Based on the intensity with which people debate the subtle nuances of the town's signage policies, I would venture to predict that this next Council election is going to be a lively affair. Someone recently expressed a concern to me that if (and this is purely hypothetical) any of the contributors to this blog were to run for office, that this blog might turn into a campaign vehicle rather than a (relatively) unbiased community forum. So, in the spirit of that special brand of nonpartisanship for which Teaneck has always been famous, and to provide an opportunity for a robust debate in which we might actually learn something of substance about where the candidates stand on the issues and how they might handle the challenges that confront the town, I propose that, once the petitions have been filed and certified, all candidate running for Council are welcome to join as contributors to this blog during the campaign season, and while I'm at it, let me also apologize for this tedious run-on sentence.
The goal of offering access to this forum is to provide all candidates an equal forum to describe their approaches to governance and to outline their policy proposals in more depth than is possible using the traditional campaign methods and to provide the public with an opportunity to pose questions directly to the candidates, at their convenience.
Like most of my ideas, this one is not fully baked, and I reserve the right to revise, rethink or rescind it. I'd like to get a better sense though of the possible downsides of having candidates post threads on this blog. So let me know.
96 comments:
For the past few years, those who have attended and watched council meetings have been forced to deduce member's opinions on major issues based on the intonations in their reciting the words "yes" or "no", and in the length of the thoughtful pauses before casting a vote.
The problem is not that we should be hearing from council candidates in the weeks before a vote. The bigger issue is that we should be hearing from councilmembers throughout all four years of service as to what their plans are, where they stand on major issues and why they have taken particular positions on the many problems that face our Township.
When the 2009 budget was finally approved, after one of the most contentious public issues in decades, we heard almost no explanation of why members cast their votes as they did, what alternatives might have been considered or where this leaves us for next year's budget and those in the years ahead.
While members of the public do take the opportunity to speak to the Council about issues of importance during the good and welfare portion of meetings, most statements receive no response from any councilmember. While there are limitations on what can be disclosed, there is ample room for the flow of ideas from the Council to the public and we should be hearing this at council meetings as well as in a forum such as this one, where there can be a genuine exchange (or at least a vague semblance thereof based on past experience) between the electorate and the elected.
Why wait until May of next year? Why can't we approach all serving members to invite them to share their thoughts and opinions in addition to those who formally toss their hat into the ring almost a year from now?
Alan Sohn
Alan makes sense...many on prior councils showed you what they were about throughout their four years of service.
Forget these seven... bring back Yitz, Jacque and Paul.
Notice no one evers says ALAN
Alan's right. Why not open the blog up Council members who want to start threads or explain their positions? Any council member interested in participating should email me at swurgle-blog@yahoo.com and I'll get you set up.
Some council members don't have the abilty to explain their positions.
A campaign blog can only be effective and democratic if everyone who posts a comment identifies him or herself. Anonymity has no place in a decent, open, honest campaign. Even now, 10 months before the next election, some anonymous emails, flyers. etc. with outright lies and slanderous statments about individuals have been circulated. There are so many intelligent, talented, upstanding people in Teaneck who would be excellent Council members, but who simply don't want to expose themselves and their families to the attacks those of us who have run, served, or serve now are subject to.
Alan, you are a friend, and someone I admire (as you and others know since I invited you help with some analyses when I ran for Council). I would love to see not just your analyses or "complaints, but also your clear recommendations for implementation. Implementation is where we all tend to get bogged down.
Again -- my main point -- if we have a campaign blog: No anonymous postings, please.
Why not write to all seven and INVITE them to particpate?
I can't belive I am agreeing with Barbara Toffler on so many levels. Yes, I think that all comments should be identified, and after spending most of my life in politics in another town in New York, I was truly looking forward to getting involved here. I was very active on a number of council committees and for awhile even held a council position. Every public position leaves those who hold it up to the town's scrutiny, but I can take criticism and it never mattered.
