PAUL C.

WILLIAMS
35 BROAD STREET #C4
TOMS RIVER NJ 08753-6564
p.c.williams70@gmail.com
Ph: 732.998.6707

February 27, 2024

Honorable Craig L. Wellerson, P.J. Civ. Part

Superior Court of New Jersey
100 Washington Street, Courtroom 10
PO Box 2191
Toms River NJ 08754-2191

RE: Paul C. Williams vs. Township of Toms River, et al.

Docket No. (TBD)
Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraints

ORAL ARUGMENT REQUESTED

Dear Judge Wellerson:

I am the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter and

represent myself. In lieu of a more formal pleading, please
accept this letter memorandum in support of Plaintiff’s
application for an Order to Show Cause with temporary restraints
pursuant to Rule 4:52-1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. . . . . . . . .2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . .

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

POINT I

THE COUNCIL’S ACTIONS DURING THE MEETINGS DID NOT

CONFORM WITH THE NEW JERSEY OPEN PUBLIC MEETINS ACT.

1
 POINT II

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PENDING THE

RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER. . . . . . .

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an action in lieu of prerogative writ, brought by a

member of the public, to void all actions taken by the Council

of the Township of Toms River, at both January 18, 2024, and

February 14, 2024, Council meetings. It is premised on the

contentions that the meetings did not conform with the

provisions of what is commonly known and referred to as the

“Open Public Meetings Act” (OPMA) and which, in 2006, was

renamed the “Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act”)

(N.J.S.A. 10:4-6). More specifically, Plaintiff contends that

there was not “adequate notice” of the meetings and that, with

particular regard for the February 14, 2024, meeting, the

Council President, as well as other Council members, causing his

removal from the meeting violated the OPMA.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS1

From the November 2023 General Election, the voters of Toms

____________
1Included herewith is Certification, dated February 27, 2024, by
Plaintiff and whereby he certifies that all allegations of fact
contained herein, unless expressly stated otherwise, are within
his personal knowledge and are true and accurate.

2
River elected one of its then-current Township Council members,

Defendant Rodrick, to be its Mayor and three other people, being

Lynn O’Toole and Defendants Nivison and Coleman, to be among the

seven-member Council which already includes previously elected

Council members James Quinlisk and David Ciccozzi and Defendant

Justin Lamb.

Following the November 2023 General Election, the annual

reorganization meeting of the Township Council was convened on

January 1, 2024.

During the January 1, 2024, meeting, Defendants Rodrick,

Nivison and Coleman, and also Lynn O’Toole (not a Defendant)

were then sworn-in and, as a result of Defendant Rodrick being

elected and sworn-in as Mayor, there was a vacancy created in

the Ward seat he occupied (Defendant Lobman would subsequently

be appointed and sworn-in on January 18, 2024, to fill the

vacant Ward seat).

Also during the January 1, 2024, meeting, Defendant Coleman

was appointed and sworn-in as the Council President and,

thereby, became responsible for, among other things, presiding

at, and preserving order and decorum of, all meetings of the

Council.

Also during the reorganization meeting, the Council adopted

numerous resolutions which, in particular, included:

3
 (a) Adoption of the 2024 Toms River Township Council
Meeting Dates; and

(b) Established Rules And Regulations For Public

Meetings Of The Township Council.

(EXHIBIT A and B)

On January 9, 2024, and January 12, 2024, Defendant Toms

River, by and through the Municipal Clerk, caused to be

published notice of a Special meeting of the Council (one that

is not among the regularly scheduled meetings that the Council

established only on January 1, 2024) to be held on January 18,

2024, and, with regard to the designated purpose of the meeting,

simply stated:

“Items on the agenda include 1) second reading and public

hearing of an ordinance repealing Chapter 253 of the
Township Code and 2) the interim appointment of a
representative to fill the vacant Ward 2 Council seat.
Official action will be taken.”

(EXHIBITS C and D)

As the January 9, 2024 and January 12, 2024 “notice” both

referenced a “Special meeting of the Council” on January 18,

2024 and such date is not among the “regular” meeting dates

adopted by the Council on January 1, 2024, it appears that the

provisions of the Municipal Code (EXHIBITS E) pertaining to

Special meetings of the Council were relied on and such

provisions require that there was either a “call” by the Mayor,

or a written request by at least four Council members, for the

January 18, 2024 meeting.

