So, if I'm reading this right -
Toffler gets a call about a "closed session topic" and she claims that there was nothing wrong with it, because someone ELSE told the reporter about it.

Toffler says that another Council-member got a call about a "closed session topic" and the only possible explanation is because he was the leak?

Out of idle curiosity, did any OTHER council-members also get phone calls seeking comment?

And Noah - just a question regarding journalistic integrity..... Is it common practice for another reporter in an office to call around and say who other reporters have been talking to?

Wow. Maybe The Record needs a new office!! It is sort of funny

James, it is definitely not funny. Someone provided confidential township information to a reporter. Howard Prosnitz knew that information should not be available to anyone outside the Council. If it was a Council Member, whoever leaked that info broke faith with the other members and the residents of Teaneck. How can Councilmembers discuss a controversial issue openly in a closed session if there is a risk of their words being leaked by another member?

Art; All I an saying is reporters are supposed to dig up secret information and report to the public. Its now our society works. it is funny to me that ANOTHER reporter was listening to the record's call. Sort of strange for a workplace right?

I'm slightly confused. Is this ''Teaneck Follies II or III"?

James: Reporters are supposed to get whatever information they can. That is Freedom of the Press. I am looking at the other end. Why would someone leak info meant to be confidential? What was the motive? Was it leaked in an attempt to destroy another Council member? What the press did with the information is besides the point. Only 8 people could have leaked it: 7 Council members and the Manager, I think. I hope we identify the leaker and close this issue.

just for clarification; The Teaneck Surbanite & the Record are owned by the same company.

Meanwhile, who've we got to fight Scott Garrett?

Unfortunately, it seems that the Teaneck taxpayers continue to lose precious funds as Mrs. Toffler continues her futile attempts to destroy one of her former colleagues. Even though she lost handily in her re-election bid, she continues to stick her hand into the pocket of the taxpayer. Shame on her!

I would not be so hard on Ms. Toffler. While not perfect in action or deed, she was very heavily punished by the Council majority over a relatively minor misquote/infraction. You are blaming the victim.
This is a much larger and more important issue. Someone on our Council broke faith with the people of Teaneck in order to score some political points. Who ever did it may still be on the Council. That is the person that should be found out, censured, and possibly removed. That said, I think we are in the hole to defend the Council member(s) accused.
We have already paying for about $20 million in unwise administrative (sexual and other harrassment by our paid staff) and poor construction (of the police station and the Streetscape). We have a $65 million annual town budget. The money will have to be found.

What exactly is the crime? Breach of confidentiality? It is unethical but what crime is there? It's not like outing a CIA agent.

I just don't see much proof here that Gussen leaked the information.. all this from a overheard phone call? nobody knows what was even said on the call. i can't see this going very far but I'm no lawyer.

James, you may not be a lawyer but you could play one on TV. I just saw a lawyer's comment and you were very close. I see the situation differently. We need to know who the snitch is/was and get that person off the Council if they are still on it. No more leaks!

Art, the only 2 people that know anything are Prosnitz (who will presumably use the 1st amendment) and the leaker (and IF it's Broughton, I'm not sure IF a crime was even committed).

Good luck in the next phase when the hearsay phone call isn't even allowed in as evidence.

All I know for sure is that WE get to pay for more of Toffler's vindictiveness.

And as far as "blaming the victim". She's no victim - she rolled in the mud and blasted off her mouth without thinking or verifying information.

A Court determined her complaints to subsequently be baseless (even if they weren't time-barred).

Sad, just sad. I had thought we were moving past this crap.

And Jeff, that's not correct - there might be a question as to "if" someone broke the law. I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet.

Ho Hum. Babs, it's time to move on. You violated your vows of serving the township by suing the council and costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending themselves. People wouldn't have been so angry and voted you out if you were really serving the town's best interests. You were too busy having hissy fits about being caught on tape for a minor fender bender. It all would have gone away if you would have ignored it. You obviously have had too much time on your hands instead of working for the betterment of Teaneck. The voters have spoken. Put on your big girl pants and move on.