I never believe in jumping into anything. I was going to take 2 years of living here and watching to see how things are done here. Well now after 7 years, between all of the flyers, phone calls and outright nastiness that I have experienced here in Teaneck with regard to politics, I would never subject myself or my family to any of that. I have NEVER seen such dirt on a local level. I feel much better that I really made a difference in this other town, but here? No way. Maybe its the advance of the internet or maybe people in Teaneck have too much time on their hands to come up with these nasty flyers etc but, hey, not me. My hat is off to all of you who serve here. I have a tough skin but you have to be a reptile to be in politics here in Teaneck.
Nice call Lola! Politics in this Town is a no-win.
I feel a huge problem occurs when Council has "closed door" meetings where things get hashed out and then no explanation follows. The justification that the topics are sensitive or involve employees just does not sit right with me. Transparency is what I look for and I think it starts at every level.
From the staff, to the Manager and ultimtely to the Council, if everyone knows what is going on there are fewer surprises and then less knee jerk over-reactions. I cannot tell you how many times I have received panicked telephone calls over rumors that are simply not factual.
Parkieman, by state law and civil service regulations council legally cannot discuss personnel issues in public, unless the party or parties involved request that they be discussed in public. Doing so could bring on a lawsuit.
As for rumors, you will always have them, particularly among those whose self-absorption far surpasses their inclination to actually learn what the facts are.
anon-I certainly understand the rules about personnel issues, my point is "what about everything else?!!" So much goes on behind closed doors, and mouths.
Unfortunately, when a Councilperson does open their mouths they are quickly criticized.
Communication at every level needs to improve. BTW the lawsuits happened anyway, clearly the system needs improving.I do not claim to have the answers, I only know that certainly when concerned citizens struggle to get information, something is definitely wrong.
In this era of rapid communication ordinance information, planning board and board of adjustment information should be online and contemporaneous.
The council must meet in closed meetings when the topics involve personel, (unless all parties agree to open meeting), litagation and lawsuits, pending and current, contracts and certain labor negotiations with unions.
Parkieman -
Can you give some examples of topics discussed behind closed doors under unneccesary circumstances? Are you making an assumption or do you have some facts?
It would be easier to agree or disagree with your assertions if there was more information.
TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR
but do what i think is "best"
her nu campaign slogan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/nyregion/18nypd.html?hp
this is the same barbra commenting that herself sent out nasty mailers about another candidate. If she wasnt so full of it we can believe a word she says.
anon 1121
The important point is transaparency. Post the pending ordinances in advance. That would be a great start.
As we go forward in this campaign, it is critical to distinguish between communications that tell lies, and communications that tell unpleasant truths (particularly refuting lies that others say). I certainly don't want to get into an argument with an anonymous writer (no decency or fairness there) -- but my campaign communications, whether you liked them or not, told the truth. The flyers, emails and letters being distributed already in anticipation of next years' campaign are LIES. The first step everyone who cares about Teaneck, its culture, its honest elections and democracy, must take is to distinguish TRUTH from LIES. Again, communicating unpleasant truths is important so that candidates don't deceive the voters -- telling lies about other candidates to harm them is despicable and destroys democratic process.
Alan -
Many, many of us hope that you will continue to attend Council meetings for many, many years to come.
As an audience member.
Are the four women in the picture the same ones as those on the Council?
Won't the health dept. have a problem with someone selling baked goods from an uninspected private residence?
Are the cakes kosher?
Barbra, why dont you explain to us why you voted for the manager and then wanted to take back your vote.
its all about lack of ethics
lol lol lol lol
I would love to hear Ms Hoenis reason for her NO vote on the budget. Perhaps she did not understand it !!!!