4
 Whether the Mayor called for, or written request was made

by at least four Council members for, the January 18, 2024,

Special meeting of the Council, the purpose of the meeting had

to be known and designated, in order to allow for it to be

convened, and the controlling Municipal Code (EXHIBITS E)

dictates that no other business than that specified in the

notice shall be considered.

Also of particular interest, neither “notice” for the

January 18, 2024, Special meeting of the Council contained any

reference to the Toms River Police Department. (EXHIBITS F)

Notwithstanding neither “notice” containing reference to

the Toms River Police Department, rumors and speculation began

appearing on social media and circulating throughout the public

that, in fact, the Council intended to take adverse actions with

regard to Toms River Police Department during the January 18,

2024, meeting.

The rumors and speculation prompted Plaintiff and others,

beginning on January 16, 2024, to repeatedly check the Defendant

Toms River website where notices, agendas, and minutes

pertaining to the Council meetings are ordinarily known to be

located.

Between January 16, 2024 and January 18, 2024, the agenda

for the January 18, 2024 Special meeting of the Council that

appeared on the Defendant Toms River website changed multiple

5
times and included items beyond what the public was given

“notice” of ... as if having giving notice of a Special meeting

of the Council somehow allows carte blanche additional items of

business to be included on the agenda at the last minute and

without the same notice as was originally given.

It was not until the morning of January 18, 2024, the date

the Special meeting of the Council was to convene in the

evening, that a particular proposed Ordinance appeared on the

agenda and still merely indicating that it was an Ordinance

“Amending And Supplementing §§50-3B, 50-3G, And 50-3R Of The

Township Code Revise The Roster Of Positions Within The

Department Of Law” ... without giving any indication of what was

actually being amended and supplemented. (EXHIBIT F)

At approximately 4:30pm on January 18, 2024, Defendant

Rodrick inexplicably called Plaintiff, indicating that he was

calling after his wife, Diana Rodrick, had seen something

Plaintiff had posted on social media, and told him about it,

regarding the Ordinance about the police department.

Defendant Rodrick and Plaintiff talked in the afternoon of

January 18, 2024, for approximately forty-seven minutes, with

primary regard to the Ordinance about the police department and

including Defendant Rodrick particularly requesting that

Plaintiff support him with regard to the Ordinance.

At approximately 7:00pm on January 18, 2024, Defendant

6
Coleman called the Special meeting of the Council to order, a

majority of the Council voted “yes” on, and approved, all items

on the agenda.

On February 12, 2024, Defendant Toms River, by and through

an unknown person, caused to be published a notice of a Special

meeting of the Council to be held on February 14, 2024, and,

with regard to the designated purpose of the meeting, simply

stated:

“The agenda shall include (1) final readings and public

comment on ordinances pertaining to the restructuring of
various departments; (2) final readings and public comment
on various traffic ordinances; and a (3) consent agenda
consisting of various purchases and other routine items of
public business. Formal action may be taken.”

(EXHIBITS G and H)

As the February 12, 2024 “notice” referenced a “Special

meeting of the Council” on February 14, 2024 and such date is

not among the “regular” meeting dates adopted by the Council on

January 1, 2024, it appears that the provisions of the Municipal

Code (EXHIBITS E) pertaining to Special meetings of the Council

were relied on and such provisions require that there was either

a “call” by the Mayor, or a written request by at least four

Council members, for the February 14, 2024 meeting.

Whether the Mayor called for, or written request was made

by at least four Council members for, the February 14, 2024,

Special meeting of the Council, the purpose of the meeting had

7
to be known and designated, in order to allow for it to be

convened, and the controlling Municipal Code (EXHIBITS E)

dictates that no other business than that specified in the

notice shall be considered.

The generic references to “restructuring of various

departments,” “various traffic ordinances,” and “various

purchases and other routine items of public business” appears to

be wholly inadequate notice to Plaintiff and other members of

the public and a part of a deliberate effort to prevent the

public from knowing what Defendants intended to do during the

February 14, 2024, Special meeting of the Council.

