2-27-24 Brief in Support of Order To Show Cause - Williams Vs Township of Toms River, Daniel Rodrick, Et Al.

OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 1 of 49 Trans ID: LCV2024527940
PAUL C. WILLIAMS
35 BROAD STREET #C4
TOMS RIVER NJ 08753-6564
[email protected]
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:
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:
Publication URL:
www.nj.com/starledger

Newark , NJ
Publication County:
Essex
Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

202402252243217939513
1173938468
Notice URL:
Back

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
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
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
Publication Name:
Publication URL:

Neptune , NJ
Publication County:
Monmouth
Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

202402252240120481653
1173938468
Notice URL:
Back

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
Publication Name:
Publication URL:
www.nj.com/starledger

Newark , NJ
Publication County:
Essex
Notice Keywords:
SPECIAL MEETING

202402252236426030159
1173938468
Notice URL:
Back

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

2-27-24 Brief in Support of Order To Show Cause - Williams Vs Township of Toms River, Daniel Rodrick, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

2-27-24 Brief in Support of Order To Show Cause - Williams Vs Township of Toms River, Daniel Rodrick, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

2-27-24 Brief in Support of Order To Show Cause - Williams Vs Township of Toms River, Daniel Rodrick, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

OCN-L-000555-24 02/27/2024 Pg 1 of 49 Trans ID: LCV2024527940

February 27, 2024

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

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

ORAL ARUGMENT REQUESTED

Dear Judge Wellerson:

I am the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter and

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . .

THE COUNCIL’S ACTIONS DURING THE MEETINGS DID NOT

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PENDING THE

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

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

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

Following the November 2023 General Election, the annual

reorganization meeting of the Township Council was convened on

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

Also during the reorganization meeting, the Council adopted

numerous resolutions which, in particular, included:

(a) Adoption of the 2024 Toms River Township Council

(b) Established Rules And Regulations For Public

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,

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

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

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

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.

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