I'd be delighted to respond to anonymous who spells my name wrong! It's spelled: Barbara. I believe I explained my concern about the process at the Council meeting at which I made my statement. The Council went through a procedure that caused me great concern -- and that should concern residents of Teaneck as well. It does not reflect poorly on the new Manager; it reflects poorly on the Councilmembers. Let me see if I can explain it again, so you and others will understand. But, I ask in return, that the particular anonymous contributer who seems out to play "gotcha" with me, refrain from nasty response. The reason I participate in this blog is to try to enter FACTS into discussions that seem driven by rumors. A blog can be a wonderful opportunity to share information (like explaining the sign ordinance, or the difference between spot zoning and a variance, etc., or giving accurate information about candidates, budgets, etc).
1. From the start of our search process, I was uncomfortable with our procedure. Adam Gussen, Monica Honis and I were the search subcommittee. We agreed that we would not even consider a candidate who had not been a municipal manager or borough administrator.
2. There was strong support in the community for Mr. Broughton (who had been neither a manager or administrator). So we included him in our candidates for interview, violating our own criteria. Several Councilmembers met with Mr. Broughton before we started the search process. We should not have done so. We met with no others. By doing so we altered the level playing field that all candidates expected to experience. We had an "inside candidate" who was treated differently than all other candidates.If we had really been committed to our criteria, Mr. Broughton would not have been invited to interview.
2. We put all our candidates through a rigorous questionnaire, interview, role play process, knowing that barring something extraordinary, the "inside" candidate would be selected. That was unfair to other candidates -- and embarrassing to Teaneck in the community of state municipal mangers.
3. Worst of all, from my perspective, is that one Councilmember missed 3 first interviews, yet "voted" on all the candidates, and another Councilmember participated in 2 first interviews by phone, left in the middle of another first interview, and missed another first interview, yet voted on all the candidates. I do not understand, and will never understand, how a Councilmember can legitimately vote on an interviewee he has never met or interviewed, unless he is is declaring that he has made his choice and the process is a sham.
4. Finally, at the final 3rd interview of the final 2candidates, the Councilmembers who came to lunch with Mr. Broughton (with the exception of me), did not come to lunch with the second candidate. Two other Councilmembers came by for a few minutes.
5. As well, when Councilmembers were meeting for lunch with Mr. Broughton a photographer from the Suburbanite "happened" to show up to record the meeting. (No photo was taken).
All of this troubled me very much, but since 4 of my colleagues were committed to vote for Mr. Broughton, I thought it important to support that majority. I believed the town should feel that there was full support for the new Manager.
However, as I thought about what we had done, I became increasingly upset, feeling that we had treated all of our candidates -- including our ultimate chosen manger -- in a manner that was not rsponsible or (I use this word a lot) decent.
I am sorry if some residents feel that thinking something through, and subsequently changing a decision for a legitimate reasons makes you a target for ridicule. .
It appears that you followed your pattern.... Time for another book.
You get use to a certain lifestyle.
Sound familiar!
Dr. Toffler's allegations are troubling. I wonder if any of the other Council members are willing to discuss how the process was carried out?
She was one third of the search committee. She should be impeached based on her own comments
But, I ask in return, that the particular anonymous contributor who seems out to play "gotcha" with me, refrain from nasty response.
Wishful thinking. As long as the blog administrators continue to encourage this behavior by allowing it to stand it will continue.
Councilwoman Toffler,
I'm very troubled first by what was reported at the council meeting and reiterated again here by you. I am just as troubled if not moreso than you are. All of it bothers me, but I am remembering back to before the last election, during the election and in the beginning of your current term Counciilwoman Toffler, you struck me as a tough cookie. I didn't and don't agree with you on many things, and some of your behavior and comments I find flat out rude, but you are our representative. If the process you explained is correct and you reported it 100% correctly I am very troubled.
As a side show, you said, "All of this troubled me very much, but since 4 of my colleagues were committed to vote for Mr. Broughton, I thought it important to support that majority." I think that's a bunch of B.S. and you caved in.