At no time preceding or during February 14, 2024, or at

least as of February 27, 2024, have Defendants published a more

specific agenda on the Defendant Toms River website or anywhere

else.

Approximately five minutes before the February 14, 2024,

meeting was scheduled to convene, Plaintiff went to the Clerk’s

office to inquire about the agenda and, therefrom, obtained a

paper copy of the agenda. (EXHIBIT I)

Notably included on the agenda, consisting of six pages,

was a total of eight Ordinances for Final Reading and twenty-

eight Resolutions.

At approximately 2:00m on February 14, 2024, Defendant

Coleman called the Council meeting to order and, after a several

8
customary actions, proceeded to make an unusual statement about

having been given the responsibility to conduct a professional,

organized, meeting without interruptions and, in that regard,

announced:

“any individual who do not show respect for the

individual who has the floor, by interrupting, will be
given a warning and will be removed from the room if
the interruptions continue; this goes for Council
members as well as the public.”

Defendant Coleman’s declaration that anyone may be removed

from the room does not appear anywhere to be actual authority

that has ever been conferred upon him or anyone.

When Defendant Coleman finished his statement, he

recognized Defendant Rodrick to make comments and, when Rodrick

was finished, then recognized Councilman Quinlisk.

Once Councilman Quinlisk was recognized by Defendant

Coleman, Quinlisk raised a “question of order” about the

propriety and legality of the meeting being proceeded with and,

without the “question” being answered by the Council’s attorney

and perhaps inadvertently, he made a motion for the meeting to

be adjoined.

Councilman Ciccozzi seconded Councilman Quinlisk’s motion

and, thereupon, a majority of the Council voted “no” on the

motion.

Councilman Quinlisk attempted to continue to raise the

issue, persisted despite being repeatedly advised by Defendant

9
Coleman that he (Quinlisk) does not have the floor and to sit

down, and even after Defendant Coleman directed that Quinlisk be

removed from the room by law enforcement officers.

Thankfully, Councilman Quinlisk was not removed from the

room and was able to at least finish making his point.

When Councilman Quinlisk was finished making his point, the

last thing he said was “nobody received proper notice of this

meeting; nobody received a copy of the schedule ahead of time.”

Immediately following Councilman Quinlisk’s last comment, a

chaos of verbal attacks ensued against him from the Council

members, beginning with Defendant Lamb, and without any of them

being recognized by the Council President, Defendant Coleman,

and with Defendant Coleman actually also contributing to the

attacks.

The following is what Defendant Lamb said immediately after

Councilman Quinlisk’s last comment and beginning the verbal

chaos, verbatim, and that led to Defendant Coleman directing

that Plaintiff be removed from the room by law enforcement

officers and resulting in Plaintiff being removed:

Councilman Lamb: If there wasn’t notice, how was, how s

everybody here.

Councilman Nivison: (laughing) Hey Jim; Jim.

Lamb: It begs the question.

Nivison: Give us a break; give us a break, Jim. Dave

(referring to Councilman Cicozzi); give us a break. You

10
knew, just as much as anybody else, this was taking place.
Lets be adults.

Quinlisk: There is a legal procedure that should be

followed. Not an option. Legal procedure. Just because I
knew that Dan was gonna throw a meeting in the middle of
the work day, on Valentine’s Day, on Ash Wednesday, at two
o’clock between police shifts, doesn’t make it legal.

Council President: I would like to speak on one point. We

wouldn’t be here today Jim, if you hadn’t interrupted the
meeting we tried to have on the 31st.

Mayor Rodrick: Council President.

Quinlisk: You mean when I pointed out another illegal

motion or another illegal activity going on.

Rodrick: I think. I think. I think you had an oppor … I

think you had an opportunity now Jim. You think that maybe
…

Williams: (directed at Mayor Rodrick) You don’t get to

talk. You don’t get to talk. Dan Rodrick, you do not get to
talk; you have not been recognized by the Council
President.

Councilman Lobman: Council President.

(Nivison nudges Coleman, points at Williams, and says “have
that guy removed”)

Coleman: Please have this gentleman (pointing at Williams)

removed from the room right over here.

