Page 37 of 42

Deputy Mayor Kafton and stated that every elected official up here should be giving answers to the questions asked. Mayor Broderick stated that Mr. Kafton is trying to answer the questions but is being berated by Mrs. Rickabaugh every time he answers a question.

CURTIS BRIGGS, 121 WHISPERING OAKS LANE: He explained that today he submitted a letter to the Clerk’s office to Mr. Starkey. He read the letter into the record regarding violation of parliamentary procedure at the January 10th 2005 Township Committee Meeting. His letter stated that Mayor Broderick violated Robert’s Rules of Order. During that meeting Committeeman Reilly had motioned for the public portion to be moved after the discussion portion of the meeting and Committeeman Seda seconded the motion. Mayor Broderick committed an error when he stated that Committeeman Reilly’s motion was not adopted because it only received two affirmative votes and the other three Committeemen abstained. Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion should be moved with the majority of the vote. The majority of the vote is more than half the votes that were cast excluding abstentions. Therefore, Committeeman Reilly’s motion should have been adopted with a vote of 2 to 0. He requested that Mayor Broderick issue a ruling in Committeeman Reilly’s favor and advise the Township Clerk to record his motion as being unanimously adopted. Mayor Broderick asked their attorney to respond. Attorney Kenneally stated that his office has given a written opinion to the governing body, which restates their prior opinion that the motion did not carry. They believe Robert’s Rules does read as Mr. Briggs stated, but State law controls here and State law under a decision handed down by Judge Serpentelli states a negative decision prior to an abstention counts as a negative vote and it does not pass. Mr. Briggs then added that the three Committee members that abstained did not take any position. Mayor Broderick disagreed and explained that they expressed a negative opinion about the vote being taken and if he waits another ten minutes this will be a moot point. Committeeman Reilly stated that he expressed his concerns to Attorney Kenneally because if this is read explicitly as written then at first there was no vote at all. He feels they expressed a political opposition because the two Republicans on the Committee raised it. He asked if the whole point of the abstentions was to go against the “yes” votes then why would they cast an abstention and not just vote “no”. Mayor Broderick addressed Committeeman Reilly and explained that no one made any political statements about who brought the motion to the floor he was totally out of order by bringing it up during the discussion agenda. He stated he asked Committeeman Reilly to provide them with more information, which was not done. Committeeman Reilly stated he brought the information with him. He explained that Brick Town, Berkeley, Stafford and Dover all have their agenda’s set up the way he is proposing. Mr. Briggs asked Mayor Broderick if they wanted to remain neutral then an abstention was the correct way to vote, but if they had negative feelings about the concept of moving the Public Hearing portion why didn’t they simply vote “no”? Mr. Briggs later added that maybe Mayor Broderick might have a remedial understanding of parliamentary procedures, but he could have stepped from the chair and moved to table the matter? Mayor Broderick explained he wanted more information because he thought there might be some merit to Committeeman Reilly’s claim. He told Mr. Briggs he didn’t appreciate his slanderous remarks and it is nice to have him back after four years. He feels he made the right decision by abstaining. Attorney Kenneally told the Mayor he doesn’t need to answer hypothetical questions on how he could have voted or explain his vote.

GARY BLACK, 76 LEWIS LANE: He asked Deputy Mayor Kafton in all his years of political experience has he ever seen the discussion agenda after the public portion? Deputy Mayor Kafton stated that when he sat on the Township Committee and prior to him sitting on the Committee in 1997 the agenda is set up the same way as it is today. Mr. Black went on to say they can argue the motion, or Robert's Rules, but wouldn't it work better if they put the discussion agenda before the public portion? Giblin stated they changed this three years ago because an agenda gets set on a Wednesday or Thursday and some things come up after the agenda is set. This gives the governing body the opportunity to present different situations under the discussion agenda that they might not have all the necessary information for at the time. If documentation comes in on Monday they can open it up for discussion, but not take any