At this moment, even County Clerk Chris Durkin needs to clarify the legal procedures for how to move forward regarding Mayor Jerry Fried’s petition to change Montclair’s municipal elections. While he was definitive about the petition being “decertified” when we spoke to him last Friday, today Durkin said that the issue is “still evolving and not settled yet,” given that the circumstances have changed.

Durkin will be meeting with the county’s legal council this afternoon.

Michael Byrne, a member of the committee assigned to study the proposed election change, believes it is too late for the township council to consider putting the question on the ballot for this November.

According to Byrne, the process requires at least 70 days, from the time the petition is submitted. “Even if they got additional signatures and resubmitted it today, and the clock started again, that would bring us to November 21,” he said.

“At this point, the mayor has to make a decision about whether or not he wants to drag this out through the court system, which would be costly to the town and bring to light some other, deeper issues.”

Byrne said that since Fried admitted last week to consulting with Township Attorney Ira Karasick about this issue, if the mayor decided to push the petition matter into the court system, the town would need to retain different legal council.

We have contacted the mayor and his attorney, Bennet Zurofsky asking for comment. Zurofsky told Baristanet that he is not, in fact, the “spokesperson for the Committee of Petitioners,” and has advised us to “continue to approach Jerry Fried for comments.”

Meanwhile, Byrne and the other election committee members will meet for the first time this evening. “We recognize that 1,180 people had an interest in voting on the merits of moving the election, and we plan to examine the issue carefully,” he said, pointing out, however, that they haven’t had a chance to discuss anything yet.

“Tonight’s meeting will be about establishing procedural functions, and electing a chair. There won’t be too much news, but we’ll create a roadmap to move forward.”

We’ll have more information about the legal issues when we get an update from the County Clerk.

Before you comment on Montclair Local
Comments are moderated. Montclair Local reserves the right to delete or close comments on any story at any time. Please read our → Commenting Policy before commenting.

35 replies on “Has Time Run Out for Mayor’s Election Petition?”

  3. It will go to court. The mayor will want a “do over” because the clerk told him the wrong number. The clerk’s mistake will costs us thousands.

  4. Would our “leader” please choose to focus on the big issues for the town! So he’ll have a little fried egg on the Fried face. Get over it and move on to the finances and off of the self-interest items.

  8. yes Kevin, that sounded like some kind of veiled threat, didn’t it? One would hope any civic minded citizen who knew of “some other, deeper issues” would simply “bring them to light”.

  10. Is there more information about whether or not other council members knew or suspected all along that the number was incorrect? I hadn’t heard that before reading the column quoted below. If it’s true, it solidifies my not voting for anyone already on council whenever the election ends up taking place. Or anyone who has been fact-checking actions of the council – which narrows down the field considerably.

    “But what’s most disturbing to The Times is that it appears that some council members knew that Wanat had given Fried the wrong number, in terms of how many signatures he needed to collect. That was a card up their sleeve. These council members kept silent, planning to bring up Wanat’s mistake at the 11th hour so the mayor would have to scurry to get more signatures.” link from The Montclair Times: https://bit.ly/p2wENw

  11. Wow which Fried operative wrote that MC Times piece?

    “Under some cockamamie state law, the next step was for the council to vote on an ordinance to change the election date.”

    Cockamamie or otherwise, it’s the law.

    “Wanat is revered throughout the state for her knowledge and professionalism as a municipal clerk. She even teaches college courses on her profession. To put her in any kind of position where she might be embarrassed, to let her go forward in error, is underhanded and wrong, plain and simple. It’s a betrayal.”

    No one “put her in a position” she used the wrong number all on her own. The law is clearly stated.

    “What happens if they get those names may be a legal mess, since there are very contradictory statutes on election law in the fair Garden State.”

    No one ever points out what is “contradictory” about the law because it isn’t. It’s clear and specific.

  12. It is truly a shame that there are not more checks and balances at 205 Claremont Avenue. They have gotten many numbers wrong before (tax rate increases miscalculated, capital budgets exceeded, forgetting and not enforcing revenue collections, exceeding the tax cap calculation in 2010, the list goes on and on and on…).

  13. “But what’s most disturbing to The Times is that it appears that some council members knew that Wanat had given Fried the wrong number, in terms of how many signatures he needed to collect. That was a card up their sleeve. These council members kept silent, planning to bring up Wanat’s mistake at the 11th hour so the mayor would have to scurry to get more signatures.

    If in fact that is the case, it stinks like a dead skunk in the middle of the road. Maybe we’re wrong and just too dang suspicious. But we doubt it.”

    What disturbing to me is that the MC Times offers not a scintilla of evidence (or even a supporting quote) how they knew this. Do they suppose themselves journalists?

  15. You should ask the skunk-in-the-middle-of-the-road-never-self-doubting-editors of The Montclair Times who wrote and printed the unsubstantiated hunch. (otherwise known as a smear)

  17. I was talking about this mess earlier today with a co-worker who has been pretty active in progressive ballot initiative petition drives. His immediate response was “Why didn’t they have plenty of extra signatures? You always get extra signatures. The clerk can always make a mistake, and you need to have a comfortable cushion for any signatures that get invalidated.”