Lamb: Neither are you; neither are you.

Coleman: He’s out of order. He is out of order.

Williams: If he can do it, I can do it.

Coleman: You’re out of order, Mr. Williams.

Williams: And that is a dictatorship.

Coleman: You’re out of order, Mr. Williams.

11
 Williams: (pointing at Rodrick) He’s out of order and you
didn’t say shit. He’s out of order.

Nivison: We need to have him removed.

Lamb: Can we get some police. Can we get some police please
to handle this gentleman and get him out. Screaming.

Lobman: Have him get out of here.

Lamb: Get him out.

Rodrick: He’s gotta leave.

Williams: Its hypocrisy. (Pointing at several Council

members and the Mayor) He does it, He does it, you do it,
he does it. Its hypocrisy. You’re all out of order so why
can’t I.

The February 14, 2024 meeting, as well as other meetings of

the Council for the past several years, was recorded and also

was livestreamed by Defendant Toms River to their YouTube

channel, “Toms River Township NJ,” that appears at the following

url:

https://www.youtube.com/@tomsrivertownshipnj1285

Inexplicably, the Defendant Toms River removed the video

from their YouTube channel on or about February 15, 2024.

Plaintiff was able to obtain from Defendant Toms River a

copy of the video of the February 14, 2024 and published it on

his YouTube, “Paul C. Williams for Toms River Council,” at the

following url:

https://youtu.be/ZugXuPBIxao?si=zEYfDndESe1d43O3

12
 Upon information and belief, there was no good reason and

no lawful basis or authority for Defendant Coleman, along with

Defendants Nivison, Lobman, Lamb and Rodrick, to direct and

participate in the demand for Plaintiff to be removed from the

meeting by law enforcement officers, as Plaintiff, with no more

or less right and authority of the Council members speaking and

yelling without being recognized by the Council President,

addressed Defendant Rodrick and insisted that he (Rodrick)

cannot talk without being recognized by the Council President.

Following Plaintiff’s removal from the meeting, the meeting

continued, included multiple additional instances of Council

members and the Mayor interrupting, arguing with, and outright

demeaning and disrespecting members of the public during the

public comment times, and a majority of the Council voted “yes”

on, and approved, all items on the agenda.

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s removal

from the meeting, he was not able to attend the meeting and

contribute comments during the public comment time and, upon

information and belief, his removal from the meeting violated at

least the OPMA.

Defendants have a regularly scheduled Council meeting set

for February 28, 2024 which, as of the preparation of this

pleading, is less than 48 hours away and, so far, no agenda for

the meeting appear to have been provided to the public.

13
 This motion follows.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT I

THE COUNCIL’S ACTIONS DURING THE MEETINGS DID NOT

CONFORM WITH THE NEW JERSEY OPEN PUBLIC MEETINS ACT
AND MUST BE VOIDED.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote,

at the height of the Watergate investigations:

It would be difficult to name a more efficient ally of

corruption than secrecy. Corruption is never flaunted to
the world. In government it is invariably practiced through
secrecy – secrecy found in every level of government from
city halls to the White House and Capitol. If anything is
to be learned from our present difficulties, compendiously
known as Watergate, it is that we must open our public
affairs to public scrutiny on every level of government.

“Governmental Secrecy: Corruption’s Ally,” 60 A.B.A.J. 550

(1974).

Since then, "New Jersey has a strong, expressed public

policy in favor of open government . . ..” Times of Trenton Pub.

Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 183 N.J.

519, 529 (2005). Indeed, open government is a cornerstone of

democracy that enables advocates, activists, and the press to

monitor government performance and expose corruption. Without

transparency in government activities, the American people are

vulnerable to deception and abuse by our leaders. Asbury Park

Press v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J. Super. 312,

329-330 (Law. Div. 2004). As explained by the New Jersey

14
Legislature in the Open Public Meetings Act itself:

"[S]ecrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the

public in government and the public's effectiveness in
fulfilling its role in a democratic society."

N.J.S.A. 10:4-7.

