On Sunday, September 16, SEEK held its first meeting of the 2007-08 school year, to start early planning for the April, 2008, Board of Education election. The three-year terms of Board members David Matthews, Shirley Smith and Margaret Mora will be expiring, and they are potential candidates for reelection. Of the three incumbents, only Mora was originally endorsed by SEEK three years ago, so this may represent a good opportunity for new candidates to receive SEEK endorsement.

SEEK (an acronym for Supporters of Education for Englewood’s Kids) was formed in 2003 in reaction to the threat by tax-minimizing activists to block necessary physical investment in the public schools. Following approval by the voters of the school construction bond referendum in 2004, the voters elected SEEK-endorsed candidates committed to implementing the improvements which had been approved, as well as other continuing reforms. As a result of subsequent elections, all of the currently serving Board members except Matthews and Smith are persons endorsed by SEEK.

From its beginning, SEEK has conducted open interviews with persons interested in service on the Board, using a standard format, and has chosen those it will support by secret ballot of its members. Currently serving Board members participate. Following selection of a slate, SEEK has raised funds and conducted a city-wide campaign for its chosen candidates in each of the last four April Board elections.

The co-chairs of SEEK are Kathe Baird, an involved parent, and Lionel Garrison, a former Board member. They welcome any assistance in identifying qualified and interested persons who would like to serve the community on our Board of Education. Kathe can be reached at 201-816-9156.

In our latest podcast, Council President Charlotte Bennett Schoen discusses what she is looking for in our next city manager, what goals she has for her next term, and how technology can improve city life.

People unfamiliar with Englewood’s unusual form of local government often assume that our mayor has a lot more legal authority than is in fact the case. For example, they may note on the nightly television news the frequent presence of the mayor of New York City, clearly a person of considerable importance and power, and assume that our mayor is comparable. Although most Englewood mayors have been happy to perpetuate this misunderstanding, the fact is that, under most circumstances, our mayor is far less important in the government of Englewood than are the five members of the City Council and the non-elected City Manager. This has particularly been the case since 2000 when Englewood voted by referendum to abolish the mayor’s power to appoint members of the Board of Education.

Under Englewood’s City Charter, adopted in 1979, the mayor has no vote on the council except in the case of a tie. The mayor may, however, veto council actions, which can only be overridden by four of five council members. Neither the mayor nor members of the council have any administrative authority, since the city manager is designated by the Charter as "chief executive officer." The mayor’s legal responsibilities are thus largely appointive, most importantly with regard to the Planning Board, where the mayor has sole appointive power and serves as a member. The elected Board of Education is now entirely independent.

The mayor’s legal authority should, however, be of little consequence as long as he (or she) is aligned politically with a majority of the council members and is respected in the community. The mayor, as the public face of the City, can act as spokesperson for policies and decisions jointly arrived at. Persons with the necessary leadership qualities can achieve considerable influence regardless of their actual legal authority.

There are many ways in which our mayors can use their visibility to the advantage of the community. They can appoint official committees to study specific problems. They can act as spokesmen articulating the reasons for Council decisions. They can act as ombudsmen assisting residents in dealing with City departments and can develop and utilize contacts with county, state and federal officials for the benefit of Englewood.

Englewood’s mayors in recent years have varied considerably in their approach to the office, some more able to exercise leadership and work with their colleagues on the council. Too often, they have given the impression that their own political advancement takes precedence over the interests of our City. That Steve Rothman has springboarded to Congress from the Mayoralty of Englewood has apparently not been lost on those who followed.  Our city has a political importance in the County that is out of proportion to its size, due to the regular large Democratic pluralities Englewood generates for candidates at all levels. Combine this with the mayoral tactic of avoiding votes on controversial issues while taking credit for positive trends, and one can see how the Englewood mayoralty is an attractive platform for persons seeking higher office.

The mayor has a three-year term of office and runs on the same ticket as the council member-at-large. Over the last quarter-century, most commonly, the Democratic Municipal Committee has endorsed a white male for mayor and an African-American male for the at-large council seat.  These endorsement have survived what have been limited primary or general election challenges. We would like to think, perhaps optimistically, that we have reached the stage in our history when such racially balanced tickets may no longer be necessary.

