In a heated session on Feb. 25, the Teaneck Township Council debated a proposed ordinance introduced by Deputy Mayor Karen Orgen, aimed at regulating certain types of events, including protests and car rallies, within the township.

“The ordinance is meant to protect First Amendment rights, not just the right to free speech for protesters, but also the right to freedom of worship, which these disruptive protests are limiting. There’s more to the First Amendment than just allowing people to get up and scream, and it’s infringing on other peoples first amendment rights to worship,” Orgen explained.

This proposal emerged in response to numerous pro-Hamas rallies, protests and car parades in Teaneck since Oct. 7, 2023, which have raised safety and harassment concerns among Jewish residents, as well as unaffiliated community members.

The meeting quickly turned sour after the ordinance proposal was rejected by over half the council over constitutional concerns. The vote was only to introduce the ordinance for further discussion prior to a final decision, yet it was blocked.

Bergenfield introduced the same ordinance and is set to vote on it March 4. If the measure is considered constitutional there, why is it being challenged in Teaneck? This discrepancy raises questions about whether opposition to the ordinance is truly about legal concerns.

The ordinance is aimed to amend existing municipal codes to introduce stricter regulations on public gatherings.

Key provisions included:

• Time, Place and Manner: The ordinance sought to regulate events in a way that ensures they occur at appropriate times and locations, minimizing conflicts with community activities and daily life.
• Disruptiveness: Events would be evaluated on their potential to interfere with businesses, schools, religious services and public order, ensuring that protests do not cross into harassment or intimidation.
• Permit Requirement: Organizers of any special event, including protests, parades or demonstrations, would need a permit from the township.
• Advance Notice: Applications need to be submitted at least ten days before the planned event.
• Review Process: The township would assess applications based on factors such as public safety, potential disruptions and compliance with local ordinances.

Orgen emphasized the ordinance’s necessity, stating, “As elected officials, we have many jobs, but the two most important are to protect the safety of our residents and to ensure they feel safe here. I think we have not been able to do that fully over the last year.”

She further explained, “This ordinance gives clarity and clear direction to the police department so that they now have something they can work with to protect us.”

Township attorney Scott D. Salmon clarified, “There is a right to protest in traditional public forums—parks, plazas, streets and sidewalks—even without permits.”

The ordinance was introduced following several disruptive protests in Teaneck, including one outside Congregation Bnai Yeshurun during a ZAKA (an organization that provides proper burial to victims of terror) event in April 2024 and multiple car parades that proudly displayed statements like “Globalize the Intifada.”

Despite the ordinance’s clear intent to protect Teaneck residents, Councilman Michael Pagan and Councilwoman Hillary Goldberg declined to support it.

The vote ended with Mayor Michael Schwartz, Orgen, and Councilman Elie Y. Katz in favor. However, Deputy Mayor Denise Belcher and Councilwoman Danielle Gee and Goldberg abstained, while Pagan voted outright against it. Without enough votes, the ordinance proposal failed.

Goldberg, who had previously positioned herself as an ally to the Jewish community, refused to take a stand. She said: “When I took office … I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and that is why we must have an independent attorney not representing anyone else in this town guiding this entire council in creating the tools we need to fight hate. This hate needs to be stopped but this ordinance is not the way to fight hate.”

Orgen revealed at the end of the meeting that “we brought this ordinance forward in January and we’ve had three meetings since then. Tonight, I was asking for approval not to introduce it but to put it on the agenda to then introduce it in two weeks to then discuss it for another two weeks. … There’s no reason tonight why we couldn’t have agreed to put this ordinance on the next agenda to then discuss it and still hire an attorney in that time.”

If this ordinance had been under discussion since January, why did Goldberg and other council members wait until the last moment to raise concerns? Their actions appeared to be a deliberate attempt to stall progress.

Many residents expressed their disappointment over the council’s inaction. Teaneck resident Yehudit Robinson shared her deep concerns, saying, “I fear not knowing when outside agitators will come to Teaneck, not knowing how many will join, and not knowing whether their threats might translate to physical action.”

Keith Kaplan, a former Teaneck councilman, stated: “You have a right to pray at a synagogue … and you can’t do that if someone is standing next to you and screaming. This ordinance … says a person outside holding up a sign is not disrupting. A person with a megaphone, so that you can’t hear inside, is. That’s what this ordinance is made to do.”

Attorney Elliot Berman echoed a similar stance. “Residential neighborhoods and outside houses of worship are not the places for demonstrations. The town green and other public spaces could be used instead.”

Not everyone in attendance supported the ordinance. Many echoed Pagan’s concerns, asking, “Is this constitutional?” Attendees donning keffiyehs in solidarity with Hamas claimed their opposition was about free speech. One opponent stated: “This ordinance is broadly arbitrary, and its prohibition is prima facie a constitutional violation. It represents a content-based restriction on speech that the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down.”

Harassment masquerading as a first amendment issue is being illustrated by the opposition when another speaker claimed: “As far as the Jewish community being threatened here—if they would stop having stolen land sales in synagogues, then there would be no need to have these protests. It’s actually the illegal sale of stolen Palestinian land that is the reason these protests have happened, and they hide them in synagogues to try to restrict attendance.”

This rhetoric exposed what many Jewish residents already knew—this is not about free speech. This is about silencing the Jewish community and justifying harassment under the guise of protest rights.

Rabbi Daniel Fridman of the Jewish Center of Teaneck and the RCBC vice president for community affairs, further illustrated this, recalling how he was served “with cease-and-desist papers simply for stating that there is a religious component to the Jewish connection to the land of Israel.”

“Also there are people who claim that these rallies and protest are over, and we should just let this go, but the fact that a Nefesh B’Nefesh aliyah fair is being protested next week in Teaneck is evidence that the issue is unfortunately not going away,” said Rabbi Fridman.

Despite the setback, Mayor Schwartz said he “feels super optimistic about this” and assured residents that this fight is not over. The council voted to have an independent constitutional attorney review the ordinance draft, with the intent to refine and reintroduce it.

In an update from the Bergen County Jewish Action Committee (BCJAC), residents were encouraged to keep pressure on the council to bring the ordinance back for reconsideration. “Thank you to the many residents who came out and spoke eloquently in support of the ordinance, and who shared their perspectives as American citizens, members of the Jewish community, Teaneck residents, and attorneys. Residents are encouraged to hold the council accountable and ensure that this ordinance returns to the agenda as soon as possible.”