The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), established in 1975,

reflects the unambiguous public policy of providing the state's

citizens with broad and timely knowledge of, and access to,

government meetings, which "is vital to the enhancement and

proper functioning of the democratic process." Id.; see also

Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. at 514 (discussing

same). It is in keeping with "a strong tradition . . . favoring

public involvement in almost every aspect of government.”

Pollilo v. Deane, 74 N.J. 562, 569 (1977). See also Payton v.

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 148 N.J. 524, 557 (1997) (noting

"the Legislature's strongly stated intent to effectuate broad

public participation in the affairs of government bodies").

One way the OPMA effectuates its stated public policy is to

mandate that, subject to limited exceptions, a public body must

provide not merely “notice” but, instead, “adequate notice” to

the public of the "time, date, location and, to the extent

known, the agenda of any regular, special or rescheduled

meeting, which notice shall accurately state whether formal

action may or may not be taken . . . " N.J.S.A. 10:4-8d

(emphasis added); see also McGovern, Jr. v. Rutgers, State

15
University of New Jersey, 211 N.J. 94, 111 (2012)(noting that,

by the time a notice was prepared and published, Rutgers knew

more about the extent of the proposed agenda than what was

conveyed by the generic references provided in the notice and

that, pursuant to the OPMA, Rutgers had an obligation to include

as part of the notice of the meeting the agenda of that meeting

to the extent it was known and, therefore, the notice provided

was inadequate).

Further, the OPMA also mandates that, with exceptions that

are not applicable here, “all” meetings of the Council “shall be

open to the public at all times.” N.J.S.A. 10:4-12. This

effectuates the Legislature’s unambiguous declaration that it

is:

“the public policy of this State to insure the right of its

citizens to have adequate advance notice of and the right
to attend all meetings of public bodies at which any
business affecting the public is discussed or acted upon in
any way . . . “

N.J.S.A. 10:4-7 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Legislature

effectively established for the people a state-created right, to

attend all meetings of Council, which may not be denied without

due process of law. Therefore, it is clear that neither

Plaintiff nor any member of the public may be simply caused to

be removed from a Council meeting. Indeed, it has been said:

“It is clearly established that when a public official

excludes a elected representative or a citizen from a

16
 public meeting, she must conform her conduct to the
requirements of the First Amendment.”

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth, 436 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2006).

As noted by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Legislature

declared that it is "the public policy of this State to insure

that the aforesaid rights are implemented pursuant to the

provisions of this act so that no confusions, misconstructions

or misinterpretations may thwart the purposes [thereof]."

Polillo v. Deane, 74 N.J. at 572, quoting N.J.S.A. 10:4-7. To

that end, when there is any doubt as to the meaning of the Act's

provisions, it should "be liberally construed in order to

accomplish its purpose and the public policy of this State as

set forth in [N.J.S.A. 10:4-7]." N.J.S.A. 10:4-21.

Here, the Defendant Toms River has continuously failed to

fulfill the “adequate notice” requirement of the Open Public

Meetings Act. In fact, the meeting notices, with their purely

generic and vague words, have not meaningfully informed the

public of what is on each meeting agenda. As well, additional

items have repeatedly appeared on the meeting agendas after the

notices were provided and although were certainly known by the

Defendant Toms River, by and through its staff, employees, and

agents, when the notices were provided. The Defendant Toms

River, by and through its staff, employees, and agents, have had

an obligation to include, as part of the notices of the

17
meetings, the agenda of the meetings to the extent it was known

and, therefore, the notices provided were inadequate.

Also here, Defendants violated at least the Open Public

Meetings Act by causing Plaintiff to be removed from the

February 14, 2024, public meeting of the Council. Although

there does not appear to have been any authority conferred upon

any of the Defendants to have anyone removed from a public

Council meeting, Defendant Coleman suddenly demanding, and then

joined by Defendants Nivison, Lobman, Lamb and Rodrick, that law

enforcement officers remove Plaintiff from the meeting is also

hypocritical, ridiculous and absurd; considering each and every

one of their very own conduct toward Councilman Quinlisk, just

prior to Plaintiff being removed from the meeting, and many

members of the public hours after Plaintiff was removed. In the

midst of the verbal chaos the Defendants themselves were engaged

in, Plaintiff only addressed Defendant Rodrick by stating:

“You don’t get to talk. You don’t get to talk. Dan Rodrick,
you do not get to talk; you have not been recognized by the
Council President.”

