Council Laws and Rules
by Mayor Jeff Ellentuck
Recent Borough Bulletin letters and the last several Borough Council meetings have made it evident that many need a reminder of the rules under which your Mayor and Council operate.
For the last 18 months, members of a particular group in the audience repeatedly questioned my motives and the motives of the Council, accused me and others of lying, being underhanded and otherwise impugned our reputations and insulted us.
That’s okay. It is more than okay. That is what every elected municipal official should expect and accept. It is what we are sworn to do. If we are not willing to be questioned, we should not be in office.
There was much handwringing in the recent Borough Bulletin because we failed to stop members of the public from questioning a member of Council during the public portion. However, had any of us done so, we would clearly have violated the law.
The matter of the public portion of public meetings was dealt with directly by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a West Windsor case. The Supreme Court opined that The First Amendment gives people the right to express disagreement with government policy, whether on the national, state, or local level. Heightened protection is given to speech in public forums, including the public comment period of a [municipal] meeting. We must permit comments even when they "include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
The public portion is created by New Jersey law and is a part of the Open Public Meetings Act or OPMA. It is NOT controlled by Roberts Rules of Order. In the public portion, you, the public, have a near absolute right to exercise your First Amendment rights of speech and petitioning your government. I am aware of NO corresponding right or obligation on the part of the Mayor or Council to speak during the public portion.
We cannot and should not hinder the public, whether or not we agree with it, and even if WE believe that speech to be insulting, vindictive, based on false facts or otherwise. We can control time, place, duration, repetitive speech and physical intimidation. But, we cannot apply those rules unevenly based on the content of the speech. Your right to criticize and question the actions and motives of the Council or its members is no less strong than the well exercised right to question or criticize my actions and motives as Mayor.
On the other hand, I and the majority on the Council have also been accused of bad faith, ulterior motives and lying by a single councilperson and have often been spoken over and interrupted by that same person. That is not okay. While Roberts Rules have nothing to do with the public portion, they most definitely control the Council. In short, Roberts Rules requires Council members to stick to the issues and refrain from questioning motives or veracity and requires Council members to say their piece and then listen silently and politely to the response.
If everyone would read and understand the rules they cite and abide by them, we could avoid much of the acrimony. Wouldn’t we all be better off?
by Mayor Jeff Ellentuck
Recent Borough Bulletin letters and the last several Borough Council meetings have made it evident that many need a reminder of the rules under which your Mayor and Council operate.
For the last 18 months, members of a particular group in the audience repeatedly questioned my motives and the motives of the Council, accused me and others of lying, being underhanded and otherwise impugned our reputations and insulted us.
That’s okay. It is more than okay. That is what every elected municipal official should expect and accept. It is what we are sworn to do. If we are not willing to be questioned, we should not be in office.
There was much handwringing in the recent Borough Bulletin because we failed to stop members of the public from questioning a member of Council during the public portion. However, had any of us done so, we would clearly have violated the law.
The matter of the public portion of public meetings was dealt with directly by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a West Windsor case. The Supreme Court opined that The First Amendment gives people the right to express disagreement with government policy, whether on the national, state, or local level. Heightened protection is given to speech in public forums, including the public comment period of a [municipal] meeting. We must permit comments even when they "include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
The public portion is created by New Jersey law and is a part of the Open Public Meetings Act or OPMA. It is NOT controlled by Roberts Rules of Order. In the public portion, you, the public, have a near absolute right to exercise your First Amendment rights of speech and petitioning your government. I am aware of NO corresponding right or obligation on the part of the Mayor or Council to speak during the public portion.
We cannot and should not hinder the public, whether or not we agree with it, and even if WE believe that speech to be insulting, vindictive, based on false facts or otherwise. We can control time, place, duration, repetitive speech and physical intimidation. But, we cannot apply those rules unevenly based on the content of the speech. Your right to criticize and question the actions and motives of the Council or its members is no less strong than the well exercised right to question or criticize my actions and motives as Mayor.
On the other hand, I and the majority on the Council have also been accused of bad faith, ulterior motives and lying by a single councilperson and have often been spoken over and interrupted by that same person. That is not okay. While Roberts Rules have nothing to do with the public portion, they most definitely control the Council. In short, Roberts Rules requires Council members to stick to the issues and refrain from questioning motives or veracity and requires Council members to say their piece and then listen silently and politely to the response.
If everyone would read and understand the rules they cite and abide by them, we could avoid much of the acrimony. Wouldn’t we all be better off?