The following is an op/ed by former Englewood Councilman Eugene Skurnick:

In the Northern Valley Suburbanite's May 23 article on the 2007 Englewood city budget by Christine Kumka, Mayor Michael Wildes is quoted with his typical grandiose statements, “If I had the authority to veto this budget I would have my pen cap off already.” In addition he offered only one specific budget criticism about an expenditure to clean up the little league fields.

What Mayor Wildes failed to state is that property taxes are determined by both expenditures and income and that the Planning Board that he leads (along with Chairman and Council candidate Marvin Anhalt) have recently approved a $2million/year tax giveaway to a developer. He and Anhalt also allowed numerous developers to forego their COAH obligations (a loss of $1.6m). The “veto pen” of the Mayor stayed capped when the Bern/Drakeford/Walton council spent over $20m to acquire property for developers, build roads for developers, build a garage and subsidize infrastructure to benefit developers. He also never criticized the wasted legal expenses used for a political vendetta against a political enemy of his.

On the other hand, Council President Charlotte Schoen convened a blue ribbon finance committee over two months ago that developed over 20 specific budget reduction ideas that are being addressed by the City Manager. Council President Schoen also uncapped her “veto pen” by initiating legal action against the Wildes/Anhalt Planning board tax giveaway. Initial negotiations with the developer have already yielded almost $1.5m in additional future taxes.

Mayor Michael Wildes and his protégé, Marvin Anhalt would be laughable if they weren’t so dangerous to the hardworking taxpayers of Englewood.

A major continuing concern of most citizens is the level of their property taxes. It is a subject too often addressed with more heat than light. We hear often that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country. While true, it's impossible to address unless we are willing to 1) pay higher income/other state taxes in exchange for higher state aid to our communities, or 2) reform our highly fragmented system of local control over education and municipal services. State officials are currently grappling with these issues, but the political and practical obstacles to real change are formidable.

What Can Be Done?

At the local level, your City Council members can positively affect the municipal portion of your tax bill in at least five ways: 1) by insuring effective management of staff to provide municipal services at minimal cost, 2) by hard bargaining with employee groups and officials over salaries and benefits, 3) by making effective use of federal and state assistance programs, 4) by striving to prevent taxable property from being sold to tax-exempt institutions and, conversely, to place tax-exempt property back on the tax roll, and 5) by carefully managing expansion of tax ratables to spread costs over a larger base. #1, #2 and #3 also apply to the members of the Board of Education, who determine the school portion of your taxes.

Resistance to Change

Candidates for local office routinely express their concern for the tax burden borne by their homeowner constituents. However, once in office, these politicians must face the political realities of cutting costs and bargaining with employee groups. For example, members of the high-cost Police Department routinely complain about inadequate manpower, and can generate political support for their complaints. Privatization of services, as when the Board of Education hired an outside maintenance firm in 1993 at an annual savings of $1,000,000, aroused considerable community antagonism. Hard bargaining by the Board of Education can result in labor unrest, including threatened or actual strikes.

Stable Bureaucracy

Council members and Board of Education trustees come and go, whereas the bureaucracies they depend on are more permanent. Therefore, it is easy to go along with the way things have always been done and not rock the boat. Both municipal and school officials are subject to a plethora of State regulations and guidelines. This is particularly true in personnel matters, where the influence in Trenton of teacher, police and other State-level labor groups is considerable. The net effect is that local officials find that the bulk of their budgets, consisting of salaries and benefits, is essentially fixed, and often they are happy to hold annual increases close to the rate of inflation.

Revaluations

Every few years Englewood, in common with all New Jersey towns, is required to conduct a property revaluation. This has no effect on the total amount of taxes to be raised in any given year, but is merely a reallocation of the tax burden based on "fair market value," as determined by ostensibly qualified professionals. Our quarterly tax payment due August 1, 2007, will be the first one to reflect the recently completed revaluation.