Keith: Your logic is good and even likely. Still the judge said "probable cause" and deemed the case go to the DA. If the case is that weak, it will go away. Even if the case goes ahead it is only about Gussen. I want the actual leaker. If he is not the snitch, who is? The Council could have investigated itself in 2011 but did not.

About Mr. Broughton, right again. He did not take the Council oath of office so there may be no crime. That is OK. Whoever did it betrayed the other people in the room. Knowing it happened once means it could happen again. That distorts the decision making process. Hence that person needs to be removed. Our Council was indifferent to the issue.

Jeff, you are an eloquent writer but you misinterpret my comments about the Manager. Sure, it is possible that Gussen did it. Maybe he is the obvious choice but anyone in that closed meeting room COULD have done it. Each had the opportunity. Who had the motive? Sounds like a case for Perry Mason, no?

Jeff: I did not recall the content of the leaked material, only that it was leaked. That is why I am assuming every one in the meeting had equal chance of leaking the info, then playing the results for sympathy.

Is it possible that Toffler leaked it just to mix things up a bit?

Jacob: That is it. "It IS possible that Toffler leaked it just to mix things up a bit." But it is highly unlikely. It is conniving, diabolical and very risky. I believe there were others in that room that are more likely to have done so. The current case only seeks to investigate one of those. If cleared, the investigation ends and the snitch remains in the meetings ready to smear another Councilmember.

Ya' can't help but to laugh at the comedy of this all. Curly heard that Larry said that Moe said.......... But, after the laughter subsides, you realize that this is real. YIKES. There's a huge hearsay problem here. Are we up to triple hearsay? LOL. Much as a I loathe Adam Gussen's manner, I doubt that this gets anywhere.

Comedy for all of you, yes. This has been my life for two years since the May 25, 2010 email threat from Lerer, et.al: "we will monitor your every comment and action and bring a formal complaint against you." (I have a full pack of threatening and harassing emails I have received since 2007 if anyone is interested in a few hours of reading. Two points: 1) Lola and Jacob, please imagine you are doing your job as an officer of an organization for which you are working very hard. But some of the other officers don't agree with your opinions or the actions you successfully take on behalf of the organization. So they accuse you of wrongdoing, hire people to stand up publicly and denounce you, send statements about your wrongdoing to the media and to those who would employ you and you suddenly can't get work. And even though it's illegal, all this is done without any investigation by anyone, let alone an independent investigator. You are publicly denounced as a wrongdoer despite no proof of anything. Who is in the wrong? You? How do we know? Or is the body that accused and found you guilty without investigation or evidence? Obviously the body that accused and found you guilty without evidence or investigation. Would you sue that body to prevent them from doing what was done to you to anyone else and restore your good name? Most people would, even though it would cause their beloved organization money. Because the representatives of the organization did wrong, not you! (cont.)

If you want to be angry about the relatively small amount of money this lawsuit cost the town, direct your anger appropriately: to the 5 members of the Council who chose to be accuser, jury and judge. They violated their oath to the town. They should not be allowed to do this to anyone. Former Mayor Kevie Feit suffered worse attacks from the same council members, but decided to just not run again. Had he appropriately decided to fight what was done to him, I might have been spared. 2) in regard to my election loss, let's look at what was done: Yitz stern sends an email to just about all in the Orthodox Jewish community telling them to vote for only two candidates, Schwartz and Hameeduddin because "they have our interests at heart.". That the other candidates had the whole town's interests at heart was not wanted. A robocall on a phone belonging to a council member went out telling people not to vote for me, flyers announcing my censure and lawsuit (see above point 1) went out telling voters not to vote for me, another candidate's canvassers threatened my canvassers with arrest for not being from Teaneck, you've all heard about the lawn sign set up, and -- my 3000 door hangers put out for election day were ALL removed (save one found in a puddle in the street). There were, I was told, residents who were led to believe they would lose town services if they voted for me.. just so you know. I will say nothing about the prresent case. It is now with the prosecutor.

ok, let's say we grant you all of that as being 100% true - where's the proof for this case? Without some kind of proof, it's just a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds.

