Irony
The bitter argument over whether the Council should have authorized $10,000 to pay for an audit of the school budget has taken an ironic turn. As it turns out, the Record reports, paying the audit firm the fee they earned for producing the controversial report would be a violation of Teaneck's pay-to-play ordinance.
Though small in magnitude, this expense was among the most controversial and headline grabbing outlays of the past few years, and support or opposition to it came to define candidates standing for election to the Council this year. Later on, the report proved a useful tool in the Council's deliberations over its recommended adjustments to the defeated school budget and was referenced repeatedly even by its detractors.
Yet throughout the entire period during which the report was in the spotlight, nobody in a position of importance seemed aware of the technicality that might have mooted the whole issue. It's somewhat amusing and also somewhat alarming.
5 Comments:
I think that Laura Zucker actually mentioned this problem at one of the candidate forums. Why wasn't the council attorney on top of this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
No one may have seemed aware, but in actuality, the township attorney, the council members and the auditor were fully aware of the problem.
OK, I realize there is a serious legal issue here. However, this $10k was very well spent. Let The Record do a full expose on how Teaneck ended up paying $230k salary + benefits to the new Superintendent. I mean SHE wouldn't have accepted $200k during this Great Recession???
Considering she had a job where she was being paid more than $230K and took a pay cut to come to Teaneck, it seems unlikely that she would have accepted $200K.
Post a Comment
<< Home