Development

City officials determined some years ago that the best way to fund necessarily rising costs while minimizing the impact on residential taxpayers was to encourage more intensive development of Englewood’s industrial area. So the City created a zone for low-rise light industry for just that reason. However, as time went on, property values elsewhere rose much more rapidly. Consequently, the industrial area's tax contribution to the total became minimal. City officials argued for more intensive development, which translated into the construction of medium to high-rise buildings. This wave of more intensive development began in the 80s with the construction of the hotel and neighboring office building on South Van Brunt Street. Nearly complete are the Windsor Park project facing the County golf course and the Englewood South project just north of Rt. 4. Just getting under way is the controversial Flatrock Square project south of Rt. 4.

Controlling Development

Developments of this magnitude can over time have a major impact on Englewood financially, socially and politically. For this reason, City officials should proceed with care before signing off on major projects. Decisions which will have long-term consequences should not be made on the basis of short-term market factors or political motives. After all, new construction means new tax ratables, but it also means new costs.

The rule of thumb is that new construction which doesn't increase school costs is beneficial on balance. However, there are many other variables to be considered. The assumption that the construction of hundreds of new residential units won't place undue strain on municipal systems could, in retrospect, seem naive. Therefore, the larger a development project is, the more important it is to be aware of all its possible consequences.

Tax Rate Perspective

Englewood’s tax rate was formerly among the highest in Bergen County. By 2006, however, there were eighteen other Bergen County towns with higher rates, many of which do not have our full range of services. The following are the rates of selected neighboring towns in 2006, shown on an equalized basis to make them comparable:

Bergenfield 2.453

Bogota 2.112

Cresskill 1.631

Englewood 2.011

Fort Lee 1.687

Hackensack 2.267

Leonia 1.940

Ridgefield Park 2.376

Teaneck 2.419

Tenafly 1.910

Lt. Allen Gailes, a 25 year veteran of the Bergen County Sheriff's Department, is running against incumbent Sheriff Leo McGuire in the upcoming Democratic primary. In the Englewood Report's first ever podcast, Bob Stern interviews Lt. Gailes about his self-described grassroots campaign and why he is running for Sheriff of Bergen County. (For a downloadable mp3 of this interview, right-click HERE.)

The campaign of Marvin Anhalt has chosen to emulate last year's revolting Englewood Democratic Primary.  At that lamentable time, Englewood voters endured an outrageous barrage of political smear pieces from the campaign of Vernon Walton, currently a political appointee to Michael Wildes' Planning Board and a crony of County Boss Joe Ferriero. One of these attack ads featured a picture of Walton's challenger, Assemblyman Gordon Johnson, digitally manipulated to make him look like a sinister villain.  Englewood voters rejected these tactics and Johnson went on to crush Walton in a landslide.

One year later, Marvin Anhalt is employing the same losing tactics in this year's Democratic Primary.  This time, Councilwoman Charlotte Bennett Schoen is the target.  The front of Anhalt's glossy mailer is a digitally manipulated photograph of Councilwoman Schoen that could be a promo for The Blair Witch Project.  In contrast, the back has the usual saccharine picture of the candidate with his family -- apparently laughing on their whoopee cushions.  Judging from his campaign literature, Anhalt would have you believe that this race is really between the Partridge Family and the Wicked Witch of the East Hill. 

Unfortunately for Anhalt, he's got a record to go along with his chutzpah:

• Candidate Anhalt's hit piece claims that the incumbent has raised taxes "up to 18.5%" by voting for Englewood's municipal budgets over the last three years.  Yet, Anhalt doesn't say where he would have cut the budget.  Continue to let the parks fall apart, perhaps?  Maybe reduce the number of police officers or firemen just as our population is expected to grow by another 10%?  Without the courage to suggest a single cut, Anhalt's attacks are no more than empty political posturing.

• Candidate Anhalt promises to "lessen reliance on residential property taxes in redevelopment planning."  Meanwhile, Chairman Anhalt's Planning Board recently ruled in favor of a huge tax giveaway to the developers of the huge South of Route 4 development.  And just two weeks ago, his Planning Board voted to remove yet another Englewood property from our tax rolls.  If that's what we can expected from Chairman Anhalt, why should we believe Councilman Anhalt will be any better?

