The Mount Holly Reporter asked the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to define Mount Holly’s policy regarding council member absences and/or the ability of a member to carry out their duties. There was a prolonged silence until Solicitor Tom Coleman stated that Council is not required to answer resident questions.

Mr. Brown’s latest absence came at a crucial time when Mount Holly Council is required to pass a budget but finds itself deadlocked in debate about a 9.7% tax increase. [A story is coming on the budget] Deputy Mayor DiFolco debated with council member Burkus that council should pass the “first reading” of the budget resolution. Council Members Astor and Burkus argued that the budget needs cuts prior to passage. The disagreement resulted in Astor/Burkus voting to “table” the budget resolution while DiFolco and Banks voted “abstain” from tabling the budget. Mr. Brown generally votes with DiFolco and Banks.

Lew Brown was first elected to Mount Holly Council in 2012 and has been re-elected three times. His son, Josh Brown, was appointed to the position of Mount Holly Township Manager in 2017. There is no law precluding such a father-son pairing except that council member Brown should recuse himself from any vote on the employment of his son.

But despite Council refusing to speak on the issue of incapacity, there are laws describing when an elected official has become “incapable of serving”.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated 40A:16-3.

When office deemed vacant

The office of a mayor or a member of the governing body of a municipality shall be deemed vacant:

a. Upon its being so declared by virtue of a judicial determination;

b. Upon the death of the mayor or a member of a governing body;

c. Upon a determination of the other members of the governing body that the mayor or a member of a governing body no longer resides within the corporate limits of a municipality or ward from which he was elected;

d. Upon the refusal of the mayor or member of a governing body to qualify or serve;

e. Upon a judicial determination that the mayor or member of a governing body shall have become physically or mentally incapable of serving;

f. Upon the filing of a written resignation with the municipal clerk by the mayor or a member of the governing body, except a resignation filed following the filing of a recall petition;

g. Whenever the mayor, when required by law to attend meetings of the governing body, or a member of the governing body, fails to attend and participate in any meetings of the governing body for a period of 8 consecutive weeks without being excused from attendance by a majority of the members of the governing body, at the conclusion of such period; provided, however, that the governing body may refuse to excuse only with respect to those failure to attend and participate which are not due to legitimate illness; or,

h. Upon a determination that the office comes within the purview of R.S. 19:3-25.

If you are willing to sign the petition and possibly join us on our visit to Eastampton Council chambers, please email The Reporter at nick.sodano@verizon.net .

The Off-again, On-again, Off-again Township Budget meeting kept getting re-scheduled for 5 PM. Even though regular Council meetings start at 6 PM.

Why?

Some speculate that Township Administrator’s like a 5 PM start time because it discourages resident participation and thereby assures the meeting is short and ends early.

As it turns out, two of the residents who find the 5 PM start time unreasonably early are also elected Council members.

“That’s just unacceptable.” says council member Tara Astor.

“I struggle sometimes to make the regular 6 PM start times, and that’s as a business owner who has a relatively flexible schedule. Many working residents who would like to attend the public meetings can’t make it to these ridiculously early start times. So, I told our Administrator’s to push it back or I would not be able to attend.”

As it turns out, Council member Kim Burkus also couldn’t accommodate the re-scheduled meeting for Tuesday, stating that her schedule did not free up until 7:30 PM.

And so, faced with a budget meeting that would have at least 2 council members unable to attend, the Administrators reluctantly rescheduled to the meeting for 8 PM on Tues, April 28th.

With regard to the content of the budget, resident Gary Brotz tells the Reporter that Township Clerk Sherry Marnell refused to provide a copy of the draft budget to him. She stated that its not an official government record until it gets passed by Council.

This means that residents do not get a chance to review the 2026 budget until its too late to object to the “First Reading”. But residents will be able to obtain a copy before the 2nd reading, which has yet to be scheduled.

Light supper and program of strategies for dealing with bullying.

Mt Holly Friends Meetinghouse, corner of High & Garden St, Mount Holly, NJ

“Walking Tacos” 5:30-6:00; Program 6:00 - 7:30 pm.

Childcare available for those under 5 yrs if registered.

Program appropriate for ages 5 and up.

At least one adult must be present for children participating. For more info or to register, email mthollyfriends@gmail.com or scan QR code on attached flyer.

The Law Works

As I relayed in the article “Peek Behind The Curtain”, the Municipal Clerks’ Association made their hatred of the Open Public Records Act [OPRA] clear in 2024 when they urged our Legislature to make hard reforms.

