Ridgewood NJ, All Village Council meetings are open to the public and there is a time for public comments at both the beginning and end of each meeting. The Village Council meetings are streamed on the Village website, are broadcast on both Optimum and Verizon on their Public Access Channels, and can also be viewed on YouTube the day following the meeting (click the arrow symbol on the upper right hand corner of the Village website). The following are the dates for the January Village Council meetings, which are held in the Sydney V. Stoldt, Jr. Court Room on the fourth floor of Village Hall:
January 8, 2020 – 7:30 p.m. – Village Council Work Session January 15, 2020 – 8:00 p.m. – Village Council Public Meeting January 29, 2020 – 7:30 p.m. – Village Council Work Session
Ridgewood NJ, After a federal court judge in Newark denied the dismissal of a freedom of speech violation lawsuit filed by a political operative against the City of Hoboken after he was ejected from the October 21 city council meeting.
Its seems that speech can not restricted during public comment at a council meeting . The previous mayor Paul Aronsohn and his administration tried many times either through rules, ordinances ,intimidation or silly anti free speech committees like the “Civility Committee”.
While readers best describe the new council ,”it’s amazing to watch the new council meetings. Respect for all those who ask questions. Even questions that are asked are answered or will be researched and followed up on. Keep up the good work.”
A reader suggests that some Section’s of the Village Code may violate an individual’s right to Freedom of Speech , we are not so sure :
“Except upon consent of the Council, by the majority vote of those present, each person addressing the Council pursuant to this section shall be required to limit his remarks to five minutes and shall at no time engage in any personally offensive or abusive remarks. On a hearing on ordinances on second reading, a person who has previously addressed the Council on the issue may be permitted a period of no more than an additional five minutes, after all others desirous of speaking on the issue have had an opportunity to do so, provided the comments of the speaker are not repetitive. The Chair shall call any speaker to order who violates any provision of this section.”
As does this one:
“Any person who shall disturb the peace of the Council, make impertinent or slanderous remarks or conduct himself in a boisterous manner while addressing the Council shall be forthwith barred by the presiding officer from further audience before the Council, except that if the speaker shall submit to proper order under these rules, permission for him to continue may be granted by a majority vote of the Council.”
Ridgewood NJ, as previously reported on this blog the new Council has lead to more positive environment at council meetings. A reader said it best ,”it’s amazing to watch the new council meetings. Respect for all those who ask questions. Even questions that are asked are answered or will be researched and followed up on. Keep up the good work.”
In an article in the Hoboken/Weehawken, News by John Heinis July 25, 2016 , Hennis reports on why a Federal Judge denied Hoboken’s motion to dismiss freedom of speech violation suit.
file photo by Boyd Loving of the 3 amigos
Its seems that speech can not restricted during public comment at a council meeting . The previous mayor Paul Aronsohn and his administration tried many times either through rules, ordinances ,intimidation or silly anti free speech committees like the “Civility Committee”.
“A federal court judge in Newark denied the dismissal of a freedom of speech violation lawsuit filed by a political operative against the City of Hoboken after he was ejected from the October 21 city council meeting.
On July 21, Judge Kevin McNulty denied two motions filed by the city to dismiss the complaint, writing that “the same issues of factual interpretation bar dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity.”
In the 11-page ruling, McNulty earlier noted that “qualified immunity issues (such as whether a violation was ‘objectively apparent’ under the circumstances at the time) may often require the kind of factual context that is only available on summary judgement or a trial.”
McNulty also states that although it is not proven that Liebler’s First Amendment rights were violated, “if it happened as plaintiff claims, then a First Amendment violation would have been apparent to a reasonable official in these Council members’ positions.”