Being a part of a governing body is to voice your opinion and stand by your beliefs and the beliefs of whom you represent. I think you said you were troubled because you were afraid to stand up for what you believed and later regretted it. Just because the other council members ignored the process doesn't mean tht you should as well. What angered me for a long time (among other things with regard to a former councilmember) was when ex-councilman Rudolph went scouting on his own and courting companies who were his friends to get town contracts without vetting them the proper way. Correct me if I'm wrong but you were very against this as a private citizen and spoke out about it. In this instance, you let the council do the same thing. You closed your eyes and You let the council run you over.
To say the least, I'm very disappointed.
You talk about what all the other councilmembers did wrong, did you meet with Mr. Broughton? I assume not because you wouldn't have done something that would have altered the playing field.
Why were these councilmembers that met with only one candidate not attacked like a former councilman was for meeting with a planner. I think we all have a right to know which councilmembers met with mr broughton.
What lola wants, you are mistaken. The councilwoman makes it sound like it was everyone but her who met with the current manager. It was everyone incuding her. Her friends and campaign employees brougt the manager to her house. She is part of the world that she speaks ill of. Nothing has changed. This is the same woman that said she did illegal things at Arthur Andersen because of the $$. The same thing she is doing now. She is selling Teaneck out. Least councilman rudolph brought someone in with experiance. The councilwoman freely admits she was a part of a group that brought in a manager that lacked what she considered to be the experiance needed to be the teaneck manager
anonymous 10:23 - you weren't paying attention. I was addressing some of what she said not all of it. She said she disagreed with the process. I was not addressing whether or not she participated in it. Councilwoman Toffler said that she voted with the council to go along then rethought it. I believe she regretted it. I'm only addressing what she commented on here, I'm not going back into history to Arthur Anderson just as I won't go back into history in your life. I'm disappointed in her for not standing up and being strong and later regretting it. Please read things more thoroughly before putting your own prejudices in comments and then you might be taken seriously.
Have a little class.
Do like NIXON and resign
Anonymous 11:07 -
You just proved my point. Enough said.
Tom,
Now turning against the other blog administrators.
Face it, this medium is a joke for discussing anything important. There isn't a blog on the internet worth a dime.
There are numerous proper forums for both discussing past issues and for candidates to talk to the voters.
Dr. Toffler, I think you are foolish for using this pathetic medium to try and get your points across. There are (maybe) a handful of people on this who would be objective and most of them are involved enough in teaneck politics to get their answers other ways. The rest of the people here have clear agendas of their own (mostly small ones which is why they use this blog in the first place).
I am not one of the administrators.
Hey Everybody, I am on the record for saying I met with Mr. Broughton -- so no point in pretending you"got" me on that. I'm also quoted in the Suburbanite as saying that meeting with him was just like the advantage given to Birdsall and none of us should have done it. Please -- get all the FACTS before you attack! And I guess I am foolish for hoping this blog can be a place for the exchange of accurate information and ideas. BTW -- for those who care -- I did nothing illegal at Arthur Andersen.The practice there was the same as any realtor considers the way business is done. You price a proposal (or a property)as high as you believe the market will accept (rather than at the price you know it is worth). In my own consulting firm, we priced proposals modestly -- at Andersen the practce was to follow the "market pricing" model of real estate and other occupations. Re the Councilmembers who didn't attend interviews -- why not canvass all the members? Come to a Council meeting and ask the question at Good and Welfare. As a general principle -- come to meetings, show your face, state you name. Stand up for what you believe in. If you change your mind, share with us why. Ethics, like democracy is in the process. There will always be people who disagree with the outcome. So please, come out from behind Anonymous, and participate in the process.
It sounds like the other candidates for Town Manager have cause for a law suit against the town.
Even residents could sue the town for not acting in their best interest.
