Residents urge public-comment reform and accuse city attorney's firm of misconduct during Long Branch meeting

At the May 13 Long Branch City Council meeting residents used the public-comment period to press for changes to how the council receives and responds to members of the public and to raise allegations about the city attorney's firm.

Vincent Lepore (33 Ocean Terrace) returned to the podium during the general public portion and said he had earlier introduced a resolution asking the council to declare a "state of emergency for the taxpayers" to eliminate tax abatements. Lepore then read from public-record court filings and accused the city attorney (and his law firm) of misconduct in two separate matters, saying on the record that the attorney was a "liar" and alleging the firm had been involved in actions to suppress public comments and had an employment-related complaint pending. Lepore cited docket details and said he would request a no vote on related matters. The council did not engage in a detailed rebuttal in the public portion; one official said he would not respond and the record contains procedural admonitions about no cross-dialogue in the public-comment period.

Later in the public-participation segment Steven Burnley (speaking on behalf of community member Jay Cruz) proposed a structured exchange to allow limited cross-dialogue between commenters and council: five minutes for the community speaker, three minutes for a council response, and two minutes for the community rebuttal (the "5-3-2" proposal). Burnley argued the structure would let both sides correct the record and improve transparency.

Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized the rules of the public portion (no cross-dialogue during public comment) and invited anyone who wanted further discussion to schedule time during public council hours. The accusations against the city attorney raised legal claims that are a matter of public court records according to the commenter; the council record does not show a substantive investigation or formal response completed during the meeting.

What happens next: the record shows the public-comment proposals and accusations on the public record; any formal follow-up (investigation, scheduling, or action on public-comment rules) would require a separate agenda item or staff action not taken during this session.