Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pompton Lakes council directs draft of solicitation ordinance, flags First Amendment concerns
Summary
Borough attorney advised a proposed ordinance to limit solicitation hours and raise the commercial solicitor permit fee to $175; council supported a 10 a.m.–6 p.m. framework but asked the attorney to recheck religious‑solicitation and First Amendment issues before introduction.
Pompton Lakes council members reviewed a draft solicitation ordinance at a workshop item, agreeing in principle to narrower hours and a higher permit fee while asking the borough attorney for further legal analysis related to religious solicitation and constitutional limits.
Borough attorney Mark (speaker 9) told the council his research found mixed case law on hour limits but said a 6:00 p.m. cutoff was more likely to be defensible than earlier options. He advised caution on any restriction that could implicate First Amendment protections for religious or political speech and said he would revisit the case law (including Watchtower decisions) before finalizing language for introduction.
Council members generally backed increasing the commercial solicitor permit fee from $100 to $175 and limiting solicitation to daytime hours. After discussion the council directed the attorney to prepare a draft ordinance for introduction at the next meeting with these parameters: a permit fee adjustment to $175 and time limits intended to read as 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. (transcript discussion included multiple variants as the council and attorney clarified the code wording).
Enforcement and no‑solicit lists were discussed. Chief (speaker 3) explained the borough maintains a no‑solicit registry residents may join; solicitors are required to check the list, show identification and carry a vehicle badge; violations can be summonsed under the violations ordinance. The transcript cited an existing generic fine level (approximately $124 total, including court costs) and council members asked the attorney to recommend any needed adjustments to penalties as a stronger deterrent.
Attorney Mark said he will return with refined draft language and an analysis of how the proposed hours, charitable/noncharitable distinctions and the no‑solicit list interact with First Amendment caselaw before the ordinance is formally introduced.
