TOMS RIVER – A judge has ordered township officials and petitioners to reach an agreement outside of the courts about the future of the Toms River Animal Shelter.
The petitioners want the town to reopen the shelter and run it in-house. The town wants the county to take it over. It’s unclear how to meet in the middle of those points.
The two parties are to come to a conclusion before a proposed court date of September 19.
No elected officials were in the courtroom on September 6 when both sides argued their points. As opposed to Township Council meetings, where any discussion of the animal shelter gets emotional and leads to people shouting over each other, the court proceedings were organized and professional.
The session began with local resident Phil Brilliant representing himself without an attorney as a member of the petitioners. He summed up this year’s current events regarding the shelter.
The Township Council had passed an ordinance that would lead to the county taking the shelter over. Petitioners thought it should be under local control and thought that the loss of a shelter hurts the local animal population.
The petitioners got enough signatures to repeal the ordinance. They were certified on May 31. The township had 20 days to either repeal the ordinance or set up a date for a referendum. That did not happen. A referendum is a special question on a ballot for residents to vote on.
Mayor Daniel Rodrick shut down the shelter on June 6. The reason given was to prepare for construction needed before the county took it over. He has repeatedly said that the shelter was poorly run. Speakers at town meetings repeatedly refute that statement.
Donald F. Burke Jr. defends the township in Judge Robert E. Brenner’s courtroom as township assistant attorney Peter Pascarella listens. (Photo by Chris Lundy)
Brian Lippai, a spokesman for the Ocean County Health Department said nothing has changed on their end. On August 7, the date of one council meeting, he told The Toms River Times “Currently, our Board still hasn’t received a proposed agreement.”
On September 6, the day of the hearing, he said via email that there’s nothing to report.
Brilliant went to speak before the council at their latest meeting and asked for a change, and was rebuked. Any attempt to contact Rodrick or the administration has been met with insults or dismissal, he said. He described the township officials as “hostile to residents” whenever anyone asks to meet with them or change their mind. Therefore, the only place to go for relief was court.
Brilliant said that the township deprived residents of the right to vote.
The animals were removed from the shelter on June 7, and brought to other facilities.
“There was no plan in place,” Brilliant said. Officials told residents to call 911 for animal control issues instead. He said there are no construction plans drawn up so there was no need to close the shelter.
“They knew they lost” so they closed the shelter, he said.
After Brilliant’s summary, Judge Robert E. Brenner asked the township’s attorney, Donald F. Burke, Jr. about how the township missed the deadline to repeal the ordinance.
Burke said that the statute should be interpreted with common sense and in a reasonable way.
“The statute says what the statute says. Are you asking me to write a new law?” the judge asked.
“They challenged the ordinance. The ordinance has been repealed. All statutes must be within reason,” Burke said. He also noted that the first reading of the repeal of the ordinance was within the statutory time. The second reading was August 28.
An ordinance is always introduced at one meeting and then made official during another meeting.
A referendum would only undo the ordinance, Burke said. It wouldn’t reopen the shelter. However, the ordinance has already been repealed by the council itself.
One issue that the township had at the time was that the township clerk had quit, he said.
“I appreciate these arguments,” Brenner said. However, the township didn’t do what it was required to do, and it didn’t matter what issues they had.
The judge also asked where the county is in this discussion.
Peter Pascarella, assistant township attorney, who was also sworn in to defend the township, said that the township’s understanding is that the county is waiting until this legal challenge is done before signing any agreement.
Plaintiff Phil Brilliant details his case. (Photo by Chris Lundy)
Brenner had concerns about requiring a referendum. It costs the town money and employee hours to put together. And, if the residents vote that they want the county to take it over, then it would have all been for nothing.
Furthermore, if the residents vote to keep it under local control, what prevents the township from entering into a deal with the county later?
Therefore, he urged both parties to work “in earnest” toward a compromise, otherwise he’ll have to make the decision for them.
They attempted to have a meeting in just a few business days because “the animals’ welfare is not lost on the court.” Both parties talked about availability and the date was set for September 19.
When reached for comment after the meeting, Brilliant said “I am grateful Judge Brenner allowed me the opportunity to argue my case and that he understands my position. I will continue to state that the (Township) Council by statute had 20 days to act after the petition was certified and with no action, the decision goes to the people. The actions of Mayor Rodrick, Council and other defendants trampled my rights, the rights of every voter of Toms River and because the mayor closed the shelter, how and what the outcome of this case is a quandary. The Judge has asked us to meet and I am ready. I’ll be back on September 19.”