I just don't understand how someone can be a part of a process and then attack the process. That is what just amazes me. And how you try to make all the other councilmembers seem like they did something wrong and you didn't because you repented. And no I wouldn't put my name because lord only knows what you would do to people who do not agree with you. We've seen what you've done to others when you read their personal e-mails sent to you. That's why residents are afraid to use their names or let you know who they are. I voted for you and supported you. Clearly I made a mistake. I also never realized it was a 2 for 1 deal and we were getting a husband and wife council team. That aside I don't understand how you can be a part of the process and never say anything about it until after the fact. You could have easily put an end to mr. Broughton at any point. You could have said simply that he didn't meet the qualifications and not even allow him to move on to meet with the entire council.
So now you say you voted for him because there were 4 votes for him. "The spirit of unity". So you will always vote with the majority? You don't want to look foolish and vote no on something that is going to pass anyway. At least Monica has the guts to be a lone no vote! You could have made sure the process you outlined was followed. So don't blame others. You need to start to take some responsibilty for your own actions.
Since councilwoman toeffler is willing to answer questions I don't want to talk about the manager. I've seen him in action and I remember when he was a police captain here. He is a great guy and thank you to the 6 councilmembers who do support him.
What I would like to know councilwoman is your agenda. Fill us in on what you've been doing for the past year and what you plan to do for us for the next 3 years. Let's be constructive not destructive here. We have a councilmember willing to answer questions. I'd personally like to know what's being done. I pay over 14 thousand dollars in property taxes and now we're going to get a 5.2% hike on our municipal portion. Since I've lived in Teaneck (just over 10 years) my taxes have doubled. If every year we have a 5% hike on our municipal porting than in 10 years we will have a 50% hike on our municipal portion. What's being done to help us? What new revenue is being brought in. I attended council meetings this year and I even spoke. The employees are there because they are worried about their jobs and I understand that. We can't try to keep on balancing the budget on our employees backs and we can't balance it on residents backs (raising taxes). If we get rid of employees services will decrease. Then we will be paying the same price for less services.
(Sorry to be long winded. But no councilmember has answered my question yet. I've sent the question by e-mail to several councilmembers).
So what is your agenda for the next 3 years? What new revenue will you work to bring in?
Thank you. Concerned resident!
Barbara, You have put the town at risk by being on the search committee and violating the rules for hiring set forth. It is now very likely that we have someone who is unqualified to handle the demands of this very serious job.
anon: 847
Well said!
As we go forward in this campaign, it is critical to distinguish between communications that tell lies, and communications that tell unpleasant truths (particularly refuting lies that others say).
As well, when Councilmembers were meeting for lunch with Mr. Broughton a photographer from the Suburbanite "happened" to show up to record the meeting. (No photo was taken).
Barbara -
The reason that people think you tell lies is because they aren't as nimble as you with that line between "lie" and "unpleasant truth".
It wouldn't quite be correct to say that you were LYING in saying that a reporter showed up, but it WOULD be an UNPLEASANT TRUTH to have to admit that the reporter was there doing a story on the restaurant which actually appeared in the paper in the next issue.
When you quote the lines the suit your purpose and twist them to have meaning to support your claims, you become the sleazy pol that people make you out to be.
Be better!
Well said! The councilwoman has mastered telling only half truths and blaming others. For some reason everyone else does things wrong, except for her.
I give the councilwoman credit for being truthful & honest. Its more than we can say for the rest of the council. Barbara, thank you for filling us in on the truth about the other members of the council and this important vote. I don't understand how these people get away with these things. According to what you said the council decided who they wanted and then went through a sham process. I for one will be filing an OPRA request to get all the information on the selection of the manager. I think that we should start a group to investigate this corrupt process that barbra has brought to light. It seems that possibly 6 councilmembers did something wrong by having a favored candidate before even starting the process.
Thank you barbra for being a watchdog for the public interest.
