VIOLATING OPMA – CLOSED SESSION DURING PUBLIC MEETING – Voices 7/11/2022

There was an elephant in the township of Teaneck Council Chambers that took over the room on Tuesday, June 28, 2022. At the Council meeting, which is an open public meeting, members of Council went into a closed session for approximately 15 minutes, after calling for an alleged recess.

Many of us have been left to wonder what was discussed during the closed meeting. And to wonder whether the legal exception for invoking a closed meeting had been met.

For those who did not attend or watch the Council meeting, here is a bit of background prior to this closed meeting.

Two members of the Council publicly discussed how they intended to vote on the Holy Name Hospital expansion ordinance.

In brief: HNH is seeking to expand and this expansion infringes on the neighboring residential area. Neighbors were okay with that infringement, but sought to negotiate a restriction on further future incursions.

Due to previous missteps by Council, all five members allowed to vote had to vote Yes to pass this ordinance. A single abstention would have killed the ordinance.

One member of Council clearly stated their intention was to vote “Yes” and the other individual clearly indicated their vote would be to “Abstain.”

Upon hearing this, the Council suddenly, called a recess prior to the actual vote. Everyone could see them going into a room outside of Council Chambers, to conduct a closed meeting. The public was able to view the mayor, deputy mayor, two other council members and the township attorney in discussion. At a certain point, it appeared that a fifth council member joined the closed meeting as well.

There are certain exceptions to the requirement for Open Public Meetings. If there is an exception, the law requires that the public be informed of the reason for the closed session.

This important and legally required step did not happen. The process of conducting a public meeting was violated by all members of the council and the township attorney.

Teaneck residents watched in disbelief as our township leadership felt it necessary to take the meeting outside of the chamber into a closed-door backroom.

One thing is certain, Teaneck residents witnessed a violation of the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) played out real time and on zoom.

After resuming the meeting, the Mayor asked the Holy Name Hospital representative and the Neighborhood Friends to agree to continue negotiations to reach a mutual understanding.

Without knowing if the voting process would occur or be held in abeyance, each party blindly agreed to continue negotiations.

Is it possible that each representative as well as the attending public were under the impression that a decision was reached during the Council’s closed meeting to hold the voting process in abeyance until the outcome of their negotiating talks?

It was certainly reasonable to think that the mayor planned to address the public with an explanation for the closed meeting.

Regrettably, no explanation was given to the public for the closed meeting.

The township Attorney is paid a salary to ensure the Council conducts meetings and governs in accordance with New Jersey’s regulations for municipal governments. He was in attendance during the closed session.

Did our Town attorney provide guidance to the Council? Has he, or the Council, just created grounds for yet another lawsuit that our taxes will have to to cover?

According to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), any business conducted during a closed-door meeting like the one that just occurred, is voidable. It must be rescinded, if the closed meeting held outside of chambers is not one of a nine possible subject-area exemptions.

The nine exemptions to open meetings given in N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b) are:

These exemptions make it permissible for a public body to close a portion of a

meeting; they do not require it to do so.

To close a session, a public body must identify the exemption justifying closure and adopt a resolution to that end at an open meeting for which public notice has been given.

In addition, public bodies must keep minutes of their closed sessions. even though these minutes are not immediately available to the public. However, a public body must promptly make them available once the necessity for maintaining confidentiality has passed.

The public requires an explanation of what was discussed during those approximately 15 minutes when the Council held a closed session during a public meeting.

The bottom-line is that the public is entitled to know the reason for a closed meeting.

The next step should be: A Call to Action

Teaneck Voices demands that the Council must do the right thing. It must follow the OPMA rules about conducting a closed meeting during a public meeting. It must rescind Ordinances 22 and 23 due to the blatant violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. A do-over in this case is warranted.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Editorial Note

DO NOT BE MISLED: No one is opposing the proposed expansion of the hospital. What is being demanded is a fair negotiation to limit further future expansions into properties owned by the residents. So far, the Hospital has refused to guarantee anything to its neighbors and the Council has acquiesced to the Hospital, failing to protect Teaneck residents.