At least for this specific situation, let's allow the legal process to go forward, without individuals who do not know the facts making statements as if they did. Seeking justice is not a waste of taxpayers funds. it took us TWO YEARS to get justice for the two Teaneck pollworkers who were unjustly removed from their pollworker positions. Two years. But finally they were reinstated. That was worth every penny the taxpayers and the pollworkers supporters spent. I hope you are not suggesting that in Teaneck residents would rather pay lower taxes and forgo living in a just society.

Ms. Toffler,
Quite frankly, with taxes being what they are, I think that many residents would allow the pollworkers to not be reinstated if it meant lower taxes.

I've seen what you're like in some council meetings. Some of your outbursts are shocking, and honestly, you come across as a crazy person at times. That was why I didn't want you reelected. You also left the scene of an accident. Whatever happened afterward doesn't matter much to me. I wouldn't vote for someone who can do such a thing.

In the past, you've made comments against the Orthodox Jewish population, saying that you don't want Teaneck turning into an area like the ones in Rockland County. How can you be so blatantly racist?

You wrote "Yitz stern sends an email to just about all in the Orthodox Jewish community telling them to vote for only two candidates, Schwartz and Hameeduddin because "they have our interests at heart.". That the other candidates had the whole town's interests at heart was not wanted."
Yes, Jews will vote for those who will be best for the Jews. That is generally how elections work. You vote for the one you believe will be best for you. I assume all candidates have the town's best interests at heart, but they have different ways of showing it. Some might be better for the Jewish community, some might be worse.

Ms. Toffler, you brought all these problems on yourself. Now live with it, and stop wasting our tax dollars.

Dr. Tofler, I do not begrudge you of your opportunity to pursue your day in court, and neither should anyone else. (i.e.: Orthowatch). But, you have to know that this is one tough hearsay hill to climb. Godspeed. Also, I received one of your door flyers.

@Orthowatch: The beauty of Stern and Katz is that they make their bias so obvious. So help me, if I have to drive every eligible and willing voter in Teaneck to the polls to insure that neither of them is re-elected, I promise that I will.

Hmm, this is getting interesting. Bring in an valid example and you are accused of "muddying the waters". Can you differentiate between a bump in a snow bank from a bump against a flimsy license plate holder? The frustration that Ms. Toffler felt on the Council, I feel in the audience. Look at the record of Teaneck government over the past 20 years. This is what is "best for the Jews"? Did we really have to lose ~$20 million in legal judgments and shoddy construction costs that we are still paying for - about $1 million a year? Ms. Toffler didn't agree with the Council majority and she paid a price for that. Ms. Toffler thought things could made better. So do I. I submit that the Teaneck Council isn't about religion. It is about power - $65 million a year power. Isn't it time to consider more than parochial/provincial issues? For instance, can we work together as a wider community to have an emergency response plan in the event of a derailment on the CSX tracks. Do you know what to do? Where to go? How to keep your family safe?
Can we work together on getting that knowledge to our residents?

@ Keith Kaplan: Are you saying that you want the victim to investigate the malfeasance? And, yes. She was a victim.

As far as costing the township money. Welp, the leaker should have considered that before breaching his/her oath.

I have no dog in this fight. But...come on. Really?

I stopped reading after you said that she was a victim in her own mind. Good day, sir.

"I stopped reading after you said that she was a victim in her own mind."

Yes, that would be logical. Only read what you agree with. I also have no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that all these lawsuits only cost us taxpayers more and more money. Why can't Barbara play nice with the other kids? It makes me wonder why she can't seem to get along with others.

Stevie: Just cause Barbara was in the minority doesn't mean she was the one who is wrong. We already have a municipal government that is not very transparent and doesn't abide by municipal law regarding contracts and minutes. If you were on the Council would you go along with that?

You've said that. A judge disagrees. Next.

