Watchdog wants close look at council’s closed sessions
BY LARRY HLAVENKA JR.
Staff Writer

HOWELL — John Paff, a member of the New Jersey Libertarian Party who serves as what he called an “open government advocate,” has filed a complaint with the Monmouth County’s Prosecutor’s Office regarding a discussion the Township Council had in January during a closed session.

Closed sessions, also called executive sessions, are held behind closed doors out of the view of the public. State law provides a limited number of topics that may be discussed in closed session. Those topics are personnel; litigation; contract negotiations; and the acquisition of property. All other municipal business is supposed to be discussed in public.

Paff, a resident of Somerset County, believes the council violated the Open Public Meetings Act in January by discussing guidelines for rodeos behind closed doors. He does not believe the minutes of the closed session that were produced were specific enough for the public to understand what took place.

In a written objection to the council’s action he said, “Why, for example, was a general policy matter such as whether and how the township should regulate rodeos [be] discussed outside of public view?”

According to the minutes of the closed session, “Land Use Director Vito Marinaccio advised the governing body that the Riataman Ranch went before the Monmouth County Agricultural Board for an information meeting regarding regulations for rodeos.”

The council members said they would attempt to define a permit process before rodeo season started.

Also, by Township Attorney Thomas Gannon informing the council members that “Farmingdale passed a resolution opposing (high school) redistricting,” Paff said information regarding that matter is unclear and noted incorrectly.

When asked to comment on Paff’s charge that a topic that he (Paff) believes should have been discussed in public was discussed behind closed doors, Gannon said he remembers the rodeo issue, which included issues such as police enforcement, litigation and summonses that were issued.

Due to the fact that litigation was involved, the attorney said he believes the closed session was the appropriate forum to discuss the matter with municipal officials.

As a rule, “the mayor and council strive to comply with the dictates of the Sunshine Law,” Gannon said, referring to the other name by which the Open Public Meetings Act is known.

Paff said he conducts similar reviews of meeting minutes throughout the state at random. Recently, he has examined minutes from Jackson, Keyport and Sea Girt.

“I do Open Public Records Act requests and I see how they respond,” he said. “Where I find most towns fall down are the closed sessions.”

Paff said Howell’s alleged transgressions are “about normal,” noting that all missteps are “egregious.”

The advocate for open and transparent government said Howell officials should make their executive session minutes more clear.

He is asking council members to publicly announce the specific topics they will discuss in closed session and what closed session privilege — personnel, negotiations, litigation or property acquisition — those topics are entitled to.

In other words, if the council members announce they will be discussing litigation in closed session, Paff wants the name of the specific litigation to be discussed to be provided to the public before the council retires to executive session.

At present, he said, the council makes a blanket statement of what is permitted by law to be discussed behind closed doors, but does not state the specific issues it will be discussing out of public view.

“What I am asking them to do is tighten this up,” he said. “I think there would be a lot better participation by the public ... if [the council] were to obey the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act.”