    The Mayor, I mean Private Citizen Jerry, had counsel. Why did his professional attorney not see this as an issue?

    It’s perfectly acceptable for the Mayor and two other Councilor-Petitioners (one of which is also an attorney) to not understand the law, yet the majority of the Council that they are trying to do an end run around is expected to know it better and advise them when they are going wrong?

    We now have a Clerk who made a huge mistake, opening up the town to litigation exposure, and a Township Attorney who is not professional enough to avoid a conflict of interest in this matter, who has now opened the Township up to additional financial exposure if the Mayor files suit, since the town will need to pay to retain outside counsel.

    Is it too much to expect people to do a competent job for the position they are getting paid to perform?

  18. Gator, I think we know the answer to that. There is no one on this council who has been competent at aspect of actually running a town.

  20. “What disturbing to me is that the MC Times offers not a scintilla of evidence (or even a supporting quote) how they knew this. Do they suppose themselves journalists?”

    I’m also not clear what “stinks” about this, even if some people did know about the error being made. Given the Mayor’s response to Michael Byrne’s warnings (See , I know I’d be reluctant to offer any help. The Mayor set himself up for this. If you want input or help from people, you don’t get nasty with those that offer it.

    The clerk’s mistake is unfortunate for her, of course. I’m not in a position to know whether this is an easy or tough error to make, but people do make mistakes. I also wonder at the context in which the error was made. If the Mayor approached her already claiming that the numbers for a specific year should be used, she might not have felt herself in a position to overrule our town’s political leader.

    …Andrew

  22. “The clerk’s mistake is unfortunate for her, of course. I’m not in a position to know whether this is an easy or tough error to make, but people do make mistakes. ”

    Or maybe she broke her glasses or she is dyslexic? You can speculate anything Andrew.

    The law is plainly stated:

    “…at the last election at which members of the General Assembly were elected”

    The election results are available on the township website tabulated by the clerk!

    Her salary is $125k. This mistake may cost taxpayers thousands in legal fees.

  23. If she gets canned, can I apply for her job? It’s a nice salary. No commute. Great benefits. And some built in theatre, too.

  24. “This mistake may cost taxpayers thousands in legal fees.”

    Mistakes happen, and they do have consequences. I doubt that this is the first time someone in Montclair has erred in a way that cost taxpayer money, nor do I expect it to be the last.

    On the other hand, in this case it will only cost us if the Mayor decides that the haste with which he wants to push this, and his extra six months in office, is worth the time and money he’d force the town to spend. I have to admit that one benefit of this error is that it will make the Mayor’s interests even more clear.

    …Andrew

  26. He’ll sue. You’d sue too if your group of citizens circulated a petition and was told the wrong number by the clerk.

  29. The first time I ran for council in GR, I had been given the wrong number by our Borough Clerk (25). I went down to the county on the morning of the deadline day with 40 or so, and they said “sorry – you need 104”.

    I ran home to GR, and stood outside the Post Office with my late father-in-law (as wonderful, warm, charming and generous a man as you could ever meet – the dictionary definition of the word mensch). It took us a few hours, but we got to 125 or so and I rushed back down to Newark with about an hour to spare.

    The lesson I learned that day was to always read the statutes yourself…

  31. and Carl ANYONE who runs for public office knows that they need at least 10% extra signatures in case some are invalidated.

    I guess that these were 1180 of Jerry’s friends that he could vouch for.

    If members of Montclair’s Town Council knew that the clerk had underestimated the number of signatures required and that Jerry didn’t bother to do due diligence on the number, then I see no responsibility on their part to inform Jerry and his crew, who obviously stopped getting signatures at exactly the number “required”

    What chutzpah Jerry!

  32. The lesson I learned that day was to always read the statutes yourself…

    Carl, don’t you realize we’re not lawyers, and, as Mister Mayor pointed out, you can’t understand law unless you’re a lawyer.

    Has anyone pointed out that karmic justice in all of this, considering what happened to the Elect-the-Board petition last year? To refresh everyone, they submitted a petition, and the town attorney ruled it ineligible on a technicality (the two petitions circulating had a slight difference in wording). Fried could have stepped in and said, “Well, since it was just a technicality, we’ll help out by putting it on the ballot.” Nope. Fried’s position was: well, you effed up, so you fix it.

    Well, Mister Mayor, you effed up, now you fix it.

  33. And once the elect the board people did fix the problem (which was an enourmous undertaking in such a short time frame) Fried passed a resolution stating the council was against the movement.

    And now he’s willing to spend tax money to sue to get his way? So, there goes the reasoning of saving $50k every 4 years, the lawsuit would burn through that in no time.

    Again, Jerry ran on an issue of transparency, and we’re finally getting it. Nothing has been as transparent as his attempt to get 6 more months as mayor when he knew there was no way of him ever being re-elected. Then I’m sure he hopes all will be forgotten during November elections.

  34. I love this thread, I just wish that the good Prof was here to give us the 07043 point of view. What heinous act did he commit to get banned?

Comments are closed.