Montclair Mayor Renee Baskerville on Tuesday said she reported First Ward Councilor Eric D’Amato’s remarks during a closed-session meeting to the police last week because she viewed them as a “call for violence.”
Baskerville’s comments followed Montclair Local’s report on Monday, which detailed the altercation during the Dec. 18 meeting.
“I want to make sure nobody thinks that I went to the police station because he said, ‘F— you.’ He could have said whatever, but the minute he turned around and started saying, ‘What you going to do?’ repeatedly while leaning in an aggressive manner, that is a call for violence, and I understood it to be one,” Baskerville said. “So, that’s when I said, ‘I can’t let this go on.’”
‘I am not here because he said, ‘F— you’
In her report to police, Baskerville said D’Amato confronted her, “which made her feel directly threatened.” Speaking on Tuesday, Baskerville recounted her conversation with the police officer.
“I kept saying, ‘I’ve been at this for a very long time. I have very thick skin. I’ve had people call me all kinds of stuff, and I’m still standing and still happily serving,” Baskerville said. “I said ‘I am not here because he said, ‘F— you.’ I am here because of the menacing and harassing way in which he was flailing and leaning toward me saying ‘What are you going to do?’”
Baskerville painted a fuller picture of the closed-door meeting, an executive sesson held to discuss hiring an interim township attorney about two weeks before the expiration of interim township attorney Paul Burr’s contract.
“Every council person in the room was involved in a yelling match, and that there is no dispute over,” Baskerville said. “Everybody was yelling, screaming, cursing.”
Efforts to reach each of the remaining council members for comment have not been successful. On Monday, D’Amato neither disputed his actions detailed in the police report nor apologized.
“The real question people should be asking is what could be leading to such rancor behind closed doors,” D’Amato said in an emailed statement to Montclair Local. “I can’t go into what is said in executive sessions, which are legally privileged. I will say, however, that three things which really get under my skin are attempts to disrupt government business for selfish purposes—potentially a criminal offense under section 2C:29-1 of New Jersey code—the casual bullying of people who aren’t used to the rough-and-tumble of Montclair politics and tolerance for anti-semitism.”
Deflection, Mayor Says
Baskerville, who told police D’Amato’s remarks behind closed doors were part of a pattern of outbursts, characterized his response as a deflection.
“He’s trying to take attention away from the fact that he needs to get help, so that he can stop threatening people,” Baskerville said.
The mayor said she had not before discussed the altercation publicly because she did not want to create more public discord, including the potential for retaliation against D’Amato.
“A lot of people, their first reaction is to say, ‘no one can speak to our Black queen in this manner and threaten her,’ and sometimes people may be moved just like the councilman was moved to threatening me. You don’t know,” Baskerville said.
Discord Begins on Dais
While the altercation detailed in the police report happened behind closed doors, the discord started during the livestreamed public meeting. There, Baskerville said she was not consulted about the attorney selection — prompting an objection from Councilor-at-Large Carmel Loughman.
“That’s baloney,” Loughman said. “We asked you to rank your candidates. We never heard from you.”
“I gave you the name,” Baskerville replied.
‘So Much Racism’
Baskerville, a former Fourth Ward councilor, is Montclair’s first woman elected mayor in the township and Montclair’s first Black woman mayor. The altercation comes six months after an all-new council took office.
Speaking to Montclair Local, Baskerville took issue with D’Amato’s response on Monday in which he also responds to a second police report Fourth Ward Councilor Aminah Toler filed against him. Toler claims D’Amato yelled expletives at her in an “angry and aggressive tone multiple times.”
Baskerville and Toler are the only African American women on the council.
“He’s not the only council person that has seemed to me as though they believe that because Aminah and I are both Black females, we’re going to be on the same side,” she said. “It’s offensive that there is so much racism coming from that particular person.”
What’s Next?
How will the council move ahead? The township’s Civil Rights Commission had previously recommended state Attorney Generals’ Office anti-bias training starting with the council. That recommendation came amid concerns over one chaplain in the now-disbanded Montclair Police Department chaplain program.
Marc H. Pfeiffer, a senior policy fellow at Rutgers University’s Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, suggested the council make a commitment to avoid personal attacks.
“We are living in a challenging time,” Pfeiffer said. “People have very strong feelings about issues and want them to be expressed. And a group of people like the councilors need to find a way that they can do their business, hear everybody’s opinions and focus on the things they need to do to resolve issues and try to be as civil as possible in doing it.”
Pfeiffer also floated the possibility of an outside consultant (not himself) assisting the council with team building and conflict resolution.