But the reforms didn’t go far enough for some Clerks who seem to indicate that OPRA compliance is the last thing on their to-do list. If not for OPRA, requests to municipal officials would often go without response. Unfortunately, Mt. Holly seems to be one of the townships where that is the case.

I have submitted so many complaints to the State Government Records Council [GRC] that I may be on a first name basis with GRC staff. That is regrettable since it means that the township of Mount Holly has an OPRA compliance problem. My latest complaint was dubbed 2026-146 by the GRC. It was a 2/24/26 request for the invoices and contract documents associated with the vendor who stores Mount Holly files.

The township has 10 working days to respond by law. And for a couple weeks I thought that perhaps Mount Holly didn’t get my email, because I got no response. But after more emails to them, on the third week I lodged a complaint with the GRC. And that prompted Mount Holly to “lawyer up” and acknowledge my existence again. Ah, they were getting my emails after all.

Don’t Fall Behind

Not to excuse Mount Holly’s non-compliance, but records management can be overwhelming and it seems that our town needs to hire a new employee for that task. It would be helpful in more ways than one. Firstly, the township would be able to avoid the waste of legal resources for a case they are going to lose. Secondly, they could have that employee train up on records retention law and do an inventory of the files that are costing Mount Holly nearly $100,000 per year. Who knows, perhaps 50% of the documents we are storing could be destroyed, which would be a huge savings. Our records storage vendor states on their web page that if you don’t inventory your documents and assign destruction dates to files:

“Your records could sit in file rooms or on storage shelves in perpetuity.” Iron Mountain

Thanks to the State GRC, The Records Dispute Was Settled

If you decide that you need to use OPRA to get info that somehow was not being provided by the municipality, be prepared to get some spicy emails if you wind up in a dispute. Complaint 2026-146 was settled after 2 months.

So a task that is supposed to take about 10 days took more like 60 days. I finally received not only the information requested but a lecture about how I should manage my expectations for communication:

.

Suggested questions to ask Council and Administrators:

1. Why do you schedule a budget meeting at such an inconvenient time for working residents? Other township meetings start at 7 pm - Why 5 pm for this one?

2. Why can’t the budget be summarized by pie charts instead of 45 pages of tables?

Factoids for Attendees:

• Total Municipal Budget for 2025 was: $12,920,372 (Revenues/Appropriations).

• Amount to be Raised by Taxation (2025): $6,275,900.

• Key Expenditures:

  Salaries & Wages ($4.4M)

  Other Expenses ($5.4M)

  Deferred Charges & Other Appropriations ($1.2M).

• MUA Contribution: The Mount Holly Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) traditionally provides roughly $308,000 to $338,000 annually in support of the municipal budget.

She happily set me loose in Wallington’s file archives with simple instructions: Look through everything. Set aside any ordinance. Throw the rest away.

Those files were amazing. They started somewhere in the late 1800s and contained any kind of subject matter you could imagine. A 1913 dispute with the landfill owner revealed that it started as a sand mine which created a pit so deep and steep that it threatened to swallow Main Street in Wallington. A 1930s letter complained that a neighbor should not be receiving free federal cheese from the Public Works Administration. A 1940’s letter to the mayor asked him to write to a judge requesting mercy for a young man who had gone AWOL. And then there was the 1920’s catalogue from Smith and Wesson and the 1930s catalogue from Harley Davidson. I gave the gun catalogue to Wallington’s Chief of Police. But as amazing as those files were, I was stunned to discover that nobody in state government wanted to preserve any of them. I set aside the ordinances as instructed. I took the files about the landfill. And I reluctantly threw the rest of those historic files into a trash can. They were definitely past their “retention schedule”.

Twenty-five years later and not that much has changed for municipal clerks. They still shoulder the burden of maintaining boxes and boxes of archives. The state imposes archive retention schedules on the Clerks who must abide with requirements to keep contracts, invoices and all manner of legal and financial records.

Speaking of financial, The Reporter submitted and Open Public Records Act [OPRA] request to Mount Holly for all 2025 invoices for records storage. The charges are eye watering. The record storage company Iron Mountain is charging Mount Holly Township nearly $8,000 per month to store our archival paper records.

