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.