Resident presses council on Resolution 45 hiring language and DEI exemption; council provides limited answers

A Long Branch resident used the city council’s public-comment period on March 12 to press elected officials about Resolution 45 and to ask that the body delay action until the document’s legal basis was clarified.

Vincent Laporte of 33 Ocean Towers asked why an ordinance that had appeared on the meeting agenda had been removed and replaced with Resolution 45. “Council president Viera originally listed on this agenda this evening was the introduction of ordinance 5. It doesn't appear this evening. Instead, there's Resolution 45 pretty much concerning the same matter. Why was the introduction of ordinance 5 removed, Council President Viera?” Laporte asked.

Council President Mario Viera said the city had consulted state civil-service staff and was told the change could be done by resolution. “Because we determined that we did legally that we didn't need an ordinance. It could be done by resolution, and that's what the state required us to do. So we did it by resolution,” Viera said.

Laporte replied that the resolution’s text appears to refer to an ordinance. “The resolution's been written incorrectly because it states 'upon adoption of an ordinance.' So the resolution is to be removed this evening,” he said, and asked whether Resolution 45 would allow any waiver of examinations for municipal hires or permit DEI-based appointments to bypass certified civil-service lists.

At one point Laporte asked whether the United States president's executive order would have the same effect as a court decision in invalidating the resolution; he repeatedly pressed for yes-or-no answers. Council President Viera responded in the meeting that the resolution “does not” address DEI when asked directly. Several exchanges between Laporte and council members followed; Laporte said the resolution could be abused to permit politically motivated or DEI-based hires to bypass applicants on civil-service lists and requested that the council table the resolution.

Other members of the public used the comment period to raise related concerns about the resolution’s wording and about specific upcoming purchases listed later in the meeting. No formal council action on Resolution 45 was recorded in the meeting transcript provided. The clerk proceeded to read other resolutions added to the consent agenda, and the meeting moved on to a consent-vote adoption of appointments.

Why it matters: Laporte framed his objections around fairness in municipal hiring and compliance with civil-service rules. The exchange shows that at least one resident believes Resolution 45’s text contains an internal inconsistency and could be read to permit deviations from established hiring lists; council leaders said they relied on state civil-service guidance to use a resolution rather than an ordinance.

Council members did not take final action on Resolution 45 during the public-comment exchange recorded in the transcript; Laporte asked that it be tabled until the resolution’s language and legal basis are clarified.

The meeting continued with consent-agenda business after the public comments concluded.