OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 1 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

PAUL C. WILLIAMS
35 BROAD STREET #C4
TOMS RIVER NJ 08753-6564
[email protected]
Ph: 732.998.6707
Plaintiff, Pro Se

PAUL C. WILLIAMS, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION – OCEAN COUNTY
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: (TBA)
vs.
CIVIL ACTION
TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER,
DANIEL RODRICK, CRAIG COLEMAN, COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF
THOMAS NIVISON, GEORGE LOBMAN, PREREOGATIVE WRITS; R. 4:69-1
and JUSTIN LAMB,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Paul C. Williams, residing in Toms River, Ocean

County, State of New Jersey, by way of this Complaint against

the Defendants, alleges the following:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action in lieu of prerogative writ, brought

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

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

14, 2024 meetings that 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).

1
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 2 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has original jurisdiction over this matter

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-15 and N.J. Court Rule 4:69-1, because

the action seeks to void actions taken by a public body at

meeting that did not conform with the provisions of the “Open

Public Meetings Act” (hereinafter referred to as “OPMA”)

3. Venue is proper in the Ocean County Vicinage, pursuant

to R. 4:3-2(a), because Plaintiff is located in such county and

the events giving rise to the claims herein occurred within such

county.

III. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Paul C. Williams (hereinafter referred to

as “Plaintiff”), is a member of the public, residing in the

Township of Toms River, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey.

5. Defendant, Township of Toms River (hereinafter “Toms

River”), is a duly constituted municipality in the County of

Ocean, State of New Jersey.

6. Defendant, Daniel Rodrick (hereinafter referred to as

“Rodrick”), is the current Mayor of Toms River.

7. Defendant, Craig Coleman (hereinafter referred to as

“Coleman”), is a current member of the Toms River Council and

also is the current Council.

8. Defendant, Thomas Nivison (hereinafter referred to as

“Nivison”), is a current member of the Toms River Council.

2
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 3 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

9. Defendant, George Lobman (hereinafter referred to as

“Lobman”), is a current member of the Toms River Council.

10. Defendant, Justin Lamb (hereinafter referred to as

“Lamb”), is a current member of the Toms River Council.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Defendant Toms River, being a duly constituted

municipality, operates with a “Faulkner Act,” Mayor-Council,

form of government pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1, et seq. ...

with the voters electing a Mayor and seven Council members,

consisting of three members for At Large seats and four members

for Ward seats, who each serve four year terms.

12. The Mayor exercises executive power of the

municipality, subject to the procedures set forth in the Charter

of Defendant Toms River.

13. The Council exercises legislative power of the

municipality, pursuant to and in accordance with the authority

prescribed in N.J.S.A. 40:69A-36 and general law.

14. With some exceptions not implicated in this matter

and to ensure transparency in government activities, the public

has a state created right to adequate notice of all public

meetings of the Council, and the right to attend such meetings,

when any business affecting the public is discussed or acted

upon.

3
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 4 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

15. To effectuate the right of the public to adequate

notice of, and to attend, meetings of the Council, the Council

is expressly required to provide at least 48 hours advance

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.

16. To effectuate the right of the public to adequate

notice of, and to attend, Regular meetings of the Council,

pertinent provisions of the Municipal Code of Toms River

mandates:

“... the agenda for each regular meeting of the Council

shall include only such matters of Council business as have
been presented or delivered to the Clerk by Councilpersons
no later than the Friday proceeding the meeting at 12:00
noon.”

(Section 5-8A)

17. To effectuate the right of the public to adequate

notice of, and to attend, Special meetings of the Council,

pertinent provisions of the Municipal Code of Toms River

mandates that, while the Mayor may, and upon written request of

four Councilpersons, shall, call a special meeting of the

Council, the Mayor:

“shall designate the purpose of the special meeting, and no

other business shall be considered.”

(Section 5-7B) (emphasis added)

4
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 5 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

18. Failing/refusing to timely present or deliver to the

Clerk the agenda of the regular meeting of Council, or the

designation of the purpose of the special meeting, implicitly

prevents the Clerk from timely preparing the agenda and for the

public to receive adequate notice.

19. From the November 2023 General Election, the voters of

Toms River elected one of its then-current 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.

20. Following the November 2023 General Election, the

annual reorganization meeting of the Council was convened on

January 1, 2024.

21. 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).

22. Also during the January 1, 2024 meeting, Defendant

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

5
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 6 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

thereby, became responsible for, among other things, presiding

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

Council.

23. Also during the reorganization meeting, the Council

adopted numerous resolutions which, in particular, included:

(a) Adoption of the 2024 Toms River Township Council

Meeting Dates; and

(b) Established Rules And Regulations For Public

Meetings Of The Township Council.