“Being a new group, it takes some time for people to settle in, understand where people are coming from,” he said. “And they may need assistance in doing that given these challenging times we’re in.”
Email reporter Matt Kadosh at matt@montclairlocal.news
Call it ego. Call it hubris. Call it vanity. This Council has it and can’t get past it.
This is not news. It started the many weeks before they were sworn in. It showed itself over who would be the first Deputy Mayor and next. It showed itself when they couldn’t agree on how to set their meeting agendas and were unable to constitute its committees and what their roles would be. It showed itself with their lack of urgency and prioritization. It showed itself with addressing the dissatisfaction with their 2 direct reports. It showed itself when Roberts Rules of Order were used, misused and abused to advance individual agendas. It showed itself when this Council had to actually pass a resolution on how to play nice with each other and then immediately reverted to chaos.
The story keeps changing as the more details come out and increasingly paints a more accurate picture of what has concerned me for the last 6 months. They ALL are the problem! Every single one of them. This Council was voted in because of voter anger. With this, good luck to them trying to cast pubic anger as a threat, or a call, or whatever for violence. This Council thrives on passive-aggressive behavior. Clear, measured anger is the best counter to passive-aggressiveness. Anger is not a bad thing. Anger is both a release and an unmistakable call for a reset. A hard stop to what created it. This Council will find this out in very short order. Grow up and lose the attitude!
I don’t think any promise this council will make will stop Erik D’Amato. He has attacked other people in town with his explosive temper. It’s abuse. Plain and simple abuse. It was very telling when he said the “rough and tumble Montclair politics.”. He has used the words politics and politicians to me. He sees himself as a politician. Which being in a town council is really laughable to me, not in a good way. It clear he does not view himself as a resident doing essentially volunteer work for his community.
I am from the first ward. My belief is he should resign. He has completely marginalized himself through this. What possible good does an abuser do for the community? He should step aside, and let someone who truly wants to be a volunteer, not a politician, take his place.
D’Amato stood alone against antisemitism and became the target of personal attacks that day, so it’s understandable that he experienced significant stress. However, his response isn’t helping the situation. Anderson Shin and Loughman are not much better. They are making key decisions without consulting anyone else. They are the root of the problem. Meanwhile, Birmingham and Williams have been noticeably absent. I have more confidence in Bakerville and Toler, but with two articles and a letter in just three days, their focus seems to be on undermining D’Amato rather than improving collaboration. All of them need to show a genuine willingness to work through these challenges. Everyone involved needs to acknowledge their mistakes and move forward. This new year could serve as an opportunity for positive change. Nobody wants to deal with this drama, especially during the holidays.
Maybe some Montclair folks need a reminder, or maybe some aren’t aware, but this isn’t the first time D’Amato is surrounded by controversy. Here’s a little reminder of what he did just a couple years ago –
https://montclairlocal.news/2022/03/vote-montclair-members-quit-after-founder-criticizes-school-unions-for-protecting-seniority/
After his lame public apology for that mess, people from Vote Montclair, including current President of the BOE Deysher and BOE member Dunn pulled away from D’Amato. And for good reason. His true feelings about long serving teachers and teacher’s unions was shocking to many after he worked so hard to change our BOE from appointed to elected. In a conversation with D’Amato he clearly described to me his agenda of who he and Vote Montclair would support as candidates and three of those he supported Dunn, Deyscher, and Fleischer are sitting there now. A political agenda became clear to many of us. First he would pull control from the Mayor and then he would work hard to get candidates he supported to get elected. And it worked…
Next he would run for Town Council and within his first couple months of sitting up on the dais, OPRA’d emails filled with anti-Arab bias were uncovered. Never an apology, only pathetic excuses to the Civil Rights Committee who then recommended bias training.
Now this. Bullying and intimidation against our Mayor and Fourth ward Council. I hope people are paying attention now, because I had this guy’s number years ago! He most certainly has an agenda and anyone who stands in his way becomes a target.
Haven’t we seen enough? Get him out! And keep him out of our local politics.
Both Loughman and Shin Anderson have, for whatever reason, fallen under the spell of Lapolla. Why this council did not understand that the people in this town wanted Lapolla out immediately after this council was installed is something that is not understood. Now Loughman and Shin Anderson want to hire the Lapolla recommendation of Garcia? Why? Garcia has been involved in helping the BOE of Linden from charges that the deputy superintendent was retaliated against because he objected to the black mayor telling him that no more Jews were to be hired in the school system. Why do we want anyone involved in things like this? Do Loughman and Shin Anderson even know about this? What kind of vetting did you they do? If they found this, it’s okay with them.
