Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edison residents press council over mayor—s newsletter, mask-ejection policy and possible ethics complaint
Summary
Residents and several council members clashed over the mayor—s taxpayer-funded newsletter (the —Illuminator—), whether it improperly highlights supporters, and what legal authority allows ejection of masked attendees; legal counsel cited Grant v. Slattery for decorum enforcement and administration urged filing ethics complaints with the state if concerns persist.
Council members and residents traded sharply different views Tuesday about the mayor—s newsletter and the legal limits of removing masked attendees from meetings.
Resident Joel Bassoff opened public comment by asking the council for the case law that would permit a presiding officer to eject someone simply for wearing a mask. Bassoff also said the mayor—s Illumintaor newsletter singled out five council members who supported projects while omitting others,calling the taxpayer-funded document —campaigning.—
Bassoff said: "Why should the public be happy with what amounts to a campaign document being funded with taxpayer money?" and asked whether representatives who vote no are being ignored.
Legal Counsel told the council he had supplied members with a memorandum on the topic and cited Grant v. Slattery, a federal decision he said —allows for the council president to enforce rules of decorum— so meetings can proceed in an orderly manner. The attorney declined to go into further doctrinal detail at the meeting because of what he described as —constant threats of litigation from the audience.—
Several council members and residents framed the other side of the dispute as one of transparency and fairness. Council Member (unnamed in the record) said residents who want to review votes can watch Edison TV or read minutes, while other council members urged the speaker to file an ethics complaint with the New Jersey Ethics Commission if he believes the newsletter is inappropriate.
Council debate was marked by competing factual claims: critics said the newsletter highlighted only supporters and therefore looked like political messaging paid for by taxpayers; defenders said the insert simply summarized projects in which the public might be interested. Councilman Brescher defended the Illuminator as a means to inform residents who cannot follow meetings.
Why this matters: The dispute raises two separate, concrete questions for the township: what legal standard governs conduct and removal of masked speakers at public meetings, and whether a municipality—s mailed or posted newsletter crosses into impermissible electioneering under state law or local ethics rules. The council asked legal staff to provide fuller guidance and noted residents could pursue an ethics complaint.
What comes next: Legal Counsel has promised a more detailed memo on cross-jurisdictional and procedural options. Council members urged anyone with concerns about the newsletter to file formal complaints with the state ethics office so the issue can be adjudicated rather than litigated in public comment.
