Unlawful Council Action Aims to Spread Misinformation and Voter Confusion, Petitioners Say

Piscataway, NJ – Two groups of residents and a leading community organization filed a lawsuit against Piscataway municipal officials, after the Township Council voted to add non-binding opinion questions to the November 2 ballot that compete with two ballot questions placed by residents. One ballot question requires the Township to record, broadcast and stream the Council, Zoning and Planning Board meetings on public access cable and on the internet, which is routinely done in municipalities around the state. The other question placed by voters creates an advisory committee to review and improve emergency medical services in the Township.

Although the voter petitions were certified by the Municipal Clerk, the Township Council which is comprised entirely of Democrats did not take action to approve or reject them at its August 10 meeting. Instead, the Council announced it would add its own non-binding referendum questions to the ballot under the guise of “providing some really firm numbers,” said Councilwoman Gabrielle Cahill. Instead, the Council’s questions falsely state that the EMS Service will cost the Township over $643,683 annually, that the Transparency, Access and Public Engagement (TAPE) ordinance will cost $575,100 per year, and that both will result in higher property taxes or reductions in public services.

Both Committees of Petitioners are suing together to prevent the Council from placing these unsubstantiated and unlawful questions on the ballot, which seek to scare voters with the threat of higher taxes for basic government services. According to NJ Appleseed executive director Renee Steinhagen, two groups of voters circulated local ballot questions independently of each other on different matters, but the Township Council and Administration treated them in the exact same manner.

“These Council-initiated public questions unlawfully compete with, interpret, and effectively prejudice voters. Simply stated, this is a case of municipal abuse of power; an attempt by the Township to thwart the efforts of two highly motivated groups of citizens who care about government accountability, competency and effectiveness, and who, independent of one another, chose to propose two unrelated ordinances,” she stated. “The Council is not permitted to advocate for the passage or failure of citizen initiatives, like the EMS and TAPE ordinance. The Township is wasting taxpayer money trying to get around well-established case law by masquerading behind the non-binding questions.”

The TAPE ordinance is basic good government, said petitioner Mindy Goldstein. “The ordinance will assure that all residents of our town will have access to important information. There are many reasons a person might not be able to attend meetings in person, including physical or mental disabilities, lack of child care, no transportation, etc. Streaming and recording all township meetings allows for every resident to easily remain involved in what happens in our town.”

TAPE petitioners have sought and received information from numerous other municipal governments that broadcast, stream and record their meetings, and none come anywhere near the costs proposed by Piscataway Township. The Township’s cost breakdown for the TAPE ordinance, which was not publicly available when the Council approved it, includes three full time staff people, each with annual salaries of $110,000 plus benefits, in addition to $92,000 in facility upgrades and the $45,000 purchase of a van.

“These numbers are fuzzy math and the Council’s questions are simply fake news,” said Staci Berger, a Democratic Committee Member and petitioner. “The main cost is a one-time outlay of between $5,000 and $50,000 for equipment, depending on the quality. Most towns spend between $6,000 and $10,000 on their public broadcast operations of these meetings annually. In some towns, volunteers do it for free, because they are proud to showcase their community’s leadership and vision. Here in Piscataway, public officials hide from voters and lie about the costs. It’s shameful.”

Nearly all municipalities in Middlesex County provide this service to their residents in some manner. Large and small communities, including Carteret, North Brunswick, East Brunswick, Milltown, Woodbridge, Highland Park and Edison provide access to their statutory meetings (and often more) on their public access cable channel. In addition, many also use their own websites and other streaming services to post such meetings, including New Brunswick, Monroe, Metuchen and Sayreville. Nextdoor in Somerset County, Franklin Township provides public access coverage of statutory meetings, as well as comprehensive coverage of boards and commissions through streaming services and social media. Piscataway’s Board of Education has been posting videos of its meetings on its website since 2014.

“Up to date as well as archived information is key to engaging our residents,” said Laura Leibowitz, another Democratic Committee member and petitioner. “I hear so often from people their frustration in learning about events and important developments after the fact. This initiative can help remediate this frustration and offer opportunities for clear and open engagement between the township and our residents. These actions can be easily implemented at a reasonable cost, as is demonstrated throughout the county and state.”

In 2017, Berger was threatened by the Council with arrest when she tried to record their meeting on her phone. Council members, including one who is a practicing attorney, and its own legal advisor falsely claimed the law did not allow for recordings of public meetings. After the ACLU of New Jersey intervened on Berger’s behalf and residents organized a tape-in to protest the Council’s refusal to follow the law, the Council was forced to adopt new rules permitting the public to record its meetings. Members of the Piscataway Progressive Democratic Organization (PPDO), of which the petitioners are members and which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, have been providing volunteer broadcasting of Council meetings ever since. It is best for the local government to provide this service, so it is complete and available to all, they said.

“It is integral to any community that members have free access to their local government to make informed choices and fully participate in the community,” said Jace Pastras, a petitioner and the founding president of the Piscataway Youth Progressive Organization, the PPDO’s youth organization. “Those standing in the way of that do not have the best interest of our community in mind. Our elected leaders continue to push blame and responsibility away from themselves by any means necessary. We must continue to hold them accountable for informing and caring for the Piscataway community.

Parties will appear by Zoom before the Honorable Thomas D. McCloskey on September 10, at 1PM.

###