24. 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.”

25. 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 pertaining to Special meetings

of the Council were relied on and such provisions require that

6
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 7 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

there was either a “call” by the Mayor, or a written request by

at least four Council members, for the January 18, 2024 meeting.

26. 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 dictates that no

other business than that specified in the notice shall be

considered.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Between January 16, 2024 and January 18, 2024, the

7
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 8 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

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

that appeared on the Defendant Toms River website changed

multiple 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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

8
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 9 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

requesting that Plaintiff support him with regard to the

Ordinance.

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

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.

35. 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.”

36. 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 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.

37. Whether the Mayor called for, or written request was

9
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 10 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

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

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 dictates that no

other business than that specified in the notice shall be

considered.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Notably included on the agenda, consisting of six

pages, was a total of eight Ordinances for Final Reading and

twenty-eight Resolutions.

10
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 11 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

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

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

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.”

43. 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.

44. When Defendant Coleman finished his statement, he

recognized Defendant Rodrick to make comments and, when Rodrick

was finished, then recognized Councilman Quinlisk.

45. 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.

46. Councilman Ciccozzi seconded Councilman Quinlisk’s

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

the motion.

11
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 12 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

47. Councilman Quinlisk attempted to continue to raise the

issue, persisted despite being repeatedly advised by Defendant

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.

48. Thankfully, Councilman Quinlisk was not removed from

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

49. 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.”

50. 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.

51. 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.

12
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 13 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

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
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-
oclock 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.

13
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 14 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

Williams: And that is a dictatorship.

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

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.

52. 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

53. Inexplicably, the Defendant Toms River removed the

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

54. 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:

14
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 15 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

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

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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.

V. LEGAL CLAIMS

(Declaratory Judgment)

58. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all prior

15
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 16 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

paragraphs as if fully set forth at length herein.

59. There is an actual case in controversy between

Plaintiff and Defendants regarding whether there were violations

of the OPMA, insofar as the adequacy of the “notice” of the

January 18, 2024 and/or the February 14, 2024 Special meetings

of the Council and the lawfulness of Plaintiff being removed

from the February 14, 2024 meeting.

60. Defendant’s actions have forced Plaintiff to initiate

this legal action as a member of the public and a resident of

the Township of Toms River.

61. Plaintiff has demonstrated that this matter

constitutes a justiciable controversy between adverse parties.

62. Plaintiff has a direct interest in this matter.

63. The facts are not future, contingent, or uncertain.

64. All interested parties have been joined in this

action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as

follow:

(a) Finding and declaring that Defendants have acted in

violation of the Open Public Meetings Act;

(b) Finding and declaring that Defendants must act in

accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act;

(c) For a temporary restraining order enjoining and

restraining Defendants, and all persons or organizations
who are associated therewith, from continuing with the
actions taken by the Defendants at the Council meeting on
January 18, 2024, until further order of the Court;

16
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 17 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

(d) For a temporary restraining order enjoining and

restraining Defendants, and all persons or organizations
who are associated therewith, from continuing with the
actions taken by the Defendants at the Council meeting on
February 14, 2024, until further order of the Court;

(e) Voiding all action(s) taken at a meeting that did not

conform with the Open Public Meetings Act;

(f) For fines to be imposed on each Defendant and in an

amount to be decided;

(g) For fees and costs, including reasonable attorneys’

fees; and

(h) For such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and equitable.

Dated: February 27, 2024 /s/ Paul C. Williams

Paul C. Williams
Plaintiff, Pro Se

CERTIFICATION; R. 4:5-1

Plaintiff hereby certifies that there are no other

proceedings or pending related cases arising from the same
factual dispute described herein. The matter in controversy is
not the subject of any other action pending in any other court
or a pending arbitration proceeding is contemplated. Further,
other than the parties set forth in this complaint, the
undersigned knows of no other parties that should be made a part
of this lawsuit. In addition, the undersigned recognizes the
continuing obligation to file and serve on all parties and the
court an amended certification if there is a change in the facts
stated in this original certification.

Dated: February 27, 2024 /s/ Paul C. Williams

Paul C. Williams
Plaintiff, Pro Se

VERFICATION OF COMPLAINT

I, Paul C. Williams, being of full age and in lieu of oath,

17
 OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 18 of 18 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

hereby say and certify as follows:

1. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances

alleged in the foregoing Complaint. I have prepared and read
the Complaint and affirm, to the best of my personal knowledge
and based on my personal knowledge and the documents attached to
the certification filed with this Complaint, the facts stated
therein are true.

2. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are

true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are
willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: February 27, 2024 /s/ Paul C. Williams

Paul C. Williams
Plaintiff, Pro Se

18