The other huge miss by this council was not getting rid of the town attorney right away, like the people wanted. They knew for months that Burr was not being renewed, and did nothing, including telling us? Why did they not start a search for a permanent then?
This council, needs to listen to people and take them seriously. Including this Loughman half baked idea of building up huge density in this town, including lot spitting. Just stop.
Toler has been great. She seems to be the only one that realizes that they are there to serve the town. She demonstrates deep concern for her ward. Eileen scolds us over holiday free parking, calling it lost revenue, that we never anticipated. Williams looks like he would like to be anywhere except a council meeting.
Wow. Really? C’mon people. This is all taking us to a real bad place. I realize I’m no longer part of things anymore and perhaps I don’t see what you see and hear, but who will possibly want to come to work here with all this criticism, warranted or, in many cases, unwarranted? The intrigue and drama suggested here is incredible. Who will ever want to run and serve?
Sorry people, but this is all quite sad. I hope 2025 is a far better year for the town I love
No need for Netflicks this holiday week. The ‘theatre of the absurd’ is playing right here. In living “color” on the Montclair channel. And not all characters are revealed yet. This is just the newest episode but the main plot is still hidden.
Who on the Council is going to blow up the town again and bring in more bad news appointments for Manager and Township Attorney? Who is still politically clueless and would support anyone connected to departing NJ. patronage player, Turnpike Mike?
Maybe next week’s show will have the finale…
If this guy’s that bad, just fire him! What am I missing here? 🤷♂️
The last twenty minutes of the marathon council meeting (link above) are edifying. I also might have screamed after hearing the Mayor complain over and over and over and over about the “process” of selecting a …wait for it… interim township lawyer for 3-4 months! Maybe she was peckish- she seemed petulant.
Boughman and Shin impressed me. Toler had a dumb idea: let’s NOT keep the option of making the interim lawyer permanent to avoid giving her/him “a leg up” on future candidates for the permanent position. What?! So our goal is fairness to future, hypothetical candidates, rather hiring the best person? If the interim happens to be that person, we must boot them, notwithstanding? That’s bad for the township, but maybe good for the candidate Toler evidently tendered at the last minute.
Williams was quiet but made a grown up call about the “process.”
I agree with D’ Amato about unions prioritizing teacher seniority over merit. That’s demonstrably true, and is not best for students.
D’Amato was polite, even conciliatory, to the Mayor in my viewing but sounds like he blew it in the Executive session. He should apologize and probably take anger management, at least as show of good faith. But who reports “f*ck you” to the police? In New Jersey?
Don-Morgan. You have things messed up. Toler did not suggest that. The mayor did. Go back to the video. Did you even read the mayor’s statement? I guess not. This was not about fu’s, this was about her feeling physically threatened by D’Amato. If you are going to make comments, why don’t you first get your facts straight?
Ed Remsen. Easy for you to judge, when you were not subjected to this. The victim gets to decide if they felt abused and threatened. Not someone home in their pjs.
I hope this resolves it self soon. We had enough of fighting in the last administration.
Queen?
Mayor Baskerville is right. Burr has been interim for over two years after starting with just a four-month contract.
There are many reasons not to hire the lawyer picked by the two councilors. First, that firm defended the Rao case, and Yacobellis even said he felt “embarrassed” by their unprofessionalism. Second, what’s the incentive for this lawyer to work for the township, besides racking up hours for a firm we already collaborate with? Supporting discrimination isn’t the kind of firm we want to partner with. Also, those high political connections they have aren’t what we need. Finally, five councilors had no say in that decision.
If the council goes ahead and hires this guy, I think they’ll regret it. If this lawyer takes the job, he’s in for a rough time. The council really needs to step up and do a better job of selecting the right people for our town, not just leaving it to two individuals.
Ed: Any good, honest, and capable person will be moved to step in. This applies to both attorney and manager positions. There are many candidates for both posts, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
don-morgan,
I think your recommendation for people to watch the meeting segment starting at 5:47 mark is probably the most valuable comment on this thread. I also think to single out D’Amato for apologies due is wrong. The first act this Council in the new year is to make an unanimous apology to the residents of Montclair. I’d settle for a a 4-member majority to signal that a Council majority can collaborate on something important.
Ed,
I agree with many of your views posted on this issue. I disagree most about the public criticism being an issue. And mostly because there is really only a small minority that bother to get civically involved. The last election’s turnout was a damning indictment of the majority of residents who couldn’t be bothered to involve themselves in local governance. There was every reason and expectation for a far larger resident turnout and yet a majority found various excuses not to participate in the election or our governance overall. So if I am taking the public to task, it is this majority. It is likely they really don’t care that much of this bitter, contentious Council infighting and dysfunction. And those in this majority that are bothered is because they have been embarrassed by the media attention over what they like to believe and tell friends & associates is this little slice of heaven.