I don't get it. Anon, how are you thanking Dr. Toeffler for being a watchdog for the public. She was an integral part of this corrupt process. By her own admission she was on the selection committee that set criteria for selection of a manager. If at any point she would have said to Gussen & Honis we should shelve Broughton because he doesn't fit the criteria he would have been done. I don't understand why didn't she offer to meet with all the other candidates. That would have made sense since she knew who the other candidates were. And if she felt at any point that she was doing something wrong why wait till after the fact to bring it up? I think she is setting her coleagues up for a fall. She can now say if Mr. Broughton doesn't work out that she was the only one who didn't support him. How do you congratulate someone on being part of what they call a corrupt process and then afterwards attacking her colleagues. I'd like to hear from councilwoman Honis on this matter.
More like the runt than a watchdog.
Do you read and understand her words. Maybe it is that corp culture she came from. to me she sounds more like a USED car saleswomen.
Where can we find the guidelines that were used in hiring Mr. Broughton? Are they decided on by the search committee or are bound to rules determined by the state or another governing body?
So now thanks to your help Barbra Teaneck is again a laughing stock in the NJ community. Thank you for everything you do for us.
Again, to bring FACTS to the discussion -- Only six members of Council voted on the resolution to hire Mr. Broughton.One member of the Council, Lizette Parker, recused herself because her husband works for the Sheriff's office. Further fact -- the Council was divided over whether or not to hire a search firm specializing in the search and hiring of public administrators to conduct the hiring process. Some felt that was the fairest way to do it -- others, the majority, were concerned about spending taxpayer money on a search firm. So we did it ourselves.
When I started teaching, i was given some wise advice for anyone who stands up before the public as part of the job: No matter what you do, some people are going to love you; no matter what you do some people are going to hate you; your job is to not let those who hate you distract you (you'll never win them over), and to work with those who love you to make the experience for the vast majority in the middle, as fruitful and valuable for them as you can.
This blog, which is read in Los Angeles and Denver (probably elsewhere) has made Teaneck, if not a laughing stock, the topic of considerable humor.
Barbara Toffler is alleging that the Town Manager selection process was deeply flawed. She's not saying that Broughton is a bad guy. She's just saying that certain actions of Council members would create the impression that the fix was in for him.
It seems that the folks who are personally attacking on Toffler are trying to trying to create a diversion from her allegations, which if true that could result in yet another round of costly lawsuits.
To provide some comfort to the electorate, and to refute Toffler's allegations, it would be helpful if someone else who participated could defend the legitimacy of the process.
Barbara - I share your feelings about anonymous comments. Periodically, when the nasty personal attacks and vile innuendos start to ratchet up, I consider going back to a policy of allowing only registered parties to submit comments. The way things are going lately, it could happen real soon.
Here is where I am at a loss, Dr. Toeffler is now attacking a process that she was a part of and now we are congratulating her. She has opened the town up to a tremendous law suit. And we congratulate her for it. I for one think what she did was wrong. And what she has done since by trying to blame others and take no responsibility.
If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen and write a book.
Oh you could just give another interview to the Times!
I would just like to hear the councilwoman take blame for some of this and not place the blem on others. She was part of the subcommittee which didnt listen to their own rules.
Can this complaint be brought to the Civilian Complaint Review Board?
Whats worst ? Feit not responding to allegation of inapropriate action some years ago or the infamous blt talking to much.
Nobody is congratulating anyone about anything. I just want to know if her allegations have any merit. I wish someone else who was involved would step up and defend (or at the very least describe) the process because all these anonymous ad hominem attacks on Toffler make it look like someone has something to hide and is trying desperately to change the subject.
Esther,
If there is really a threat of lawsuits because a process was defined and not followed (and I'm not sure if this would be any grounds for a lawsuit), then it would appear that by airing them on this blog, Barbara may have put the town in worse jeopardy.
As a council member, if some true ethics violation occurred that could result in a lawsuit, I would think she would have to take them to either the township attorney (or perhaps discuss what route she should take with a privat attorney).
Simply stating her opinions into the public wind that could result in more lawsuits (of which she would be a defendant) is rather irresponsible.