Generally, records storage is charged by the box. Its not clear from the invoices whether Mount Holly is being charged for 2,762.77 boxes or pounds of files. But what is clear is that in May 2025, we had to pay Iron Mountain $7,620.99. The full year of files services cost us $80,100.

As a regular OPRA user and having some professional experience with file digitizing, I understand a good amount about state law on “records retention”. For example, recall the contract for the Township Manager which I requested [see Peek Behind The Curtain]? It should have been retained by Mount Holly for 7 years AFTER it expired. Which means they should still have it. They can’t find it.

As my article “Peek Behind The Curtain” pointed out, Mount Holly has a recurring problem with finding records its required to retain. This doesn’t mean that they destroyed documents, but it indicates that they are not putting enough energy into file management. I confirmed this when I was a member of the Mount Holly Environmental Commission [the Commission no longer exists. It’s a Committee now]. The filing system for environmental documents was a drawer marked “DEP”. Nobody knew what was in that drawer. Was the township legally required to retain all those files or could they destroy some?

This is a very important point for township finances because we need to know: What is Mount Holly doing to make sure that its not burning money to store records that could be tossed? What portion of the $80,000 paid to Iron Mountain in 2025 was for documents that are past their retention schedule? Is it $2, $2,000, or $40,000 worth?

Considering half a million dollars will be paid over the next five years in file storage feels, it seems worthwhile to train a staff member and send them to Iron Mountain to start sorting out the files which can be destroyed. And while they are at it, to create a thorough file database so we know what we have.

The Township’s Planning Board recognized the site as an “Area in Need of Redevelopment,” which allows the township to modify existing land use rules to align with redevelopment objectives including revitalization of the downtown.

While proposed land uses in the Creekside Redevelopment Area include offices, food and beverage establishments, and indoor entertainment, there is a change to also allow cannabis-related uses (cultivation and manufacturing).

One of the controversies with this is whether the change would allow the owner to use all of the space inside as cannabis operations or whether the street facing space would be REQUIRED to be non-cannabis uses such as cafes and shops.

The planning notion with this is that a downtown space should be dedicated to providing a retail and other commercial experience that attracts residents and non-residents alike. A manufacturing or warehouse space can provide the town with revenue, but does nothing to promote Mount Holly as a destination.

The sign displayed on Washington Street advertises that street front spaces will include retail and restaurant, but the ordinance does not provide enforceable rules mandating those uses. And this is what concerns Council Member Tara Astor.

“The redevelopment plan name conjures a bucolic creek-side space for shops. And while I am excited for the possibility of more retail and entertainment spaces, I am also concerned that as written, the ordinance doesn’t limit the cannabis cultivation and manufacturing locations. I want to make sure we have an enforcement mechanism limiting cannabis to the rear portion of the property. ” Tara Astor, Council Member

COUNCIL WILL VOTE THIS MONDAY

On Monday April 13 at 6pm town council will meet to vote on the Creekside Redevelopment Plan, which is on the agenda as Ordinance 2026-3. If the ordinance passes as written, there will be no enforceable language to limit the space devoted to cannabis growing and manufacturing.

Would that outcome contribute to a downtown that Mount Holly residents want or need? If you have questions or concerns about the ordinance, come to the council meeting at 6pm April 13, at 17 Pine St (The Firehouse).

[previous article https://www.themounthollyreporter.org/p/peak-behind-the-curtain ]

The Township did not respond to this valid Open Public Records Act [OPRA] request. We waited 10 days, inquired again, and reminding the Township Clerk that she is required to respond. No response. We waited an additional number of days and made a 3rd request which likewise got no response.

And so, on March 19, 2026, the Reporter lodged a complaint with the State of New Jersey Government Records Council [GRC] stating that the Township of Mount Holly had failed to respond to a valid OPRA request for government records.

On March 30, 2026 attorney Steve Raymond notified the GRC that he would represent the Township in the GRC Complaint 2026-146. The Reporter emailed Mr. Raymond inquiring what problem the Township was having with the records request. Raymond did not respond.

A GRC mediation hearing will be held sometime in May or June.

UNORTHODOX BEHAVIOR

State law is quite clear with regard to the requirement to respond. The Township can request extra time, or it can say that the request is too vague, or say the task is too disruptive to operations, or it can impose “extraordinary time consumption” fees on the requestor. What it can not do is just blow off the request.

The Reporter believes keeping residents informed about who stores our records and how much they charge is a reasonable activity for a news organization. The Reporter understand that government is allowed to claim that OPRA requests have become disruptive to township operations.