The fact is, we are what our record says we are.
.
@montclair,
Too funny! Baskerville, not satisfied being sworn in as Mayor – the noteworthy “first among equals” Council member – elevates herself via a coronation I somehow missed up here in the North End.
And while it is expected politicians rarely accept any personal blame /accountability, Baskerville does have a extensive record of service and not taking blame for anything.
@montclair and @Frank your lack of cultural awareness is showing.
Yes, Queen!
pmf,
I have no problem that a people consider her Black female royalty. My amusement was that not that she embraces the moniker. My issue is that she is invoking this royal status – that the majority of the townships residents didn’t bestow on her – to silence her bad behavior. Basically, her reign is beyond reproach. I reject this.
Further, this is the most diverse & representative Council in my memory for gender and race. This most diverse and representative Council, as the Mayor recounted above “Everybody was yelling, screaming, cursing.”
And I’ll remind you that I never thought she would be a good Mayor and did not vote for her. Based on past history. In fact, you will recall I advocated a long-shot, write-in campaign for either of the 2nd Ward candidates for Mayor. Both 2nd Ward choices had essential qualities & skills that would have likely fostered more inclusion and collaboration among the Council. And neither would have inflamed discord.
The First Among Equals gets to take credit for all successes, but must take the blame when the governing body fails – especially on all the fundamental execution.
“I agree with D’ Amato about unions prioritizing teacher seniority over merit. That’s demonstrably true, and is not best for students.”
This is such a tired BS cliche. And in D’Amato’s case, a ridiculous one since the teacher he targeted in his infamous victory-lap diatribe was one of the district’s most beloved tenured educators. Why is that people just assume that an older teacher is less likely to care about their work and therefore should be vulnerable to be being kicked to the curb? In what other industry do we assume that 55 (or thereabouts) is the demarcation line for fatigued and indifferent-to-negligent) performance. It’s just a resentment of unions, the state pensions they have negotiated to help compensate for the way American educators have historically been (under)paid and the right to keep said salaries in line by making sure older teachers are gone before they reach a salary that might allow them to afford to live within commuting distance of Montclair. Never met this D’Amato, have no idea how he makes a living, but given his head of gray hair, should I just assume he half-asses it most days?
Tired maybe, but not BS. The problem is not the senior teachers that are high performing, its the senior low performers. In non-union industries, they get lower raises (along with low performing juniors). In unions, they get the higher or the same raises as high performers. Good for low performers – bad for students. Here’s evidence to that effect
The Political Consequences of Controversial Education
Reform: Lessons from Wisconsin’s Act 10*
Barbara Biasi† Wayne Sandholtz‡
July 17, 2024
Abstract
We study the electoral consequences of Wisconsin’s Act 10, a controversial law that weakened teachers’ unions and enabled flexible teacher pay. Exploiting variation in the timing of implementation of the reform across districts, we first show that it raised student test scores, reduced union revenues, and created winners and losers among teachers in terms of pay. We then show that the reform increased the vote share for the incumbent GOP governor by about 2 pp and
lowered Democratic campaign contributions from teachers and unions. The electoral gains were driven by districts with ex ante stronger unions and more potential winners among teachers and students.
https://www.barbarabiasi.com/uploads/1/0/1/2/101280322/political_feasibility.pd
ALSO: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/pol.20200295
The catch is how teachers are determined to be “low-performing.” Are those who work in lower-income districts, where the challenges are typically greater and resources scarcer than in high-income districts, held to the same standards? Is it based on test scores, which often are not a true measure of how a student is learning as some just test better than others? Here in New Jersey, where pro-charter hacks like the Sunlight Policy Center would have you believe the NJEA is running the state, public school measures quite well against the rest of the nation. In red states, where unions are weak if they exist at all, the results tend to be abysmal. Leaving aside the highly partisan nature of the of union issue, let me put it this way: I would not want people with agendas–Mr. D’Amato for one, to be among those making these determinations. Happy New Year.
Sad. Seems that this could have all been handled behind closed doors. Why does the public need to be concerned with the dysfunction of this council? Since no one was physically harmed, it really didn’t need to be brought to the public’s attention. How immature, and how embarrassing for them all. This is not what leadership looks like. Feels very manipulative, like when kids try to get their friends involved in a spat that occurred between two people, and they have to tell everyone because they need the validation and to win, rather than work to resolve it.
I’m just looking at the latest now. Off to bed. Will provide scathing commentary tomorrow. Unbelievable some stuff I read!