TOMS RIVER – Back in May 2018, first-year Democratic councilman Daniel Rodrick cast the only vote against two appointments to the Toms River Municipal Utilities Authority. He objected to members receiving township health coverage for attending only a few meetings a month.
Eight years later, after switching parties and winning the mayor’s office, Rodrick is still challenging the benefits. This time he is doing so in Ocean County Superior Court.
The township and Rodrick, who is suing individually as a taxpayer and MUA ratepayer, filed a verified complaint on October 30 against the authority and all seven of its commissioners. The suit asks the court to rule that health benefits, pension contributions and other benefits provided because of MUA service count as compensation and, when combined with commissioners’ stipends, exceed the $2,000 annual limit set by township ordinance.
The Fight Begins
In 2018, three Democrats had just won council seats for the first time in years. Republicans still held the majority. The council appointed Ben Montenegro, a Democratic pick, and former Republican Councilman Alfonso Manforti as MUA alternates.
Rodrick argued voters had issued a “mandate” against Manforti by voting him out of office the year before. Republican Councilman George Wittmann shot back that Rodrick shouldn’t be taking health insurance from the town, either.
The fight might sound like a familiar one although some of the names have changed. Back then, Rodrick said political allies shouldn’t be placed on the board just to collect health insurance. He also called for dissolving the MUA entirely, leaving only the employees who “actually do the work.”
At that time, commissioners earned $2,000 a year and could opt into health coverage. Nobody could say what that coverage cost. The authority’s own 2026 budget attached to court documents still doesn’t completely answer that question.
What The Numbers Show
The lawsuit leans heavily on Schedule N-4(2) of the MUA’s 2026 adopted budget. It lists a $2,000 base stipend for each commissioner and a combined $227,250 in estimated “other compensation,” including health benefits, pension contributions and other items.
Chairman Charles Valvano, member Kim Pascarella and alternate Sam Ellenbogen are each listed at $50,400. Alternate Katarina Sevastakis comes in at $31,700. James Braaten is listed at $21,150 and Phil Brilliant at $20,700. Vice Chairman Tariq Siddiqui sits at the bottom with just $2,500.
The figures are not confirmed health insurance costs or actual payments. The complaint says an accounting is needed to determine what the authority paid and what commissioners contributed.
The budget lists each of them simply as “Commissioner.” That detail matters as the township ordinance allows extra pay only when a member is also appointed an officer, agent or employee of the authority. “Each member shall receive compensation not to exceed $2,000 in any one year for services as a member of the Authority,” the ordinance reads.
Attorney Donald F. Burke, who filed the suit, argues a health plan is still compensation no matter what it’s called. “The Authority may not evade a compensation limitation by labeling membership compensation as insurance, fringe benefits, reimbursement, or another form of economic benefit,” the complaint states.
Allies And Critics Alike
Critics have long accused Rodrick of aiming his MUA complaints at one man. Brilliant is among the mayor’s most public opponents and helped lead the failed petition drive to recall him.
The lawsuit casts a wider net. Braaten, an attorney, is the stepson of Councilman Craig Coleman, one of Rodrick’s most reliable votes on the council. Pascarella is the township’s municipal prosecutor and the father of an assistant township attorney allied with Rodrick.
Ellenbogen sits on the Ocean County Board of Commissioners. Sevastakis is the daughter of former Councilman John Sevastakis. Siddiqui retired as an engineer with the Ocean County Utilities Authority. Every one of them is named in both their official capacities and individually as recipients of the benefits.
What The Suit Asks For
The complaint asks the court to stop future payments it finds unlawful and order a sworn accounting of compensation authorized or paid to commissioners since January 1, 2020. The accounting would identify amounts by person and year, including stipends, premiums, pension contributions, waivers and refunds.
The plaintiffs also seek recovery of funds if the court finds amounts were legally recoverable. The complaint says any repayment or offset against an individual must have a legal basis and follow notice and an opportunity to be heard. It asks the judge to consider a transition period, including allowing commissioners to continue coverage at their own expense if appropriate. The plaintiffs also seek attorney fees based on any financial benefit the lawsuit produces for MUA ratepayers.
Who Filed The Township’s Claim?
The complaint names the Township of Toms River and Daniel Rodrick, individually as a taxpayer and MUA ratepayer, as plaintiffs. It does not list Rodrick as suing in his official capacity as mayor. The filing identifies attorney Donald F. Burke as counsel for the plaintiffs. Business Administrator Jonathan Salonis verified the township’s claims, while Rodrick signed a separate verification of his taxpayer and ratepayer status.
That distinction leaves a question about who authorized the township to join the case. Toms River Code §49-3(C) says the Township Attorney may institute litigation affecting the township’s interests “subject to the approval of the Township Council.” The code also says special counsel may be appointed only by a resolution of the governing body. The complaint identifies Burke as counsel but does not cite a council resolution approving the township’s lawsuit or appointing him as special counsel.
Toms River operates under a mayor-council form of government under the Faulkner Act. State law assigns executive power to the mayor and gives the mayor duties that include enforcing municipal laws and supervising municipal departments and agencies. The complaint does not explain how those provisions apply alongside the code’s council-approval requirement for township litigation. The issue of the township’s authorization is separate from Rodrick’s individual claim, which asserts taxpayer and ratepayer standing.
Previous Attempts
The lawsuit follows earlier efforts to change the MUA or end benefits for its commissioners. In November 2025, the council rejected ordinances that would have dissolved the authority and transferred its responsibilities to the township. Then-Council President Justin Lamb called the proposal rushed, while Rodrick argued that transferring the work could save money.
In May, the council indefinitely tabled a separate ordinance to eliminate commissioner benefits. Councilman Thomas Nivison objected that it had just been added to the agenda, while Councilman Robert Bianchini questioned whether the council should decide benefits paid through the MUA’s separate budget.
At that time, Township Attorney Jonathan Penney said the law was clear. “I think the law is very clear on full-time benefits for part-time elected officials and appointed part-time board members after 2010,” he said. “It’s not permitted.”
The lawsuit does not rely on those 2010 benefit reforms. Instead, it asks the court to interpret the state statute governing utility-authority compensation and the township’s $2,000 cap. It also cites a 2016 State Supreme Court decision involving health benefits for commissioners at a county utilities authority. The complaint acknowledges that the case involved a different authority and a county executive’s veto power, while arguing that the court’s analysis of the state statute is relevant.
The post Toms River MUA Benefits Dispute Goes To Court appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.