But what we have just seen, over and over, is that the township’s record keeping practices are disorganized to the point that basic records, which they are required to keep, like a contract or an invoice, are essentially lost.

We don’t know at this point why the township has failed to respond. But the GRC will be setting up a time for those questions to be asked and answered.

The reason the bidding process is so strictly controlled is that in New Jersey, the “chain of custody” for public bids is regulated under the Local Public Contracts Law to ensure competitive fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the procurement process. The core requirement is that bids remain sealed and untampered from the moment of submission until the designated public opening.

And so, the Fire District will have to repeat its “Request For Proposal” [RFP] process. The re-advertised RFP was issued on April 10^th and it is expected that new bids will be opened by the QPA on April 23, 2026.

While Commissioner Thiessen suspects the breach of custody was accidental, he said that submission of new bids will go to the MUA office as a direct response to the bid security failure.

FORMAL INVESTIGATION: Commissioner Logue introduced an amendment to the bid rejection resolution to require an official investigation into how the bid was opened. Commissioner Sheppard and Commissioner Logue both noted that neither of them has access to the office where the bids were stored and that key fobs which do have access are monitored by a security system. The investigation passed by a 3-2 vote with Commissioners Saucier and Gaskill voting against the investigation.

Shared Services Utilization: The board reaffirmed its reliance on the Mt. Holly MUA’s QPA through a shared services agreement, noting that the district had not previously conducted RFPs for professional legal services.

Take-Aways

• Administrative Failure: There is significant concern regarding the “fatal flaw” in the bid opening. While the error was described as probably accidental, the board emphasized the need for an “above board” response to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to avoid future failures.

• Chain of Custody: The shift in submission location to the MUA office is a direct response to the failure of the district’s internal handling of the initial bids.

• Public Transparency: The board explicitly invited public attendance for the upcoming bid opening to restore confidence in the procurement process.

Prior to Sheppard’s inquiry, fire fighter Tim Fuller testified at a Fire District meeting that Carty was removed from the Relief Fire Company roster in 2007 because of a complaint Fuller lodged against Carty which was upheld by Relief “Charge Committee”.

And there was other evidence that Carty had been removed from membership. During January of this year, the former Secretary of Relief Fire Company Joe Sams stated that Carty’s application to be reappointed as a member of Relief Fire Company was denied because Carty “needed to reapply to the District” and “You have yet to re-apply”.

The Fire House on Pine Street Pays Homage To All Four Original Fire Companies

So Sheppard’s inquiry was well based, but Carty’s response was less than respectful:

“Show me documentation that I was ever removed … Moving forward you should really better educate yourself on how the District actually operates … you continue to discriminate against me for several reasons specifically our previous relationship.” Jason Carty 9/16/25

The testy email exchange, which was obtained via the Open Public Records Act, was heavily redacted, but it was clear that Commissioner Sheppard was concerned by Mr. Carty’s mention of a prior personal relationship, and by whatever was redacted.

“As an elected commissioner, I believe I am allowed to ask for the active volunteer firefighter list over the last few years… I understand that you are threatening me with a previous personal relationship we had. I understand the implication that I wouldn’t want that public ... If you follow through with your threats, please have your attorney contact me.” Commissioner Sheppard, 9/16/25

Since that time, investigators with the Parker McCay law firm recommended the termination of Director Carty. But the Mount Holly Fire District Commissioners have twice voted on the recommendation and twice failed to terminate his employ. Carty remains on paid suspension until he is either fired on brought back to active duty.

Despite this public controversy, or perhaps because of it, Mr. Carty took to Facebook to say the personnel investigation of him by Parker McCay was “biased” and “spearheaded by Commissioner Shepherd” [Sic].

Based on inquiries made by the Reporter, including internal emails obtained through the Open Public Records Act, it is clear that Carty’s disparagement of the investigation and his accusation about Commissioner Sheppard are at odds with the facts.

Prior to the supposedly “biased” investigation, there were no public statements by Mr. Carty against the work of Parker McCay. It should be noted Carty voted for Parker McCay to be appointed as Solicitor for the Rancocas Valley Regional School [where Carty is an elected Board Member]. And it was Carty who signed the September 2025 engagement letter hiring Parker McCay as a special personnel investigator for the Fire District. But at the time he signed that letter, Parker McCay was only investigating the Fire Chief.

