OPMA violations might void a 2014 town bond ordinance

BLOOMFIELD, NJ  — The appellate judges who will rule if whether of not a Bloomfield bonding ordinance is void because of a conflict of interest claim will also determine if the same ordinance is void because of a Open Public Meetings Act violation.

On Wednesday, Sept. 21, a three-judge panel heard from an attorney representing four Bloomfield residents who claimed that Councilman Nicholas Joanow had a conflict of interest when he voted for a $10 million bond to acquire property contiguous to his own. The property is a 12-acre tract on Lion Gate Drive.

The residents’ attorney, Mark Maryanski, in his brief, said that the council held a public meeting to discuss the acquisition but did not provide the public with several required benefits of a public meeting. One requirement that was not fulfilled, he alleged, was that the public was not adequately informed that the meeting, which was attended by the entire township council, was scheduled.

“It is not disputed that proper notice was not provided by the municipality,” he said.

A trial court judge had previously determined that Joanow had no conflict of interest and any violation of the Open Public Meeting Act was remedied at a subsequent council meeting.

In his brief, Maryanski said the public meeting in question occurred July 30, 2014, between the first and second readings for a bonding ordinance which took place July 14 and Aug. 11.

Because the public was not informed properly, Maryanski asserted that some of the public was excluded from any discussion about the Lion Gate property.
“Only Mayor Michael Venezia and Councilman Joanow were permitted to speak,” he said. “Councilman Joseph Lopez attempted to participate in the discussion but was denied the opportunity by Mayor Venezia.”

Maryanski said that if everyone on the council participated, and if the public was properly informed of the meeting, the adoption of the bonding ordinance might never have occurred. The ordinance, which required a supermajority of five of seven votes for the second reading, passed 5-2.

He said the OPMA was further violated because “the minutes of the July 30 meeting were not promptly made available to the public.”

Maryanski also took issue with the trial judge’s decision that any alleged OPMA violation was “cured” by the subsequent council meeting of Aug. 11, when the bonding ordinance was approved.

In his brief, he said the NJ Supreme Court, in Polillo v. Deane, addressed the same issue.

In that decision, the court said a public meeting may not necessarily correct previous public meeting violations but only give “an appearance of open government by allowing the public to witness the proceedings” after a decision had already been made behind closed doors.

Maryanski said the July 30 meeting did not happen in a vacuum.
He explained, in his brief, that on July 14, at the first reading of the bonding ordinance, Councilman Carlos Bernard did not initially want to vote for the ordinance. But Joanow, who was chairing the meeting in Venezia’s absence, assured the council that there would be a special meeting, the July 30 meeting, when their questions about the Lion Gate purchase would be answered by professionals. Joanow also told Bernard, who favored a referendum for the purchase, that the first reading must be passed for any possible referendum to occur. Maryanski also said that the township attorney at the time, Brian Aloia, mistakenly said five votes were needed to pass the ordinance on the first reading when only a simple majority was required. The first reading passed 5-1, with Lopez opposed. Maryanski said questions that any council member may have had were never asked at the July 30 meeting.

Kevin McManimon, the attorney for co-defendants Joanow and the township, in his brief, disputed Maryanski’s assertion that a OPMA violation occurred on July 30. He said that even if there were a violation, it was minor.
“While egregious errors may merit bold action, minor violations merit a less intense, corrective response,” he said.

If anything, he said, the alleged violations were a lack of adequate notice to the public and a failure to produce published minutes for the July 30 meeting. It was McManimon’s contention that these alleged violations did not warrant the voiding of legislation and that, in good faith, the mayor and council did not believe the July 30 meeting constituted a “meeting” under the law but was instead a “forum.”

“The gathering was held for the expressed purpose of disseminating information and was well attended,” he said.

McManimon said the regularly scheduled public meeting, of Aug. 11, 2014, which was conducted after the forum, of July 30, 2014, corrected and remediated any OPMA violations that allegedly occurred at the forum.

In the event of any OPMA violations, he said the law provides for remedies that fall far shorter than voiding legislation.

The four Bloomfield residents who brought the conflict-of-interest complaint against Joanow and the OPMA complaint against the township are Russell Mollica, James Wollner, Chris Stanziale and former Mayor Raymond McCarthy.
Both attorneys expect the appellate judges’ decision to take at least several months.
b