Thereupon, Plaintiff was caused to be removed from the meeting,

violating at least the Open Public Meetings Act but also

Plaintiff’s federal and state constitutional freedom of speech

rights, and exemplifying a disgusting reality of what the Toms

River municipal government has devolved into within less than

18
two months of having a new Mayor and majority of Council

members.

POINT II

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PENDING

RESOLUTION OF THIS MATTER.

New Jersey has long recognized the power of its courts to

grant preliminary injunctive relief to prevent a threatened or

irreparable harm, and to preserve the status quo, until

opportunity is afforded for a full and deliberate investigation

of the case. Princeton Ins. Co. v. 349 Associates, LLC, 147 N.J.

337, 340 (1997); Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-136 (1982).

Moreover, if the public’s interest is impacted by the grant or

denial of an application for such relief, then the Court should

give that interest substantial weight. Waste Management of New

Jersey, Inc. v. Union County Util. Auth., 399 N.J. Super. 508,

536 (App. Div. 2008) (holding that “[i]n the matter at hand, the

public interest is significantly impacted, and, once defined,

should play a significant role in the judge’s determination.”).

Under New Jersey law, temporary, preliminary or summary

relief should issue when a moving party demonstrates the

following: (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits

of the underlying legal claims; (2) that such relief is

necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm; (3) the

legal rights underlying the moving party’s claims are settled;

19
and (4) the balance of harms, favors the granting of preliminary

relief. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132-136. In addition, where the

public interest is at issue, the Court should also consider the

effect that granting or denying injunctive relief will have on

the public interest. See Garden State Equality v. Dow, 216 N.J.

314 (2013).

Here, Plaintiff seeks, by way of an action in lieu of

prerogative writ, to void all the action(s), particularly the

adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions, that the Council took at

the meetings it conducted on January 18, 2024, and February 24,

2024. He submits that there is no exception in the statute or

case law for substantial compliance with the OPMA; thus, strict

adherence to the letter of the law is required in considering

whether the OPMA was violated. However, Plaintiff also submits

that the “inadequate notice” violations appear to be a

deliberate and nefarious sort of chicanery, the use of trickery

to achieve a political and/or legal purpose, and not mere

oversight. As well, the context in which Plaintiff was caused

to be removed from the meeting reveals that violation of at

least the OPMA to be particularly malicious and also chilling

for Plaintiff and others who are concerned with the

considerations and decisions the Council is making on behalf of

the public at large. Accordingly, the relief sought here

appears to be appropriate and necessary.

20
 Anything less than the relief sought would signal to the

Defendants that the OPMA is meaningless, may as well be

stricken, and there is no adequate, effective, and meaningful

recourse for the nefarious actions of the Defendants. Such

signal would also be received by Plaintiff and other members of

the public who would be reminded of one of Justice Brandeis’

famous quote:

“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government

officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct
that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws,
existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails
to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the
potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it
teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is
contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it
breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a
law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 484, 48 S.Ct. 564

(1928) (emphasis added).

With specific regard to the Crowe factors, the facts are

clear and indisputable; making for a reasonable probability of

success on the merits of the underlying legal claims. Also, the

relief requested is necessary to prevent immediate and further

irreparable harm. Indeed, there is yet another Council meeting

coming up within 24 hours of this pleading being prepared and

there has again not been adequate notice of whatever may be the

agenda and Plaintiff may very well be caused to be removed from

that and/or future meetings. The legal rights underlying the

21
moving party’s claims are settled. Lastly, the balance of

harms, favors the granting of preliminary relief ... there does

not appear to be any harm, beyond perhaps inconvenience to the

Defendants, in voiding the Defendant’s actions and leaving

Defendants to revisit their actions, if they so choose, and to

conduct the meetings in conformity with the OPMA.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully urged that the

Court grant Plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause

with temporary restraints.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul C. Williams

Paul C. Williams

PCW:pcw
cc: File

22
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
Asbury Park Press, Neptune

Publication Name:
Asbury Park Press, Neptune

Publication URL:

