A point of contention arose when a resident, Kevin Kieran, voiced dissatisfaction with ordinance 20 48-24, which proposes to allow the council to appoint a Deputy Municipal Clerk. Kieran argued this shift in appointment authority deviated from the traditional role of the town manager and suggested that the council’s actions favored special interests over the community’s needs. He emphasized that this change undermined the council’s representation of all township residents, questioning the transparency of the process.

In response, a council member clarified that such appointments are permissible under New Jersey statutes and are a common practice across municipalities in the state. The council member assured that the process was transparent and conducted openly, emphasizing that the appointment was to fill an existing vacancy rather than create a new position. This response underscored a tension between the council’s legal interpretation and the public’s perception of transparency and representation.

Further complicating the matter was a discussion about the legal nuances surrounding the appointment power. It was debated whether the authority to appoint a Deputy Municipal Clerk had been historically conferred to the township manager or the council. One participant pointed out that New Jersey law mandates the governing body to appoint the Deputy Municipal Clerk, and the proposed ordinance aims to clarify this authority.

The concerns over transparency extended beyond the Deputy Municipal Clerk appointment. A resident raised issues about the accessibility of application links for township positions, noting that they led to dead pages on the website. The resident suggested enhancing vacancy publicity through social media and the township newsletter to increase awareness and participation. The lack of comprehensive advertisement for board vacancies, such as those on the planning board, was highlighted as a missed opportunity for community engagement.

Additionally, another resident proposed that the complete text of resolutions accompany online agendas to better inform the public. They expressed frustration over the lack of clarity on contract details, especially professional service agreements, and compared the township’s transparency unfavorably with that of the Mercer County Board of County Commissioners. This request for detailed readouts of resolutions, including vendor identities and monetary amounts, aimed to facilitate more informed public commentary.

In other business, the council introduced several resolutions in a block format, which included various professional service agreements for 2025. These agreements encompassed roles such as bond counsel, municipal auditor, labor relations counsel, municipal attorney, and planning board consultants. Each resolution was seconded, discussed briefly, and approved unanimously, reflecting routine administrative proceedings.

The council also addressed upcoming elections, with a special school board election scheduled for March 11, 2025, and changes to the June primary election date. Routine administrative matters, such as dog licensing and rental landlord listings, were discussed, and the council acknowledged Christine Buck, a long-serving Animal Control Officer, on her retirement.

Public participation resumed with residents expressing interest in board and committee appointments, urging the council to consider a more inclusive and transparent selection process. The council decided to postpone these appointments to the next meeting, allowing time for review and consideration of applications. Interviews for zoning board and ELSA board candidates were deemed necessary, leading to a consensus to schedule a special meeting for this purpose before the February council meeting.

As the meeting concluded, the council adopted the 2025 temporary budget and noted that bids for a Request for Proposals were being received with a closing date approaching. The session transitioned into an executive session, following a motion that was seconded and approved unanimously.