Hightstown Mayor Questions If Sunshine Law Was Violated
The mayor said the Borough prides itself on transparency.
Photos
Hightstown’s mayor said Monday that council members were not being transparent by introducing two resolutions about the future of Borough Hall at the start of a past meeting, and questioned whether open public meeting laws were violated when the resolutions were drafted.
Council member Gail Doran introduced a resolution on June 4 calling for the future Borough Hall to be centrally located, and council member Susan Bluth introduced another resolution asking that council be kept informed of matters relating to Borough Hall. Both resolutions passed.
In the five days between the May 30 meeting where residents and organizations voiced their opinion on the ultimate location of Borough Hall and when the resolutions were introduced, Mayor Steve Kirson said he believes that a third person was involved with writing the two newly-introduced resolutions, but would not name any council members.
“I suspect that the sunshine laws were treaded on between the meetings of May 30 and June 4,” Kirson said in a statement Monday.
Borough Attorney Frederick Raffetto said he did not know if the open public meeting law was violated in this case specifically, but said if three members worked on the resolutions, it could be considered an “effective majority,” and four or more members would be a quorum.
Kirson said the Borough is one of the most transparent in Mercer County, posting council packets online prior to meetings. With the two newly-introduced resolutions not being posted prior to the meeting, Kirson said the public didn’t have a chance to voice their opinions.
“Hightstown prides itself on having an open and transparent government,” Kirson said. “I thought it was important that council members knew what I was thinking.”
A special meeting was held on May 31 where residents and several organizations voiced their opinion on the ultimate location of Borough Hall. The discussion was divided with some residents hoping to see the building end up downtown, and many organizations, including Downtown Hightstown, Greater Hightstown East Windsor Improvement Project (GHEWIP) and the Historic Preservation Committee, urged council to relocate to an area that was not prone to flooding. Kirson said 75 percent of the public who spoke was in favor of moving Borough Hall.
The final location of Borough Hall has not been decided, but council is having an architectural firm assess the needs for Borough Hall, the police department and court in order to compare options in town.
Follow East Windsor Patch on Facebook, Twitter and sign up for the daily newsletter.
clara
8:06 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Is this the same mayor who voted against a transparency resolution or ordinance a few months ago?
Joe
8:37 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Why isn’t Thibault calling for an investigation or is that self-incrimination?
Jasha M. Levi
9:15 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
It would be great if Hightstown didn't follow the current trends in politics and kept an open window. Clara's question begs particulars, otherwise it will only seem a hostile way to answer Mayor's call for openness. The habit of secretiveness is as undemocratic as it is an expression of non-confidence in the citizens who have elect the Council members. Are they deliberating privately to keep foreign spies from learning about Hightstown's military buildup, or something like it? It is as silly as was the secrecy of the proposal to illuminate the Monument.
JLS
3:10 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
I had forgotten about the thing about the lights on the Monument. The whole historic commission resigned because the mayor didn't let them know there was a vote on it. I guess it's pot meet kettle!
terribly tired of this
9:23 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
You care what the public thinks, Mayor? Last time I voiced my opinion you welcomed me with a few very choice words. Transparent? Maybe. About any topic? Nope.
clara
9:38 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Why isn't Thibault calling for an investigation into what? And why would his inquiry be self-incriminating? The resolutions suggest that the mayor, administrator and possibly other special interests have been withholding information and not sharing information with the council and public. Please explain how that is bad for the average boro resident. Personally, I could not care less where boro hall is located. I just want property tax relief and the return of municipal services.
JP Gibbons
11:23 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
As I understand the law, if more than three (3) Council members or a combination of the Mayor and Council Members meet to discuss specific topics there must be a formal meeting declared and records kept. When two or three members meet and discuss issues trying to find a common ground that is what they were elected to do. This entire issue is a reaction to the fact that the Mayor and others have dragged their feet with the Borough Hall because they wanted to purchase the Lucas property and did not present their position up front. Read the record. For over six months the Mayor and Mike have told the public and Council that they cannot make any decisions until the insurance company and FEMA tell us what we can do. That was their justification for not repairing the Borough Hall Complex. The Fire Company did not wait. Last night we found out the designs developed for the PD relocation at Lucas done last September was for a permanent relocation. The improvements were changed when some Council members demanded the mprovements be temp.
It is very clear that currently, the Council does not have the full faith and trust in the Borough Administration to provide honest and open answers on the Borough Hall issue. They are execising their authority and legal responsibility to get facts so solid decisions can be made in the best interest of the taxpayers and residents.
Just think about the fact that this revolt by the Council is Bipartisan and actually getting results.
Vic Monaco
12:34 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
I think you're right about one thing, JP. If there were only three people involved, there's no legal problem.
Gotta wonder why those seemingly sensible and APPROVED resolutions would bother a seemingly sensible mayor.
But --sorry to say -- this is typical for Hightstown government. It'd be great to see a group of LEADERS on the same page more often.
clara
12:41 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
So if anything, based on the information JP Gibbons provided here, it sounds like the mayor/administration violated the spirit of the Sunshine Law. I just hope there's an end to the machinations so that residents can be kept informed and the issues before us get resolved. I never did see any updates on Patch as to the fluoride investigation or final ordinance on taxi licensing. Losing confidence here but hope springs eternal.