• Candidate Anhalt also claims he has "zero-tolerance for political conflicts of interest by government employees."  Really?  Then we have a few questions:
1. Why is Anhalt running on Joe Ferriero's BCDO "pay-to-play" line?
2. Why did Anhalt accept the chairmanship of the Wildes-appointed Planning Board the year after he paid Wildes thousands in campaign contributions?
3. Is it not a conflict of interest for Realtor and Developer Anhalt to head the very board that controls real estate development in Englewood?

Unfortunately, we expect Anhalt's campaign to continue to deflect these critical questions and avoid the real issues with more political posturing and mudslinging.

Three years ago, Englewood’s quiet revolution began when Charlotte Bennett Schoen was elected councilwoman of Englewood's 2nd Ward.  The following year, Ken Rosenzweig unseated the incumbent to become councilman of Englewood's 1st Ward.  And last year, Gordon Johnson was elected Councilman-at-Large.  This succession of elections has finally delivered a council majority that's loyal to the people of Englewood and independent of county boss Joe Ferriero's pay-to-play machine.  We believe that Councilwoman Schoen's reelection is a crucial step in maintaining this independence.

Over the last three years, Councilwoman Schoen has displayed integrity, courage and leadership.  After taking office, Schoen led the council in rescinding the costly "Lifetime Free Health Benefits" ordinance.  And last year, she successfully worked to get a downtown developer to tear down illegal construction while avoiding a legal battle that would have been costly to taxpayers.  This kind of judgment and accountability in city government would have been unheard of just three years ago. 

During her tenure, Schoen has displayed the kind of nervy leadership, courageous independence and persistent problem-solving that our municipality needs.  She has fought for transparency in government by opening up the council's executive sessions to public participation and convening monthly meetings in which city department heads answer the public's questions.  Furthermore, Schoen has been a vocal advocate of government oversight.  Last year, she successfully fought to bring the renegade Board of Health under control.  Most recently, she called for more oversight over the massive Flat Rock Square project after the mayor's Planning Board voted to give its developers whatever they wanted at taxpayer expense.

Time and time again, Councilwoman Schoen has demonstrated that her loyalty lies with the people of Englewood and not with government insiders, political bosses and Big Money interests.

In contrast, Mayor Michael Wildes has put up his buddy Marvin Anhalt to challenge Councilwoman Schoen.  Anhalt is the Chairman of the Wildes-controlled Planning Board, appointed to the position after donating $2000 to Wildes in 2004.  Since then, Anhalt has helped Wildes manage the pliant Planning Board, which consistently votes in favor of tax giveaways  to developers and others.  This comes as no surprise, considering Anhalt himself is a local real estate developer.  With Wildes seeking to advance himself  by joining the Ferriero pay-to-play machine, we believe that Anhalt's election would clearly signal a setback to good government in Englewood.

The Englewood Report has no hesitation in endorsing Charlotte Bennett Schoen for a second term as 2nd Ward Councilwoman. The Primary Election is on June 5, 2007.

Last month, before a crowded room of concerned neighbors, the Planning Board approved the Church of God of Prophecy's plans to acquire, destroy and replace one of Englewood’s classic historic homes with a large church building and parking lot.

The house in question is over a century old and located on a large lot at 237 Tenafly Road in a single-family residential area.  It was the residence of Dan Fellows Platt, a former mayor and one of Englewood's most prominent residents.

Unfortunately, the Planning Board chose to ignore the historic significance of this residence.  It chose to ignore the protests of neighboring homeowners.  It chose to ignore testimony on the detrimental impact this construction will have on neighborhood traffic and parking.  It chose to ignore the further erosion of Englewood’s tax base.

Because of the large turnover in its membership, most Planning Board members had not in fact listened to the case's testimony, which had been taken during numerous hearings over the last three years.  Instead, they took their cues from Mayor Michael Wildes, who had appointed them to their seats. The neighbors of the property, as well as other concerned citizens, are currently raising funds to finance an appeal. For further information contact John Clagett at 201-503-1004.

You are a busy person.  And, like other concerned citizens, you would like to see what is going on but can't make many, if any, council or board meetings.  Well, the New Jersey Supreme Court may have the perfect solution.