The classes are largely of the “Vinyasa and Yin” type practice that promote flexibility. Deanna also incorporates “Hatha” elements which focus on core and upper body strength and increase your heart rate. She gives careful attention to the unique abilities of each student and encourages an appreciation for finding the “edge”. That edge is a limit each student experiences differently, where your body is challenged by the pose and where your goal is to approach but not cross over the edge.

Respecting the varying abilities of each yogi is a regular part of her teaching method. I also appreciate the introspective reflections offered which address the intentional and observational elements of yoga practice.

After only a month of classes I have already noticed some flexibility benefit and have come to treasure the peaceful rituals of this practice. Not only that, I also get to support a great local business in our walkable down town.

If you want to go, you can visit her web page to sign up.

https://deannamurphyyoga.com/home

Mount Holly PD put out the following statement:

• This year marks the 51st anniversary of the “Good Friday Massacre”, when the three officers responded to a sniper incident on Garden Street in 1975. Patrolmen Aleshire and Wurst were tragically killed, and Patrolman Holmes was critically wounded and later passed away due to complications from his injuries.

For instance, over the last year, Mount Holly Fire District administrators used the 2024 OPRA amendments to delay and reduce the number of public documents available through OPRA. Commissioner Saucier said my OPRA request was too “vague” to fulfill. (I had asked for all emails between [named staff] during a certain date range. This may have been too many emails, but it was not vague). She then brought a lawyer in to deal with my request who said: the request is “over broad”, but, I could get over 1,000 emails if I paid a “redaction” fee of about $2,500.

The 2024 OPRA amendments not only introduced the type of financial barrier noted above, it ushered in a glacial dialogue process. Every communication between myself and the Fire District lawyer introduced weeks of delay. The entire OPRA request duration has ballooned to over 6 months - and counting.

My efforts to compromise with the lawyer resulted in an agreement [I think?] which will provide about 60 redacted emails with no fees. But I am now at 3 weeks and counting since I agreed to what I believed was a settlement with the Fire District attorney. I still have no reply from them.

Not surprisingly with such delays as the norm, the State agency that handles these disputes [Government Records Council] has over 600 unresolved disputes state-wide which are awaiting adjudication. I believe these disputes will take years to process. This is why I use “mediation” instead of choosing adjudication. Mediation produces a dialogue process that can still be way too slow but eventually get results - even if somewhat unsatisfactory.

Despite the difficulties inherent in the new process, mediated negotiation has unexpectedly thrown back the curtain on government processes. Because of the iterative negotiations, the attorney gave me a sequential count of emails each time I peeled back the number of people being requested. This process revealed a surprisingly high number of communications between two individuals in the Fire District. During the 48-day period my request covered, it was revealed that two individuals exchanged 425 emails while the third individual requested received only 5 emails during that same period of time.

If I had been willing to pay the likely fee of about $900 to redact those 425 emails, I suspect a story worthy of publishing would have emerged. But as it stands, I will have about 60 redacted emails instead [if the attorney ever decides to get back to me].

PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN

Even before the OPRA amendments, my requests tended to pull back the curtain on government operations and revealed how documents required to be maintained by state law, were missing. Like missing contracts. The State of New Jersey mandates the “retention schedule” for such documents and Mount Holly is in violation of that schedule because they have lost some of them.

This is not a surprise to me since about 20 years ago I was on the Mount Holly Environmental Commission and the town Clerk allowed me to organize township files from the NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection. I remember those files as an unlabeled, uncategorized mess. If that typified the kind of effort for other documents, then it would indeed be time consuming to find any specific file.

So, where do these files go when the state demands they must be stored but the township has run out of storage space? That’s right, a contractor charges us money to store them at an off-site location. And what happens when misfiled, mislabeled documents are stored in vaguely labeled boxes at an off-site location managed by workers who have no connection to those files? That’s right, they are “lost”.

Recently, the township records custodian told me that the now expired contract of the Township Manager Josh Brown is missing. Since 2021, Mr. Brown has been working as our Manager with an expired contract. But since the State requires even expired contracts to be retained for 6 years and since that contract might be legally relied upon to regulate certain conditions of Brown’s employment, it seemed worth getting a copy. But it’s lost.

A few years back I asked our records custodian for a copy of the contract between Mount Holly and the vendor who manages our compost recycling facility on Herald Avenue. Guess what? It was lost. The contractor had to supply us with a copy of the contract created by the township.

