APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF TOWNSHIP OF MILLBURN, GOVERNING BODY, AND BUSINESS ADMINSTRATOR IN CHALLENGE TO BOND ORDINANCE AND ALLEGED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 

The Plaintiff resident attorney filed an action in lieu of prerogative writ challenging the adoption of a bond ordinance alleging a conflict of interest of the former mayor, an alleged improper limit on the time allowed for public comment, and alleged failures by the Township to provide information and responses to Plaintiff’s comments at the public hearing in connection with the adoption of the bond ordinance. Plaintiff further alleged that the Township was required to allow public comment prior to introduction of the bond ordinance, in addition to the public comments afforded at the second meeting when adoption was being considered.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Township defendants holding that there is no legal precedent requiring a public body to engage in colloquy with members of the public or to allow comments prior to action on agenda items, such as the introduction of the bond ordinance. The court also agreed with Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff had not established that the former mayor had an interest in one of the projects included in the bond ordinance merely because she owned a business in the vicinity of the public improvement. The court affirmed that ethics rules must be applied with caution because, otherwise, local governments would be seriously handicapped if every possible interest, no matter how remote and speculative, would serve as a basis for disqualification.

Matthew J. Giacobbe, Esq. and Mary Anne Groh, Esq. represented the Township Defendants in the Trial Court and Appellate Division.