Mayor Rodrick, when reached for comment, said “They filed a petition asking to repeal the lease. Despite how questionable the signatures were, we repealed the lease to avoid spending taxpayer dollars fighting it. Now they filed for an injunction asking the court not repeal the lease. It’s asinine.
“The township does not have $1 million a year to run an animal shelter that the county will run better for free.
“The only thing this proceeding is doing is forcing an extended closure of the animal shelter. It would have been renovated and reopened by now. So the very people who claimed they were trying to keep the animal shelter opened are actually forcing its closure.
“If Mr. Brilliant and his friends really wanted the animal shelter to reopen, they would not be doing this. They only care about preserving unnecessary political jobs for their friends and creating a political issue where there is none. The Township will not run the shelter any longer. The folks that were running it were doing a terrible job. It was a disservice to the animals and the taxpayers.
“The truth is Mr. ‘Not So’ Brilliant and the remnants of the Mo Hill gang are desperately grasping at political straws because they wrongly believe it will help Democrat Zack Dougherty in the election for Ward 2 council, and they also believe that will bring the Mo Hill Gang back into power. Zack won’t win and the people who threw Mo Hill out with just 20% of the vote won’t put his Hill’s friends back in power,” Rodrick said.
Most Recent Meeting
At the most recent Township Council meeting, on August 28, the second reading of the ordinance almost went to vote without public comment. It was described on the agenda as “certain municipal property.” Councilman David Ciccozzi asked officials to explain that they were about to vote on the animal shelter so that residents in attendance could comment if they wished.
Councilman Justin Lamb made a motion to close public comments before members of the public got up to speak but that motion didn’t get approved, meaning that the public session happened.
The residents shared many of the same concerns as they had in the past. The issue isn’t that the ordinance is being repealed. Rather, they want the shelter re-opened under Toms River control.
“There is no deal with the county and no construction,” resident Julie Adamek said. “There’s one animal control officer down from four.”
She also noted that A-Academy has been contracted to respond for animal control in times when the animal control officer is not available. Police have had to use their time to respond to animal complaints rather than the animal control officers.
Rodrick said that in June, they anticipated going to the county. “There’s a deal in place.”
The county has said that there is no deal in place.
Resident Dawn Lazar-Fredella said that the dog runs the county wants is a 5×5 space, not an area for exercise.
Rodrick has said that the $1 million that a deceased person left in the will is better served in construction upgrades for the shelter rather than paying for employees.
Archived photo Toms River Mayor Dan Rodrick, left, and Business Administrator John Salonis listen to some critical comments about themselves by members of the public. (Photo by Bob Vosseller)
Lamb said that he’s looking at the issue through the prism of small government. Toms River residents are already paying county taxes. If the county took on the shelter, Toms River residents wouldn’t feel any increase. But they’ll feel a decrease if the town isn’t running it.
Adamek came back up to speak and said that the residents are paying down the mortgage on the building, so they would be paying for something they are not using.
Councilwoman Lynn O’Toole said she saw the shelter in January and she thought the conditions were so bad, “you wouldn’t keep your pet ant there.”
Councilman Thomas Nivison said that “I’m not in favor of turning it over to the county, but I want to see someone from the county at our meeting. I was there in January and it looked fine to me.” Nivison runs a farm with many animals on it. “There might be a few soiled cages. That happens. It’s not like you have someone there” waiting for an animal to relieve themselves so they can clean it up that second.
Councilman James Quinlisk said to Rodrick “You closed the shelter. It’s closed. You did it. You continue to lie and you continue to change the story as it suits you.”
When it came time to pay the bills during the meeting, the council members who were against the animal shelter being closed voted ‘no’ on paying Western Industries-North, the parent company of A-Academy. However, there were enough votes to pay them.
Councilman Nivison said “Everyone knows the petition wasn’t to repeal the lease but to re-open the shelter,” he said. It might have been worded better, but that was the intent. “We have a great building. It’s empty and the animals need help.”
At one point, Quinlisk said to Rodrick “Just open it. You have that power.”
Shortly after this, there was a bunch of yelling and it made the meeting unintelligible.
The post Judge Asks For Compromise Over Closed Toms River Animal Shelter appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.
