Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Toms River council splits over retaining special counsel as members debate legal authority under Faulkner Act
Summary
Council members were sharply divided over resolutions to retain special counsel and affordable-housing counsel, debating whether the council or the mayor has authority under the Faulkner Act to appoint such attorneys; the measures passed on split votes after extended discussion.
The Toms River Township Council voted on two related resolutions to retain special counsel, producing split votes and a substantive debate about the council's authority under the Faulkner Act.
Proponents argued the council needed independent legal advice. Opponents said the resolutions were legally weak under the Faulkner Act and risked creating duplicative or improperly billed counsel. Council members referenced conversations with outside attorneys and the township attorney; the CFO reminded members about pay-to-play disclosure requirements for appointments outside a fair-and-open process. A council member said the administration traditionally advertises and selects professional services and that the council's role is to advise and consent under the Faulkner Act.
After debate, the council approved the measures. The meeting record shows several "yes" votes from members who said they wanted a second opinion for council matters and several "no" votes from members who questioned the legal foundation for the appointments.
Council members urged caution, noting outside counsel had been told not to perform billable work for the township while members reviewed the legal questions. The resolutions will now be processed administratively and any potential work by retained counsel will be governed by the terms set out in the resolutions and applicable procurement and pay-to-play rules.
