The meeting opened with a technical glitch that delayed proceedings. This prompted discussions about the necessity of clear communication and proper notification, as only a few council members were present due to excused absences. This absence led to a quorum issue, which sparked a debate about the appropriateness of holding a meeting under such circumstances. A council member questioned the validity of the meeting agenda, arguing that it contravened Chapter 5, Section 8 of the borough’s ordinances by including multiple resolutions not specified in the originally published meeting notice. The mayor acknowledged these concerns but maintained that the agenda items were properly noticed.

With no quorum to vote on agenda items, the mayor outlined several pressing borough issues that required attention. These included resolutions concerning the disposition of artifacts and the ongoing negotiations with the Historical Society. The mayor detailed a recent meeting with Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) regarding the costs of underground utility improvements on Main Street, an undertaking estimated to cost over a million dollars per block. Despite the absence of a quorum, the mayor expressed a strong desire to proceed with signing grant applications for these improvements to avoid losing already secured funding.

The meeting also addressed demolition bids for a property, reporting that eight bids had been received. However, the community had previously voted against investing in this property, adding complexity to the decision-making process. The mayor emphasized the importance of convening another meeting to address these critical financial issues and annual financial transfers that would set the financial team up for success in 2025.

Public comments further highlighted community frustrations. An individual voiced concerns about the Fletch Commission’s financial dealings, noting that the borough owed the commission $3,000 annually. They expressed frustration over the lack of communication from borough officials, stating, “I provided every hour of the business day that I was available… I got what I got was absolutely nothing.” The individual criticized the scheduling of meetings and questioned the financial responsibilities of the borough to the commission.

A broader discussion emerged regarding the participation of council members in the meeting. The individual highlighted emails from three council members expressing a desire not to attend any further meetings in December, citing personal reasons and prior objections. This situation was described as “crazy,” reflecting the disconnect between council members’ willingness to participate and the mayor’s insistence on proceeding despite a lack of quorum.

The meeting’s atmosphere was marked by tension over scheduling and procedural adherence, with the council members’ absences and the mayor’s determination to proceed serving as focal points for debate. The public comments underscored a broader frustration with governance and communication practices within the borough council.

As the meeting progressed, the conversation shifted to accountability and the need for additional meetings to finalize outstanding issues before year-end. A council member noted the importance of resolving these topics to prevent them from lingering into the next year, emphasizing that the council should not defer discussions based on arbitrary reasons. However, another council member countered, citing a disagreement about involving staff in meetings after prior objections.

Public inquiries during the meeting also focused on the status of artifacts from a recently discussed bar. Residents questioned if any artifacts had been sold or if money had exchanged hands, which was met with a negative response. Yet, a resident contradicted this by asserting that a transaction involving a check to the borough had occurred. This contradiction fueled a heated discussion about the dealings between the operating agent and the borough.

Further concerns were raised about the language in a revised resolution concerning artifacts, which residents found confusing and misaligned with previous discussions. This issue was compounded by perceived non-compliance with the Historical Society’s needs. A resident expressed frustration over the perceived rush to resolve this matter without proper discussion.

The meeting also touched on a prolonged process involving a church and the demolition of a building, with residents urging the council to expedite this issue for revenue generation. Questions about the request for proposals (RFP) for the church’s demolition revealed a lack of coordination between council members and the borough’s administration, adding to the frustration among residents.

As the meeting concluded, a resident inquired about a corrective action plan for the 2022 audit, seeking an update on its status. The public comments expressed urgency and dissatisfaction with the council’s handling of administrative processes, highlighting a need for clearer communication and decisive action.