Ashley Peskoe
7:00 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Clara - Patch did follow up on the fluoride investigation, and got confirmation from the NJDEP that there was a communication mixup at the DEP which lead to no public notification http://patch.com/A-rLp3
We also published a story saying the council voted down the taxi ordinance and no date was set as to when it would be reintroduced http://patch.com/A-tjrs
Hope this helps,
Ashley
Hightstown Blues
12:54 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
I agree with Mr. Gibbons that since the council has gotten results since it started pushing on this issue and it sounds like the Mayor doesn't like that his plans are being questioned and challenged.
T Wilder
2:02 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
I guess I'm confused. Information about past meetings is different than what's in this article and in the mayors comments.
In the article this one links to, the headline is "Hightstown Residents Divided on Future Location of Borough Hall" but the mayor is quoted here as saying "75 percent of the public who spoke was in favor of moving Borough Hall." I'd think that if 75% of people were in favor of something, the patch wouldn't have used the phrase "residents divided."
The linked article also says "Many proposed the Lucas Electric building as a new location." Is that what the Mayor was referring to? If so, why are there so many people pushing for a specific property when according to this article, "council is having an architectural firm assess the needs for Borough Hall, the police department and court in order to compare options in town."
I couldn't find the resolutions online anywhere and patch didn't do a story on them, but from articles in other papers, it doesn't seem like the council wanted to keep borough hall in the same location, just that they would like to have it in a central location. Is that not correct? From this article is sounds like the resolution called for keeping borough hall in an area prone to flooding.
Patch would do a great service by posting the actual resolutions so we can see what they really say.
JP Gibbons
7:16 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Great questions and comments. Let's try to answer them Accurately. There were two official Council meetings discussing the Borough Hall. I attended both. In the first there were about 10 public in attendance. Most of those who spoke encouraged the Council to keep the Borough Hall at the current location or downtown. At the second meeting the MAyor invited specific groups to attend and speak on behalf or Lucas location. GHEWIP showed up in forcew and spoke for the Lucas location. Others spoke for keeping it downtown. The Mayor is refering to the second meting while the Council and Patch refer to the combinded attendees who spoke which would be about a 50 50 split.
The Mayor and GHEWIP want the Lucas site and the Council wants honest answers and hard facts and cost before deciding what to do. The resolutions should be on-line since they were voted in but the Administration has not found the time to put them on for public review. Funny the Administration hasd no problem putting Resolution 2012-164 on-line in the packet for the Council meting Monday even when they knew the certifications included in the Resolution could not be made.
INteresting when the Legislative and Executive branches of small town government clash. Hope this helped.
JP Gibbons
7:20 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Sorry for the TYPOS. They seldom let me typ live.
clara
2:35 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
I agree with you T. Lately, the Patch coverage of boro government appears less in depth than coverage given by the Times and Windsor Hights Herald. Do you think its editor is finding it difficult to provide objective coverage because she has developed friendships with the mayor and administrator? Might be good idea to rotate coverage, as in done by other media outlets. That is one of the things I most appreciated about Vic Monaco's coverage: he cated enough to do the research, ask the right questions and expose issues in an unflinching manner. Miss that!
Inky
4:01 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
What or who is the Greater Hightstown East Windsor Improvement Project? I've seen them mentioned for years, but only the name. They seem to have lots of money but seem to be very secretive. Curiosity drove me to do a google search and they dont' have a web site or a list of members or anything. Is it another name for Downtown Hightstown? Because one of the things that came up on google is that Downtown Hightstown is a project of GHEWIP. Anyone know?
JP Gibbons
7:27 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
GHEWIP has done some very good things for the borough. It is just that you get the feeling they are a behind the curtain group with their own ideas. I thinkl it would be very positive to have a real open public meeting where everyone gets to present their ideas, cost and impact on Hightstown going forward and we let the taxpayers call this one for a change. Only problem is how do you get 300 or more to attend an open public meeting?
Now that would be leadership. Want to give it a shot Mayor???
Ryan Rosenberg
4:53 pm on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
HI Inky, my name is Ryan Rosenberg and I am the Chair of Downtown Hightstown, Inc. Downtown Hightstown was, for a time, nested underneath of GHEWIP to leverage their insurance coverage and gain advice and guidance from their membership. (Prior to that, Downtown Hightstown was a subcommittee of the Borough's Economic Development Committee). We then incorporated independently, and recently achieved our status as a 501c3 non-profit charity. If any of you are interested in seeing what we do and want to assist, please visit www.downtownhightstown.org or please attend one of our meetings on the second Wed. of each month at the Hightstown Library @ 7pm.
GHEWIP is an organization that is independent of Downtown Hightstown, Inc. and made up of local business owners and citizens who wish to see the betterment of Hightstown and the East Windsor area.
Same basic goals as Downtown Hightstown, Inc., just different groups.