Two months ago, our state's highest court ruled that citizens have the right to videotape public meetings.

The ruling was made after the Borough of Pine Hill arrested one of its residents for videotaping a council meeting. The court justices unanimously sided with the resident. In his ruling, Chief Justice James R. Zazzali wrote:

Openness is a hallmark of democracy -- a sacred maxim of our government -- and video is but a modern instrument in that evolving pursuit...The use of modern technology to record and review the activities of public bodies should marshal pride in our open system of government, not muster suspicion against citizens who conduct the recording.

Similar issues have arisen on the federal level. Just last week, Senator Barack Obama submitted a letter to the Democratic National Committee requesting that "video from any Democratic Presidential debate be available freely after the debate, by either placing the video in the public domain, or licensing it under a Creative Commons license." Meanwhile, a bipartisan alliance of advocates, from MoveOn.org to RedState.org, from conservative pundit Michelle Malkin to liberal commentator Ariana Huffington, have called on both parties to make all footage freely available for citizens to watch, share and edit.

Granted the importance of video access on both the local and federal levels, isn't it time to make the content of our own public meetings available to all Englewood residents?

As it stands today, if you miss a meeting, you've missed out. The city council provides little more than the official minutes of each meeting. Important public announcements are printed in the back of the Press Journal in the smallest font available. And with so few residents with the time or energy to sit through Englewood's many public meetings, there aren't many of us who know how local politicians are spending our tax dollars or granting special dispensations to, say, insiders or developers. Perhaps some politicians would prefer to keep it this way.

Yet, there is simply no excuse for this. We live in a multimedia age when broadband internet is widespread and online video access is free. Posting meetings online would require the same technology used by the millions of Americans who regularly frequent YouTube.com and Google Video.

There is no reason why public meetings shouldn't be videotaped and placed online. Our city spends far too much money rectifying errors that could have been avoided with more citizen participation.

Such a program could be administered cost-effectively. In Niagara Falls, New York, high school students videotape and produce a cable access broadcast of each council meeting. Likewise, Englewood could set up a community service program that gives school credit to students who videotape and post meetings online. The program would teach students about politics, civics, video production and multimedia technology while providing an important service to the community.

We are a city of 27,000. It is simply unconscionable that the proceedings of our local government are only available to the two dozen residents who regularly attend meetings. A program that encourages more civic participation will ensure more public scrutiny of government operations as our city's population and taxes grow.

Ignorance is no longer bliss for Englewood. It is time to let the sunshine in and the cameras roll.

The Bergen Record reports that Cheryl Fuller has officially resigned as Englewood's city manager.  Fuller first became city manager in August 2004.

Fuller's short tenure turned out to be both controversial and expensive.  

Fuller got off to a rocky start when her contract, providing free "post-retirement health benefits until death," was mysteriously expanded to grant the same benefit to over a hundred additional city employees. To many, it came to be known as the infamous "free lifetime health benefits" ordinance.

While this controversy was not Fuller's fault, the scandal brought attention to the generous package Fuller received from the city. In an article entitled "Health benefits deal leaves residents fuming," Record reporter Carolyn Feibel quoted one aggrieved taxpayer as saying, "I don't get benefits like that." And in an apparent knock against Fuller herself, the Mayor declaimed, "Englewood can't afford lifetime health benefits for anybody making over $100,000 a year."  However, Wildes failed to veto the ordinance.

During Fuller's tenure, critics objected to her performance, or lack thereof. Some believed that the city manager was capable but distracted by her other work. While receiving a fulltime salary of $142,000, Fuller also held outside jobs with the city of Orange as well as the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission.  To put this in perspective, the Governor of NJ earns $175,000 per year for his fulltime work.

In early 2005, Fuller got herself into hot water when she hired an assistant for $98,000 without telling the city council.  The city charter allows for an assistant's salary of only $63,000.  Many residents and some councilmembers were outraged by this apparent act of insubordination and profligacy.

Fuller leaves Englewood with a Golden Parachute of $147,851.