The next election for mayor and council-at-large is not scheduled until 2009, but it is not too soon to start thinking about the kind of candidates we should be seeking. We are unhappy with the concept of the mayoralty of Englewood as a stepping stone to higher office. as what is in the interest of our community may not be in the interest of the Bosses of political advancement in our County and State.  We would rather think in terms of people who have demonstrated a commitment to the community and are likely to continue to do so. However, when personal ambition takes precedence over community welfare, we draw the line. Englewood’s most valuable and competent mayors and council members over the years have been public spirited citizens who have been genuinely dedicated to the welfare of their community. Capable people who are successful in other careers often cannot devote the time and effort necessary for effective public service, but, when they can, their varied experience can be valuable.

It is our hope that more of the many capable persons resident in Englewood will take seriously the possibility of public service. It is easier than they may think to become actively involved in local government, and maybe even to run for mayor.

In our April article entitled "Englewood’s Building Boom," we pointed out that there is currently in Englewood "considerable economic pressure from private developers for more dense multi-family development in single-family zones." A particularly egregious example of this pressure is the case recently filed with the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance to build 32 townhouse units on the property at 45 Dwight Place, which is zoned for single-family residences. A public hearing on this proposal is scheduled for September 20.

The developer making the application, Aram Minnetian, successfully developed (and now lives in) the nearby Lexington Court townhouse complex on property where the Marriott Corporation had hoped to build a large assisted living facility. Marriott was only thwarted after several years of tenacious opposition by the City of Englewood and neighboring property owners, and those involved were eager to finally settle on a reasonable alternative. Accordingly Minnetian requested and was granted a zoning change permitting townhouse development in what had been a single-family zone. In the case of 45 Dwight Place he has not requested such a zoning change, probably because he knows it would be denied. Instead, he has chosen to ask the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance from the zoning.

Howard Stotsky, a neighboring homeowner, has been monitoring Minnetian’s plans for two years. All eight of the existing condo owners have agreed to sell their units to Minnetian, conditional on him getting approval for his plans. Now that those plans have been officially filed with the City, Stotsky is organizing opposition to them in the community, including the retention of an attorney.

The Board of Adjustment could decline to hear the case, on the grounds that only the City Council can grant a zoning change. Alternatively it could advise the applicant that his application does not meet the criteria required for a variance. The Englewood Report feels strongly that our citizen boards have an obligation to uphold the zoning law, and should not seriously consider proposals of this nature which flagrantly violate that law. If there is any chance that this proposal could be approved, then no single-family neighborhood in Englewood would be safe, and the Board would likely be overwhelmed with similar projects. Our citizens should not have to hire lawyers to protect their neighborhoods; that is what the boards are for.

Senator Loretta Weinberg, Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle and Assemblyman Gordon Johnson have qualified for public financing from New Jersey's Clean Elections program.

The Bergen Record reports:

The idea behind Clean Elections is to dislodge the big-money donors that give generously come campaign season, and later are awarded with no-bid government contracts, a practice known as pay-to-play. Good-government advocates say that pay-to-play costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year...Candidates who voluntarily agree to run under the Clean Elections banner must collect $10 donations from up to 800 registered voters, then swear off private funding and any kind of assistance from their county committees. They then are eligible for up to $526,375 each in state money to run their campaigns.

Weinberg, Johnson and Huttle all qualified by raising over 400 campaign contributions of $10 from District 37 voters. So far, the Clean Elections program has given $53,590 to Vainieri Huttle; $52,900 to Johnson; and $55,660 to Weinberg. However, in order to qualify for the maximum public financing, each candidate must collect a total of 800 contributions of $10.

Meanwhile, District 37's Republican candidates Wojciech J. Siemaszkiewicz, Clara S. Nibot and Frank J. Cifarelli have yet to qualify for the funding. The deadline for contributions is September 30.

Last weekend, The Bergen Record carried a front-page story entitled "Trustees’ Rift to Cost Taxpayers," reporting:

The [Englewood] Board of Education voted on Thursday to hire an attorney to represent it in an ethics complaint against board member David Matthews, for what it said is a history of inappropriate and intimidating conduct at public meetings and with staff.

The original charges, now officially adopted and to be funded by the Board, were brought independent of the Board in March by Superintendent Carol Lisa, Board President Glenn Garrison and previous Board President Stephen Brown. There are 74 individual charges listed. The matter will be heard by a state panel and decided on by the Commissioner of Education.

Matthews, a former board president himself, has a history of disruptive behavior as his influence on the board has declined. Board sources have alleged that he has intimidated other board members and staff members on a continuing basis. He has in particular subjected Superintendent Lisa to continued criticism for unwillingness to heed his requests. Originally appointed to the Board by Mayor Donald Aronson, he has successfully run for election three times, and may choose to run for another three-year term in April, 2008, depending, of course, on a decision by the Commissioner on his fitness to do so.