority? Good thing they have the anonymous to speak for them.
While I understand the concerns echoed in the previous posts, I must agree with Teaneck Blogger that "this is business as usual and it is a-okay." Appointing individuals to Boards and Commissions who share their views is how things get done. In a way, it is somewhat refreshing that the current Council is not as concerned with "making enemies" as it is with progress! This is NOT a popularity contest.
teaneck blog said... It is the prerogative of the Council to be represented and advised by those who share its views. Previous Councils packed boards and commissions with appointees that were kindred spirits and future ones will do the same.
True. That is exactly what happened when Loretta Weinberg and crew took over the Council in 1988. They cleaned house and put in their own people, some of whom now still serve on the Council and several boards. That's politics. Always has been and always will.
A creative historian said:
True. That is exactly what happened when Loretta Weinberg and crew took over the Council in 1988.
A list of Teaneck's Mayors, Chairmen, and Council Members (1895 - 2000) is available at the Teaneck Library site.
Loretta Weinberg was elected to the council in 1990 and served for four years. I believe the other members of the slate she ran on were defeated.
Well actually, Tom, while it's true that Ms. Weinberg wasn't elected until 1990 and that she was the only one on her 4-candidate slate who won election that year, it's not as if she didn't play a key role in the election of 1988.
There is no disputing that Ms. Weinberg was a top leader, if not THE top leader, of the Committee for Responsive Government (CRG), which ran a slate in 1988 that elected six out of seven council members. (That was the last time all council seats came up for election at the same.) The victorious CRG candidates included (in alphabetical order) PeterBower, CharlesGrady, FrankHall, LamarJones, LouSchwartz and RustineTilton. Only EleanorKieliszek did not run on the CRG ticket and was nevertheless elected.
(Yes, believe it or not, FrankHall and CharlesGrady, whom Weinberg & company shortly came to vilify, originally ran on their slate, as did LamarJones, who was also falling out of favor with that group at the time of his passing. Mr. Hall can tell you how Ms. Weinberg acted like she thought she was the council's boss, and she no doubt did exercise a good deal of influence with the other three CRG council members.)
I understand that after the 1988 election, the new council did make number of changes to the planning board, and perhaps also to the board of adjustment. Whether that particular council should serve as a "model" is another question altogether.
Of course, no council members from that period are still serving, and for that matter, no CRG/Weinberg supporters from that period are serving on the current council. That's just nonsense.
I've got more on the main subject of this blog entry, but I thought I'd get this out of the way first.
As long as terms are staggered so that institutional memory is retained(in other words you cannot replace an entire Board or Commision at once), I thank long term member of most commissions/boards should be rotated. My sense is that many of these panels have more applicants than seats and as a result, other town residents should be given a chance to contribute. No one should have "tenure" no matter how long/well they have served.
As to the politics of this particular decision, presumably this Town Council will be held accountable at the polls if it fails to deliver. If so, if you were on the Council, wouldn't you want panels staffed by people who agree with your goals. Isn't that why we let the Council pick these positions instead of opening them up to vote.
I think the Subrbanite article, if accurate, raises 3 problematic issues:
1. A town resident who volunteered a great deal of time was uncerimoniously dismissed - the manner of dismissal appears wrong regardless of the Council's right to do it.
2. The article makes it seem that Jackie Kates made commitments to the commission member based on her assumption that the Council would act as a rubber stamp - thereby making a bad situation worse.
3. I find this hard to believe (knowing Ms. Kates a bit), but the Suburbanite reported that Ms. Kates plans to vote against any candidate approved by the Council. This is certainly not the conduct I would have expected. Just because she is no longer surrounded by like a majority of like-minded people on the Board and lost a vote, does not give her the right to "take her ball home."
I just don't understand how most of you regard what is printed in the RECORD or SUBURBANITE the complete story! In almost every article I have read on Teaneck, there are always some salient points left out, or some "angle" that a reporter & editor decided to make that skewed the story to leave out certain facts. How can anyone come to conclusions on a topic by just relying on the press, and not knowing all the information on a subject?