And most recently, when I asked for a copy of the township contract with the vendor who stores our records, our records custodian simply did not answer my request. So, I had to submit another complaint to the Government Records Council saying that the request was “deemed denied” and I requested mediation. I suspect the township will “lawyer up” and waste more tax dollars in a silly dispute over records that started their lives as electronic documents and should be stored in a coherent, easily available way.

AN OVERWHELMING TASK

I can’t seem to shake an expectation that our government should be well organized, transparent, and efficient. I’ve actually seen it in practice at other townships. But here is the truth: each government body has its own personality and capabilities. If the office is somewhat understaffed, and takes the attitude that certain tasks are a “waste of time” for their limited resources - those tasks fall behind. And once a filing system has fallen out of good order, a kind of inertia takes hold that almost ensures those records will never get organized. Its understandable that an overwhelmed records custodian decides to just maintain the “core records” and adopt a “deal with it later” approach to the others.

I suggested that Mount Holly commit to a document scanning project which would involve a part time worker who goes to the remote storage facility, scans and organizes the stored physical documents so they can be destroyed in accordance with state law. At some point, that document storage contract would not be needed. The suggestion did not receive a response.

OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF 2024 OPRA AMMENDMENTS

Before the amendments, lawyers who tried and won an OPRA denial cases in Superior Court would get the standard fees paid by the township who lost the case. This had the undeniable logic: The State of New Jersey prized transparency so much that it was willing to punish government agencies who were found to be breaking the law. But the Municipal Clerks’ Association of New Jersey, along with the state Assembly and Senate didn’t see it that way, and so, on June 5, 2024, Governor Murphy signed amendments to OPRA removing automatic payment in cases where a township loses.

Additional amendment consequences applicable to this article are:

1. Slower Response Times: The response time is extended to 14 business days (longer if records are in storage).

2. Email & Electronic Correspondence: Requests must identify specific job titles or email accounts, a specific subject matter, and a “reasonable” time period. [THIS MEANS YOU HAVE TO GUESS AT WHAT THE EMAIL WRITER NAMED THE EMAIL - A RATHER UNFAIR REQUIREMENT].

3. Narrowed Scope & Broad Denials: Agencies can deny requests that are deemed too broad, require extensive research, or do not provide enough specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Even the story about the Emerald City in the land of OZ showed us that authority is not always transparent and acting in good faith. If it were not for the little dog “Toto” pulling back the curtain, Dorothy and her friends might still be waiting for the Mighty Oz to set things right.

Thankfully, we here in the land of New Jersey have the Open Public Records Act to pull back the curtain.

It helps to recognize that our government may be overwhelmed and some patience and a willingness to compromise is needed.

Nevertheless, demanding government records is an often-contentious act that requires persistent follow-up and is likely to involve inordinate delay and possibly significant fees.

Well, last night we got an answer in real time from the Township Clerk Sherry Marnell that demonstrated precisely why the politicians do not want a question/answer session. Sometimes township officials cannot disguise their resentment at a line of questioning which contradicts their decision making.

Resident Jeff Eversmeyer asked Clerk Sherry Marnell how much money it costs to produce the township Calendar [$10,000]. He then compared that to the cost of the often missing-in-action “newsletter” [$3,500 each]. His follow-up request for Sherry to repeat why administration decided to retire the calendar this year elicited an interesting response:

“I’ll tell you. Money had to be allocated for runoff elections that you all voted for. So there” Township Clerk Sherry Marnell.

Point of logic: A $10,000 budget line item, like “the calendar”, in a budget of over 6 million dollars is about 2/10 of one percent. If township administrators deemed the calendar worthy, they could have found that money.

They didn’t. As Ms. Marnell stated in her answer, “the calendar is out of date the day it is published”. There is some truth to that statement since meetings listed in the calendar get canceled.

To be fair, Ms. Marnell’s point that the township had to allocate a new category of money for a possible runoff election is also true. There were estimates that the runoff might cost anywhere from $35,000 to $100,000. But its not clear that the township was out of money to pay for a calendar.

There are offsets to this cost which Ms. Marnell did not volunteer in her answer. Contacted after the meeting, council member Tara Astor discussed the windfall tax revenue which comes from Cannabis taxation.

“We got $52,000 in cannabis tax revenue in one month” Council Member Tara Astor.

Its debatable whether Mount Holly really needs to spend $10,000 on a paper calendar, but blaming voters for the decision to retire the calendar is dubious at best and the way the answer was given shows an attitude of resentment that should not exist.