More than likely, none of this is reasonably actionable by any parties, so why doesn't everyone turn down the absurd rhetoric.
I guess I just don't understand Toffler's motivations for bringing this issue up in the way that she did since it has the potential for generating a shitstorm into which she will end up getting swept.
Once again -- the facts: Everything I have stated on this blog was read in a formal statement into the the record at a public Council meeting. Prior to making my statement, I conferred at length with the Township attorney. I have reiterated the facts on this blog in response to distorted or false statements made by anonymous writers earlier in this thread.
Again, I invite all bloggers to come to Council meetings, identify yourselves and express your views openly. I hope all of us on the dais will respond as openly.
Lets move on. I like the questions that a previous poster asked of the council. What are you doing to bring in more revenue?
the 2:40 PM post should have had my name on it -- not anonymous. Sorry
Council persons should be charged a fee to change there VOTE after the fact.
Say $1000.00 per changed vote.Then she could claim she increased revenue fot Teaneck.
No Council member has ever changed his or her vote. Not legal to do so. Over the years some Council members have read statements into the formal record expressing a changed opinion on a vote based on new or invalidated information.But a vote stands as cast.
I don't think that the candidates should participate in an unmoderated forum like this one. I like this blog and I think it has a handful of thoughtful participants on both sides of most issues. But every debate inevitably turns into a trainwreck of anonymous comments that are probably coming from one or two but leave the impression of an angry (and nutty) mob.
Barbara Toffler usually votes the way I would on most issues yet her participation here really diminishes my opinion of her and makes me question her judgment.
Esther, I agree with Laverty. For a Councilperson, participating in an unmoderated blog is a bad idea. So I will not do so in the future. I probably won't read the blog either -- because I get too frustrated seeing the statements of anonymous bloggers who pay no attention to fact and reality.
I thought this might be a way to communicate openly with residents who keep begging for more information from Council. But I guess it's not.
Barbara
Laverty.... you should read her book
it would give you insight as to where she is coming from.
Barbara - I don't blame you at all. The offer still stands to any Council member who wants to communicate in this forum.
This is a moderated blog, I don't understand.
she said before that she was not going to respond, look at the history
why don't we have the council members respond but for the time being not allow anonymous posts?
Lola, you are just as anonymous as the rest of us! Exception being-Esther, Alan Sohn, Tom Abbott, Jeff O. & Henry Fish.
The difference between Lola and the anonymous bottom feeders is that Lola is a registered participant. If we were make registration a pre-requisite for submitting comments, many of the low lifes that use this blog to put people down and spread rumors would flee. I have no trouble with people who want to protect their identity online, what I don't like is people who feel they can say whatever they want without consequence.
Some of our elected officials get very hot when the truth exposes them to be FULL OF IT.
Then you have other ones that are just LW puppets IE. all 5of our councilwomen
sometimes i use my name
who am i ?????
In every other aspect of my life I am not anonymous including when I was on the town council in another state. Since I have never seen such sleaze either from the anonymous posters or the way politics are run in this town in my life. I feel I would prefer to protect myself and my family. People with too much time on their hands like to make trouble.
Esther,
aren't YOU one of the administrators?
How can you make a rule that says you don't have to register and can post anonymously and then rip anyone who posts anonymously?
It is in your power to make it so that people register and then you get rid of your problem!
Aren't you doing something similar to what Barbara did? You made the rules and then you complain about them?
Looks like a pattern. Maybe a hormone problem. Could be something in the water.
Good idea Barbara, a forum like this cannot possibly enhance your political image. In politics every word you say publicly is scrutinized and eventually becomes fodder for negative comments.
I like your comments I will miss them!
Just remember in Teaneck everyone wants what they want when they want it and they don't want to pay for it. Good luck!
Can you imagine what she would have been saying if she was not on the search committee.
She makes the pick and she still is -itcing.........
Whats up with that?????????????????