A few points:
1. While The Suburbanite (and most papers, for that matter) is not above criticism, there seems to be a bit of messenger-shooting going on here. This controversy wasn’t exactly manufactured in the Suburbanite newsroom.
When one of the original commissioners of an 1l-year-old extra-municipal state park commission (a state agency, according to the township attorney) goes before the council herself to complain that she hadn’t been accorded her full rights under the Open Public Meetings Act, and when the commission at issue just happens to have a say in what can happen in an adjoining town park (considered a part of the Historic New Bridge Landing Park), and when a proposal for that adjoining town park is undeniably controversial (not mention legally dubious), this qualifies as Teaneck news.
I suppose one could argue that it would have been better to switch the position of this front-page story with the story that appeared on page 2 (about the parking lot). But dismissing it as a “tempest in a teapot,” as if the issue barely deserved the paper’s attention, is simply wrong-headed. TEAneck is a TEApot, and this tempest whistles.
2. Interestingly, The Suburbanite did NOT mention the proposed Brett Park parking lot in its article. It quotes Ms. Loft as saying that during a closed council session, she was asked her opinion about a proposed condo development on the site of the tractor shop. I don’t know why Councilwoman Kates asked her that question, but that particular development doesn’t appear to fall within the Commission’s purview. The Blogger may be right that the reason for Ms. Loft not being reappointed is “on account of said resident's opposition to the Council's plan to consider paving over a portion of Brett Park for use as a parking lot,” but that’s not what The Suburbanite “alleged.”
3. The Historic New Bridge Landing Park Commission (established by an act of the state legislature) is not like any other township commission, statutory board or advisory board. It is an extra-municipal, state commission to which Teaneck, along with New Milford and River Edge, contributes two commissioners (I believe the chair also happens to be from Teaneck).
According to the Bergen County Historical Society website, ”The purpose of the Commission is to unify and coordinate governmental and private efforts not only to preserve the three Bergen Dutch sandstone houses and their unique cultural contents, presently standing on the Revolutionary War battleground at New Bridge, but also to develop the necessary visitor facilities and amenities commensurate with the significance of the site, its importance to Bergen County and the promotion of public enjoyment and appreciation for the lessons of history.”
Ordinarily, the actions and decisions of this body would not have much bearing on the policies of Teaneck (other than make sure it doesn’t do anything illegal and/or stupid in relation to the parkland the Commission oversees). Regardless of how political one thinks the council can or should be in making appointments to the planning board, board of adjustment, or other all-Teaneck boards, it seems to me that political considerations in appointing Teaneck commissioners to this multi-municipal board should be kept to a minimum.
4.So how political can and should the council normally be in appointing members to its statutory boards and commissions? It would appear that they CAN be as political as they want. But it would be in their interest as well as the public’s to make sure that its deliberative bodies have sufficiently differing points of view to make thorough deliberation possible. Having some diversity of opinion is a check on recklessness -- and unfortunately, this little episode tends to bring that point into high definition.
Well put. Perhaps I overstated the case by suggesting the story wasn't newsworthy. My main point was that I didn't find the upshot of the story very troubling in the grand scheme of things. Did the Council clumsily tick people off for no good reason? Quite possibly so. Is this a page one scandal? Not really.
Jeff:
"it seems to me that political considerations in appointing Teaneck commissioners to this multi-municipal board should be kept to a minimum."
I think that if someone is representing Teaneck in a multi-town discussion, the Council would have a greater interest in making sure that the representative of Teaneck represented the majority opinion of members of the Council.
In an intra-Teaneck commission, each member is voicing their opinion. On this commission they are representing Teaneck. You may agree or disagree with the Council's positions, but until they are voted out of office their majority view is the "Teaneck position."
Post a Comment
<< Home