Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents push back on new public-comment warning; ask for transparency on redevelopment and large projects
Summary
At Millville City’s March 3 meeting, residents challenged a newly added cautionary statement warning against defamatory public comments and pressed commissioners for details about redevelopment extensions and an alleged $20 million project; the mayor and solicitor said the warning targets potentially libelous statements about private parties, not protected criticism of officials.
Mayor Dixon opened a March 3 meeting of the Millville City Board of Commissioners by reading a new cautionary statement advising speakers that abusive or defamatory remarks could carry civil liability under New Jersey law and asking commenters to keep remarks constructive. The statement was delivered by the city solicitor and repeated by the mayor as the public-comment period opened.
Several residents told commissioners they viewed the warning as a change in practice made without prior public notice and said it might chill lawful criticism. "The wording that has been added is threatening at best and misleading at least," said a resident during the agenda-only public-comment period, arguing that truth, opinion and criticism are generally protected speech and that defamation suits are permitted only in narrow circumstances.
Tim Cardi, who identified himself as a taxpayer and long-time meeting attendee, asked whether the caution had been vetted for constitutionality and whether it had been voted on by the commission. Cardi emphasized that "truth is the absolute defense" to defamation claims and warned that a blanket-sounding warning could deter residents from speaking about public officials and city decisions.
Other speakers tied the concern about the warning to broader transparency questions. Mara Davis asked for details about a reported $20 million project discussed on local programs and whether the public would be informed as negotiations or redevelopment plans advanced. "Can you provide details about the reported $20 million project... including its scope, scale, and status, and the process by which it is being reviewed?" she asked.
Mayor Dixon and the city solicitor responded that the cautionary language was intended as a legal reminder aimed primarily at protecting private third parties from potentially defamatory allegations, not to curtail criticism of elected officials. The solicitor said, "It's just a cautionary to make sure that those that get up there to speak don't step out of line potentially with some other third party, not the elected officials." Mayor Dixon said the language was adopted after a recent incident in which a speaker at a prior session made allegedly defamatory statements about a job candidate and that the city sought guidance on where to draw the line.
Residents expressed additional transparency concerns about work sessions and agendas. Multiple speakers said they were unable to view certain items before work sessions and that late-posted agendas made it hard to prepare comments. Angeline Broomh Hall and others requested clearer public notice when presentations are added and asked whether redevelopment extensions for Dividing Creek Road and Buckshoot Road would continue to be granted without public discussion.
The meeting record shows the commission approved second amendments extending deadlines for two redevelopment agreements (PD Millville Redeveloper 2 LLC at 1400 Dividing Creek Road and PD Millville Redeveloper LLC on Buckshoot Road) and other routine resolutions at the same session. Commissioners said the redevelopment amendments were short, engineering-focused extensions intended to allow shared-services coordination and completion of engineering work.
What happens next: Commissioners declined to remove the cautionary language at this meeting, saying it was intended as a legal reminder, but several residents urged the commission to reconsider how the statement is worded and posted so it does not discourage lawful public participation. The commission did not take a separate, recorded vote specifically on the wording of the public-comment reminder during the March 3 session.
