Discussion centers on door-to-door permit requirements

BY LINDA DeNICOLA
Staff Writer

A Freehold Township resident who believes that an ordinance adopted earlier this year may restrict his civil liberties brought the matter to the attention of the Township Committee at its Oct. 26 meeting.

The ordinance that amended the township’s charitable and political solicitation code sets limits on who can knock on residents’ doors in the community.

Resident Adam Geist told the committee last week that he was not seeking a confrontation, but that he wanted to exercise his free speech rights and to open a dialogue in the community regarding a law that he believes restricts civil liberties.

Reading from a prepared statement, Geist said, “Earlier this year the solicitation ordinance was amended to include the following: ‘Canvass or canvassing shall mean a person or persons going from place to place or house to house to interview, interact or inform another person or persons in an attempt to convince him/her/them to embrace or support (in a non-monetary manner) or vote for a proposition, person, candidate, philosophy, idea, concept or organization.’ ”

Geist is an active member of the Freehold Neighborhood Alliance and said he believes the amended ordinance obstructs him from discussing issues that affect his neighborhood with his neighbors unless he subjects himself to a background investigation.

In Freehold Township, under the amended ordinance, a person who talks to his neighbors or distributes fliers in an attempt to gain support for a candidate, philosophy, idea or concept is breaking the law unless he applies for and receive a discretionary permit to do so, Geist said.

“Requiring a discretionary permit process to speak to my neighbor is a clear and blatant violation of my civil rights [and] civil liberties, and is a dangerous attempt to limit free speech. Solicitation ordinances are usually passed to protect residents, not to limit the civil liberties of those living in the communities,” he said.

Committeeman Raymond Kershaw explained that the ordinance was amended to protect residents. He cited a recent news story about a woman who was murdered by a solicitor in Manchester, Ocean County.

As part of the permit application process, the applicant will be subject to a background investigation overseen by the chief police official of Freehold Township. This background check will include an investigation into the applicant’s moral character, Geist said.

“In my opinion there is a distinction between moral character and a criminal background. Moral character is subjective,” Geist said.

He mentioned a recent news story concerning a lawsuit between the People’s Organization for Progress and Newark in which the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey argued that permits cannot be required for free speech activities and that the chief of police cannot be granted such wide discretion in deciding who may obtain a permit.

“Perhaps recognizing its unconstitutionality, the City of Newark decided not to defend the ordinance in court. I cannot agree more,” Geist said, adding, “It is clearly obvious to me that this [Freehold Township] ordinance was amended to include neighborhood grass-roots groups such as the Freehold Neighborhood Alliance.”

Geist asked the members of the committee to revisit the ordinance and reconsider the canvassing amendment.

Township Attorney Duane Davison noted that he had already discussed the ordinance with Geist.

“The Township Committee has no desire to thwart dialogues between residents,” Davison said, adding that the intent of the committee’s action was to make the ordinance more precise so as to protect the township from possible litigation. He said he was willing to reword the ordinance.

A non-solicitation list section was also added to the ordinance. According to that section, the township clerk will prepare a list of addresses where the owner and/or occupant has notified the clerk that canvassing and soliciting is not permitted on the premises. Notification will be by completion of a form available at the clerk’s office.

The list, which will be updated four times a year, will be given to applicants seeking municipal licenses to canvass or solicit.

Deputy Mayor David Salkin defended that new section. He explained that 18 months ago the national “Do Not Call” list evolved into a list for people to put their names on if they did not want door-to-door solicitations.

“It does not mean that you can’t go door-to-door to speak with a neighbor,” Salkin said.

Resident Stan Organek agreed that the “Do Not Call” list is fine for people who do not want to be bothered, but he objected to the restrictions on canvassing.

“When I first saw that ordinance I couldn’t believe that anybody that has a strong respect of the first amendment would approve it,” he said.

He, too, believes that it is not appropriate for the chief of police to decide who gets a permit and who does not.

“He is someone who you folks hired, yet he is the grantor of the permits. Conceivably, a person who is running for Township Committee from the opposite party would have to get a permit,” Organek said.

He, too, asked that officials rescind that portion of the amendment.