“Everyone knows there was an ongoing investigation, and we are introducing this resolution on recommendation of our special legal counsel Parker McKay.” Jules Thiessen

Thiessen went on to read the full text of resolution 2026-16 as follows:

“RESOLUTION TERMINATING FIRE DIRECTOR JASON CARTY

Whereas Jason Carty was appointed by the Mount Holly Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners [Herein after ‘The Board’] as a Fire Director for the Mount Holly Fire District by virtue of resolution 2025-048-1 on September 19, 2025, and

Whereas The Board authorized an intense investigation into allegations of misconduct by Jason Carty, and

Whereas Jason Carty was afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and the Board did consider his responses before any decision regarding his employment status was made,

AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

The Board of Fire Commissioners of Fire District #1 of the Township of Mount Holly, County of Burlington New Jersey resolves as follows:

Jason Carty’s employment as a Fire Director is terminated effective March 4, 2026.

The Board will comply with any applicable severance provisions contained in Jason Carty’s employment agreement.

The Board shall promptly provide Jason Carty with notice of the Board’s decision regarding termination, and a record of the Board’s decision shall be maintained in Jason Carty’s permanent personnel file.

Be it further resolved that this resolution shall be effective immediately according to law

And be it further resolved that the original signed, conformed and compared copy of this resolution be accessible and maintained as an official Board record pursuant to and in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 and the Destruction of public records law 1953 N.J.S.A. 47:3-8.1 as set forth by the State of New Jersey, Municipal Agency Retention of Records Schedule promulgated by the Division of Archives and Records Management.”

THE VOTE

Thiessen called for a motion on the resolution, which was supplied by Commissioners Jeena Sheppard and Rosemarie Logue.

The vote was highly unusual. Three of the commissioners did not casts votes, leaving the matter to be decided by the remaining 2 commissioners as follows:

· Commissioner Gaskill: Abstain.

· Commissioner Sheppard: Recused.

· Commissioner Thiessen: Recused.

· Commissioner Logue: Yes.

· Commissioner Saucier: No.

The 1-1 tie vote meant that the Resolution to fire Jason Carty did not pass. Commissioner Thiessen immediately moved to adjourn the meeting but commissioner Logue did not want to end the meeting without registering her objection to what just happened:

“I don’t understand what we’re doing y’all. We came down here with a resolution that was recommended by counsel, for which we paid over ten thousand dollars, and we are doing so with most of this body unable to discuss it because they are conflicted out. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.” Commissioner Rosemarie Logue

Lingering Questions

Commissioner Logue was right to be puzzled by the vote. Parker McKay was paid over $10,000 to conduct an extensive investigation of Mr. Carty who still remains on administrative leave. The investigation upheld misconduct allegations serious enough to recommend that Carty be fired. Yet the vote of the Board of Commissioners did not heed the expensive legal advice. Why? And what types of legal peril is the Fire District exposed to by ignoring their lawyers?

Just prior to the vote, Chairman Thiessen asked if there was any discussion on the matter and not a single commissioner made comment, thereby depriving residents of clues regarding the rationale of the commissioners on their votes.

RECUSAL: The recusals by Sheppard and Thiessen indicate that each believed they should not vote because of an actual or “potential” conflict of interest and/or a lack of impartiality. Potential conflicts are about people’s perception of “an appearance of conflict”.

ABSTENTION: By abstaining, Commissioner Gaskill indicated that she neither agreed nor disagreed with the resolution.

Commissioner Saucier’s “no” vote killed the resolution, allowing Mr. Carty to hang on to his job despite the attorneys saying he should be terminated. Perhaps Ms. Saucier believes she does not have a conflict of interest. It should be noted that in September of 2025, Ms. Saucier was appointed as sole negotiator for Jason Carty’s new employment agreement [i.e., new contract]. That new contract provided annual salary increases [compared to the previous contract] of 9%, 13% and 17% over the coming three years. See

That’s why we asked Commissioner Saucier to explain her vote against the recommendations of the attorneys to fire Jason Carty. To date, Saucier has not responded.

Likewise, the Mount Holly Reporter has asked Chair Thiessen whether the failure to pass the recommendation to fire Director Carty means that he will be taken off administrative leave and placed back on active duty as Director.

Mr. Thiessen said that “At this point in time, it’s still a personnel matter and is not appropriate to discuss.”