Council set for vote on procedure changes
BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer

EDISON — Public discussion on a controversial ordinance that, if passed, would amend various rules of procedure in Township Council meetings is set for tonight's Jan. 14 meeting. Aimed at increasing the efficiency at which township business is conducted, it has been heavily critiqued by some residents as restricting free speech.

The ordinance, introduced on Dec. 22, contains many provisions that would either change how meetings are conducted or clarify current practices. One part, for example, lays out the specific procedure for how a special meeting can be called and who can call one. Similarly, the ordinance explicitly lays out the process by which the budget is examined, discussed and adopted.

The most controversial aspects, however, affect how long meetings would run and how public comments during those meetings would be handled.

Under the current procedures, meetings last until 11 p.m. unless a majority of the council votes for more time. Under the proposed rules, work session meetings would end at 9 p.m. and regular meetings at 10 p.m., with time extensions allowed only through a two-thirds vote.

The time allowed for public comments would also be reduced. Under the proposed regulations, individual residents would be able to speak for four minutes, down from the six minutes currently allowed, with an overall time for public comment restricted to one hour, unless a majority of the council votes to extend this period. Currently, there is no time limit for overall public comment.

Along the same lines, residents would be restricted to commenting only once per item of township business; currently, they can get up to speak as many times as they desire, sometimes leading to extended discussions stretching out over long periods of time.

Councilwoman Melissa Perilstein, a supporter of the ordinance, said that the ordinance began as a way to standardize council practice with written policy. She said that over the years, council practices such as procedures for appointments had evolved in ways that were inconsistent with what was actually written in the township's administrative code. The original purpose of the initiative was to bring the laws up to speed with how the council operates today. She said the decision to make a comprehensive reform of meeting practices grew from this effort.

"So, we began the exercise out of necessity, and then we decided to make it a comprehensive review because we felt that the meetings needed to be more efficient and productive, and we wanted to encourage more public involvement at the meetings through a more structured dialogue," said Perilstein in an e-mail.

The ordinance was crafted by closely examining practices and procedures in other municipalities such as Bridgewater, Carteret and North Brunswick. Perilstein said they discovered a wealth of information about how other towns operate their meetings.

"For instance, Bridgewater and Carteret only allowed three minutes for the public to speak, and Bridgewater only two minutes. Five of the nine towns [we examined] hold a work session; one of these five holds it the same night as the regular meeting," said Perilstein.

She also noted that despite the critiques from meeting regulars, giving people only one opportunity to speak per item of council business will not stifle debate but, rather, will increase its efficiency.

"At the very minimum, if the meeting, just for clarification sake, only had one ordinance and one resolution, an individual would be able to speak 12 minutes. How the proposed ordinance reads, four minutes for each ordinance, four minutes for each resolution, and four minutes for the oral petitions and remarks. … This will not stifle the debate, but it will bring greater efficiency to working through the people's business and engaging more residents in the public dialogue," said Perilstein.

Guy Baehr, the corresponding secretary with the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government, a watchdog group that concerns itself with issues such as access to government records and transparency in its proceedings, however, said that it's not how much or how little time residents are given that troubles him, but the fact that they are restricted at all.

"I don't know what the traditions are in Edison in terms of this, but it seems right now they allow for fairly lengthy discussion and people can comment multiple times, and I think that's good, and I don't know why they would want to change that culture," said Baehr.

While this might cause meetings to go on for a very, very long time, he said, in the end, lengthy discussion benefits the township because it reduces the probability of having to go back and fix mistakes and inconsistencies in an ordinance. To him, efficiency is not reason enough to limit time for public debate.

"It's to everyone's ultimate benefit to allow as free and extensive a discussion on public issues as possible, and people would say that's not very efficient, but … in the end, it is efficient because if the issue is well discussed and all the points are brought out, there is a much better chance of making a good decision. And if there is a good decision, that is more efficient than making a bad decision and having to go back and fix it," said Baehr.

The aspect of the ordinance, however, that had garnered the most controversy was a part that expanded the ability of the council president to remove someone from a meeting should they make "any defamatory, insulting or inflammatory remarks."

This, among other areas, drew the attention of John Paff, chair of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. In a letter sent to the Edison council members, he said that this aspect of the ordinance brings up some issues of constitutionality, citing a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court case, Terminiello v. Chicago, where a man had been arrested for "breach of peace" due to a number of racist and anti-Semitic comments in public and for calling Eleanor Roosevelt a communist. In the case, it was eventually decided that the arrest had violated his free-speech rights.

Perilstein and other council members spoke with Paff on Jan. 8 regarding his legal concerns, and in light of them, she said, it was decided to amend the ordinance to remove this part of the measure.

"I am very grateful to Mr. Paff for his commentary on this proposed ordinance, and after consultation with both [Paff] and the township attorney, we will remove the 'defamatory, insulting or inflammatory remarks' verbiage from the ordinance.

This may add protection to the township from legal and constitutional challenges to the ordinance. Robert Williams, a professor at the Rutgers School of Law in Camden and the author of the book "The New Jersey State Constitution: A Reference Guide," also said there might be some legal issues with this aspect of the Edison ordinance, especially in New Jersey, which he said has particularly strong free-speech protections through its state constitution. He said that given the language of that specific part of the ordinance, "it's certainly fertile ground for constitutional litigation and scrutiny."

Perilstein also said that the new version of the ordinance would incorporate other areas of concern Paff brought up, such as striking language that restricts comments only to items over which the council has jurisdiction, as well as a section that would require the council to adopt rules of order each re-organization meeting, since those rules are already established in township ordinance.

Another part of the amendment to the ordinance, relatively uncontroversial, would make sure that agendas are posted online the Friday before a meeting is set to take place, as well as any ordinances and resolutions to be discussed. Currently, anything the council is set to vote on is posted on a board at the back of the council chambers, which sometimes leads to people not having a chance to read over proposals that they might otherwise have questions on. Language to do so is currently being drafted.

She also said that the council will be "extremely" sensitive to the scheduling of closed sessions, a point of contention to opponents of the measure who wondered how the council would get its business done and still allow adequate public comment, when a closed session sometimes lasts for more than an hour.

"I don't want to speak for the council president, but I am sure she will be sensitive to these structural changes as they relate to the closed sessions. Closed sessions would probably be scheduled at the end of the meetings, unless a group of paid professionals with an hourly fee are planning to address the council in closed session, or an extenuating circumstance arose," said Perilstein.

Discussion and an eventual vote are set for 7 p.m. tonight in the municipal building.

Contact Chris Gaetano at

sentnorth@gmnews.com.