Can somebody please explain
See todays teaneck paper Ms Weinberg, I mean Ms Loft has a letter that she is involved with a group that will attempt to take control of the council.
mh bt and sl remind me of the old line"THOSE THAT CAN DO THOSE THAT CAN'T TEACH"
To have a candidates' "cyberforum," I think it'll need to be as controlled as, say, regular League of Women Voters forums (as opposed to some other standing forums in town which are ALWAYS horrendously, and perhaps dishonestly, managed). That probably means:
1.) The moderators feed the questions to the candidates. Perhaps you could have a pre-forum thread in which people can ask their questions and the moderators can separate out the legitimate questions from the crackpot questions, synthesize the former and present them in a second thread, or perhaps several per-question or per-candidate threads).
2. Responses would also need to be controlled. Perhaps the candidates themselves could pre-register and have unfettered rebuttal opportunities, but those of us in the "audience" would also need to register under real names, or alternatively, submit our responses via email so that again, the moderators can separate out the legitimate responses from the crackpot pot-shots.
Of course, that's not to say that the crackpots couldn't respond on some other thread, however off-topic. But the fact that their responses didn't make it to the main thread(s) would speak for itself. Obviously, this puts a lot of responsibility on the moderators, who will also open themselves up to charges of bias. But, it won't be as if they didn't ask for it.
Regarding the Township Manager appointment issue: Obviously, it would have been infinitely better if Councilmember Toffler had expressed her reservations about the process before she voted -- and had voted accordingly, which would have been "no." That said, one can at least ask the question as to why she would have raised the issue after the fact -- which obviously doesn't reflect well on how she handled it. She hasn't come out and explicitly said it -- and maybe she should -- but plainly she regrets her "yes" vote. Politically, "better late than never" is not a particularly fruitful principle, so perhaps we should at least give her credit for trying to make amends, even if it does look like locking the barn door after the horse has gotten out.
Where I differ with Ms. Toffler is that I not only agree that the process as she describes it was flawed, but that the end result was nothing less than hideous. Let us not forget that among the various and sundry Township employees who have sued the Township to the tune of millions of dollars is now our own Township Manager. And the one thing we can definitively say about all those suits is that our Township Manager's suit was BOGUS -- not to mention represenhible in its racially exploitative accusations of discrimination against his predecessor as well as the Township as a whole. That he ended up settling for his vacation pay is proof positive of what I am charging. And the fact that I'm sure he was encouraged to pursue this suit by his lawyer -- as well as his County Machine "supporters" -- simply points to an easily led and morally weak leader for Teaneck.
Someone several posts up said, "Least councilman rudolph brought someone in with experiance [sic]. The councilwoman freely admits she was a part of a group that brought in a manager that lacked what she considered to be the experiance [sic] needed to be the teaneck manager." Well, if Councilman Rudolf had still been oun council, don't kid yourself that he too, as a Facebook "fan of Sheriff McGuire," wouldn't have also be in on this fix.
The Broughton appointment was unique in that it did "bring Teaneck together." Only problem is, it brought out the worst of two already unsavory factions.
And I hear "Teaneck United" is already gearing up to usurp the independent ground. Give real Teaneck a break, will ya?
Jeff:
Who are you to declare a segment of Teaneck not real?
Tom,
I will gladly retract that perhaps ill-advised phraseology if Teaneck United will retract its name, which presumes to speak for me amd everyone else with independent mind.
FOOLS UNITED new mame
how about Lorettas Losers
Teaneck United are the recycled, aging losers of the past, reorganizing to cause havoc and stay busy stirring the overflowing, boiling pot of what was once a great communty.
Why is everyone making fun of TU?
Who is Tom Abbott?
Tom Abbott is the hubby of the former board of ed member/spender Janet. He is around 60 yrs old and has a poney tail.
Tom Abbott is 57. He worked in the financial industry but is now unemployed and likely to lose his home. He is a Christian fundamentalist.
Jeff O. is married to Barbara. She was on the board council too.
Post a Comment