Publication City and State:

Neptune , NJ

Publication County:
Monmouth

Notice Popular Keyword Category:

Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

Notice Authentication Number:

202402252242178361813
1173938468

Notice URL:

Back

Notice Publish Date:

Tuesday, January 09, 2024
Notice Content

TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER PUBLIC NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Take notice that The Toms River Township Council will hold a special public
meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:00pm. The meeting will take place in the L. Manuel Hirshblond Room in Town Hall located at 33
Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08753. Items on the agenda include 1) second reading and public hearing of an ordinance repealing
Chapter 253 of the Township Code and 2) the interim appointment of a representative to fill the vacant Ward 2 Council seat. Official action
will be taken. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER BY ORDER OF: MIKE CRUOGLIO, RMC MUNICIPAL CLERK ($12.32)

Back
EXHIBIT D
The Star-Ledger, Newark

Publication Name:
The Star-Ledger, Newark

Publication URL:
www.nj.com/starledger

Publication City and State:

Newark , NJ

Publication County:
Essex

Notice Popular Keyword Category:

Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

Notice Authentication Number:

202402252243217939513
1173938468

Notice URL:

Back

Notice Publish Date:

Friday, January 12, 2024
Notice Content

TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER PUBLIC NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Take notice that The Toms River Township Council will hold a special public
meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:00pm. The meeting will take place in the L. Manuel Hirshblond Room in Town Hall located at 33
Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08753. Items on the agenda include 1) second reading and public hearing of an ordinance repealing
Chapter 253 of the Township Code and 2) the interim appointment of a representative to fill the vacant Ward 2 Council seat. Official action
will be taken. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER BY ORDER OF: MIKE CRUOGLIO, RMC MUNICIPAL CLERK 1/12/2024 $25.80

Back
EXHIBIT E
Township of Toms River, NJ

§ 5-7. Meetings of the Council.

A. Regular meetings. The Council shall meet annually for organization on the first day of
January at 12:00 noon or during the first seven days of January in any year. The Council shall
designate by resolution the time of the holding of regular meetings, which shall be at least
monthly.
B. Special meetings. The Mayor may, and upon written request of four Councilpersons, shall,
call a special meeting of the Council. In the call, he or she shall designate the purpose of the
special meeting, and no other business shall be considered.
C. Open to the public. All regular and special meetings of the Council shall be open to the
public.
D. Quorum. A majority of the whole number of members of the Council shall constitute a
quorum, but no ordinance shall be adopted by the Council without the affirmative vote of a
majority of all of the members of the Council.

Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/DO0275 on 2024-02-25

EXHIBIT F
 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP, NJ

TOWNSHIP COUNCIL AGENDA

Thursday, January 18, 2024
7:00 PM

1. Meeting called to order.

2. Flag salute.

3. Open Public Meetings Act statement.

ROLL CALL:

CICCOZZI
LAMB
NIVISON
QUINLISK
O'TOOLE
COLEMAN

5. Minutes: January 1, 2024 Reorganization Meeting

6. Honoring Resolutions and Presentations:

7. Appointment To Fill Vacant Ward 2 Council Seat

8. Swearing in of Newly Elected Ward 2 Councilmember

Resolutions

9. RESOLUTION Of The Township Council, Township Of Toms River, Ocean County

New Jersey, Supporting The Hiring Of Eight Additional, Full-Time Cso/Emt
Emergency Responders And Providing For Additional 24/7 Ambulance Service

In the interests of public health and safety, especially for the elderly, infirm, and other
 vulnerable populations, and to ensure comprehensive and responsive ambulance
service throughout the Township, The Township Council hereby supports, and
pledges resources for, strengthening the Township’s emergency medical response
unit through hiring eight additional CSO/EMT emergency responders and dispatching
an additional ambulance for 24/7 coverage.