Keith: I was there when they voted. It was Liz Parker who abstained. You know, she was the one who had been Deputy Mayor and was the highest vote getter in the prior election but wasn't chosen to be Mayor. The Council - and I know the Council members will probably read this - were in "feeding frenzy" mode. (I feared they might tar and feather Barbara.) I think Liz abstained due to politics.

Teesmyth:"You've said that. A judge disagrees. Next."

You obviously have only a superficial knowledge of law. All the judge agreed to was not to throw the case out on summary judgement. Had the judge agreed to this, it would have been tantamount to Toffler losing without the other side even presenting a case; meaning, that she couldn't even provide a modicum of proof of anything. The judge hasn't even heard from the other side yet! Had this case been thriwn out in summary judgement, it would have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Toffler has once again made up selfish claims that continue to bankrupt our town. All this means now is that she can have her little tiff in court, while I and the other tax paying citizens of Teaneck must pay for it.

I stand by my comments. She can't seem to get alnog with anyone, and that's her problem. However, her dumbass lawsuits have now become OUR problem. Are our property taxes going to go up again because of this?

I checked the Patch stories in 2011. The letter that was leaked was CONFIDENTIAL just as any correspondance on personnel issues is in Teaneck. If the letter were about any Teaneck municipal worker, the case would not be any different. Imagine, "Teaneck municipal employee X involved in personnel dispute with Town Manager" as a Record headline. Who would do such a thing to an employee of the Town? Wouldn't that hurt that employee's stature and career? Township employee personnel issues are discussed by the Council only in closed session. The information was released prematurely, not by accident but by intent. The subject of the letter is immaterial. The fact that it was released implies there was a breach of trust, of decorum, of due process.

Barbara if it makes you feel better I haven't bothered voting for anyone since I've lived in Teaneck. Also Gussen is only running for congress and all ready he is embroiled in a scandal. I see a bright future in politics for him.

Tom: Nice of you to include Liz Parker's statement. I don't know the inner workings of the Council but I still conclude that she did not want to oppose the motion to censure so as to not challenge the other Council members. That could come back to haunt her when she has a motion that needs their support. In a word: politics.

Of course I meant it sarcastically, he has no future in politics. I'm sure his playing high school football was a big part of the good work he did for Teaneck. Every politican puts their own interests ahead of anything else.

Noah: The comments seem to be out of chronological order.

In response to Jeff O's most recent comments: With regards to the leak, the WHOLE COUNCIL is suspect. So is the manager. It depends on who had the motive and the opportunity. Adam may look like the most obvious but the actual leaker could be someone else, hiding. Let's face it, Barbara Toffler was not very popular with the councilmembers or the manager. Others may have had the motive and opportunity. They should be investigated. Joe Ax may have taken others calls unknown to Howard Prosnitz. The fact remains that our Council has some pretty poor decisions on its record. Despite our general respect for it as a body, we have had a giant overrun on the Police station (the township refuses to state how much the police station cost), major lawsuits against the township (about $10 million we pay out to 2020), a $4 million Cedar Lane Streetscape that is falling apart, a reduction in town hall hours of service, yet we reelect the same councilmembers time after time. I fear Teaneck is not the Teaneck it could be: progressive; efficient; inclusive; citizen friendly; business friendly, with development suitable for the older, inner suburb we are. Instead we are divided, stressed, disappointed and some of us feel we are being squeezed out.

Tom: Actually, I like herring in cream sauce. Yumm. Haven't had it in years.
The charge was only against Adam Gussen, not against the Council as a whole. I want the snitch. If it is Adam, so be it. But if it is not Adam, let's get the real leaker. Frankly, the person who leaked was not very bright. A small political gain for a big political risk. Someone was counting on the Teaneck public to be indifferent. I am sure you want the real snitch to be identified and removed from the Council. Councilmembers are not above the law. They break confidentiality, they fail due process. Our Council has a tendency to neglect due process (minutes, annual reports, attorney sign-off on contracts, meeting cancellations). That is a slippery slope. Enough is enough.