Ordinances- First Reading

10. ORDINANCE Of The Township Council, Township Of Toms River, Ocean County,
New Jersey, Amending And Supplementing §§50-3B, 50-3G, And 50-3R Of The
Township Code To Revise The Roster Of Positions Within The Department Of Law
Enforcement

11. ORDINANCE Of The Township Council, Township Of Toms River, Ocean County,
New Jersey, Amending §165-45B Of The Township Code To Eliminate The Adoption
Fees For Dogs And Cats From The Toms River Animal Shelter

12. ORDINANCE Of The Township Of Toms River, Ocean County, New Jersey,
Amending And Supplementing The Township Code To: (1) Establish The Divisions
Of Roads And Sanitation Within Chapter 40 (Department Of Administration); (2)
Repeal Chapter 54 (Department Of Public Works) In Its Entirety; And (3) Place The
Division Of Parks, Buildings, And Grounds Under The Department Of Recreation

Ordinances - Final Readings

13. ORDINANCE Of The Township Council, Township Of Toms River, Ocean County,
New Jersey, Repealing Chapter 253 Of The Township Code Of The Township Of
Toms River Entitled “Continued Use And Occupancy Of Residential Dwellings"

Consent Agenda
All matters listed under the heading "Consent Agenda" will be enacted by one motion in the
form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired
on any item, that will be considered separately.

14. Consent Items

a. RESOLUTION Of The Township Council Of The Township Of Toms River,

Ocean County, New Jersey Appointing Laura Picurro as Municipal Alliance
Coordinator for the Fiscal Year 2024

b. RESOLUTION Of The Township Council Of The Township Of Toms River,

Ocean County, New Jersey Changing Various Custodians Of Petty Cash Funds

c. RESOLUTION Of The Township Of Toms River, County Of Ocean, State Of New

Jersey, Ameding Resolution 2024-50 Appointing Jean L. Cipriani, Esquire, Of
The Law Firm Of Rothstein, Mandell, Strohm, Halm & Cipriani, As Labor Counsel
For The Township Of Toms River

d. RESOLUTION Of The Township Council Of The Township Of Toms River,

Ocean County, New Jersey, Authorizing The Mayor To Execute And The
 Township Clerk To Attest To A Risk Management Broker Consultant Agreement
Between The Township Of Toms River And Foundation Risk Partners Corp.
D/B/A Fairview Insurance Agency Associates

Approval of Bills

Elected Official's Comments

Public Comments

Executive Session
EXHIBIT G
Asbury Park Press, Neptune

Publication Name:
Asbury Park Press, Neptune

Publication URL:

Publication City and State:

Neptune , NJ

Publication County:
Monmouth

Notice Popular Keyword Category:

Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

Notice Authentication Number:

202402252240120481653
1173938468

Notice URL:

Back

Notice Publish Date:

Monday, February 12, 2024
Notice Content

TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(b) and (d) the Toms River
Township Council will be conducting a special meeting on February 14, 2024, at 2:00 P.M. The meeting will be held in-person in the
Hirshblond Room on the second floor of the Toms River Township Municipal Building located at 33 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey,
08753. The meeting will also be livestreamed on the Township's Youtube Channel. The agenda shall include (1) final readings and public
comment on ordinances pertaining to the restructuring of various departments; (2) final readings and public comment on various traffic
ordinances; and a (3) consent agenda consisting of various purchases and other routine items of public business. Formal action may be
taken. ($47.76)

Back
EXHIBIT H
The Star-Ledger, Newark

Publication Name:
The Star-Ledger, Newark

Publication URL:
www.nj.com/starledger

Publication City and State:

Newark , NJ

Publication County:
Essex

Notice Popular Keyword Category:

Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

Notice Authentication Number:

202402252236426030159
1173938468

Notice URL:

Back

Notice Publish Date:

Monday, February 12, 2024
Notice Content

TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(b) and (d) the Toms River
Township Council will be conducting a special meeting on February 14, 2024, at 2:00 P.M. The meeting will be held in-person in the
Hirshblond Room on the second floor of the Toms River Township Municipal Building located at 33 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey,
08753. The meeting will also be livestreamed on the Township's Youtube Channel. The agenda shall include (1) final readings and public
comment on ordinances pertaining to the restructuring of various departments; (2) final readings and public comment on various traffic
ordinances; and a (3) consent agenda consisting of various purchases and other routine items of public business. Formal action may be
taken. 2/12/2024 $32.68

Back
EXHIBIT I