EDITORIAL: "WILL YOU PLEASE STOP?"
ITS BACK! A divided Council passes resolution 2025-54 regulating speech at public meetings.
SUMMARY: This editorial explores free speech and Mount Holly’s authority to regulate it at public meetings. The ACLU says the NJ Supreme court ruled government can prescribe “reasonable rules for time, place, and manner of speech”, but these rules must be “content neutral”. In a Mercer county school board case, the NJ Supreme court ruled that government can “control the proceedings” if a speaker “is disruptive or fails to keep to the subject matter on the agenda, . . . or whose speech becomes irrelevant or repetitious.” This ability to “control” speech that has become “irrelevant” or “disruptive” is subjective and vulnerable to abuse by public officials. Courts generally assess this using the “reasonable” person test.
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DECORUM
Our Town Council can now enforce courtesy and decorum at public meetings. But residents who show up with long standing problems are focused on results, not decorum. Combine the pearl-clutching over courtesy with a desire for brief meetings and you have the perfect set up for conflict over speech. Will meetings be brief, avoiding dialogue and above all be courteous, or will meetings take as much time as necessary to listen and provide full answers? Recall that all our public meetings begin with this: “Each citizen will be allotted up to three (3) minutes to speak... and...Council may choose not to respond to comments made by members of the public”
The decorum rules were on resident Casey Carty’s mind on April 14, 2025 when she succinctly summed up a critique of Resolution 2025-54 [reprinted at end]:
“As a public servant, your feelings don’t matter. People want results.”
Resident Casey Carty.
But Carty’s call for Council to take the time for transparency, communication and allowing unvarnished expression was not heeded. With Lew Brown back after an absence from Council, Resolution 2025-54 achieved the thinnest margin of victory. A 3-2 vote elevated delicate sensibilities over free speech.
HOW DO THESE SPEECH CONFLICTS ARISE?
In a phrase: Impatience and Communication Failures.
At the April 14th 2025 meeting, Mayor Banks asked resident David Villalba if he could “be more specific” with questions about real estate and tax certificates. As his speaking time dwindled, Villalba tried to squeeze in the specifics of a nuanced question. But Solicitor Coleman was unwilling to wait for Villalba to finish. Coleman repeatedly interrupted Villalba’s flow and finally interjected:
“Will you Please Stop?” Solicitor Tom Coleman.
After asking Villalba to stop speaking, Coleman asked if he actually wanted an answer to his question. Villalba said yes, but explained he also wanted the respect of being allowed to finish asking his question instead of being cut off. Then he said he would like Mr. Coleman’s answer which drew audible laughter in the room. But Mr. Coleman said “I’ll pass”, indicating he was no longer willing to answer Mr. Villalba’s question.
Villalba mentioned that “mutual respect” was needed and Coleman took that opportunity to question whether Villalba had read the agenda. Clerk Sherry Marnell then added that “The resolution is on line and it explains in detail what this is”.
Coleman may have believed Villalba was conflating tax sales with real estate sales and that interruption was warranted to clarify the difference. Villalba clearly was in a rush to express related concepts as his limited time to speak was expiring. But regardless of why Coleman interrupted, its obvious that the professionals believe their jargon-packed Resolution needed no further explanation than the written word.
Whatever the motivations, this encounter is a warning showing how residents can feel disrespected and frustrated by a government that sees fit to question their reading comprehension. To his credit, Mr. Villalba never raised his voice, but not all residents manage to stay tranquil.
Administrators and politicians at Council meetings often speak in generalities or promise to deliver answers later that never arrive. Its not this way in other Burlington County towns I have visited.
Resident David Villalba
This is the backdrop in which Resolution 2025-54, “Guidelines for Public Comment” was considered by Council. Its a replacement for a much worse resolution rejected in January 2025 [see What Did We Just Witness? Reporter article from Jan 2025 ].
2025-54 still has problematic language that turns Council into a tone police capable of ordering residents to rephrase words the Mayor or his designee deem “offensive” or “inappropriate”. And where residents fail to comply, the resolution gives authority to terminate a resident’s comments at the meeting or even throw them out for being too “disruptive”. This does not just apply to disruption caused by hecklers, as you might expect. It also applies to citizens who take the podium for their 3 minutes and somehow cross over the ill-defined decorum line.
AS COUNCIL MEETINGS GOT LONGER, PATIENCE GOT SHORTER
When I was sworn into office as an interim Mount Holly Council Member, I was told that council meetings generally last about 20 minutes. As my term proceeded I came to realize that the 20 minute Council meeting was an artifact of a Council that just votes yes and goes home. The meeting “packet” was delivered to my home with little time to digest or question before it was time to vote. When I questioned procedures, I received alternately snarky, hostile or firmly worded emails. While the emails may have been earnest, often enough the township got it wrong. That was 2021 and I had no like-minded partners on Council. But over the last 3 years, the composition of Council changed and resident attendance at council meetings has grown. We often have about 30 attending and meeting durations can be 90 minutes. Many attendees have read the agenda and want to know what its about. While these residents might be new to the “legal speak” found in agendas, they get that the “packet” is far from a comprehensive explanation. So they ask questions, and the meetings gets longer.
And sometimes, as you will see below, these questions reveal problems in the construction of an ordinance.
EVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS MISUNDERSTAND THE TEXT
Last March, Mayor Banks had to apologize to a resident regarding his lack of understanding for a zoning ordinance that he supported on “first reading” in February. That ordinance was then tabled on the second reading after residents showed up to complain about a lack of notification and of the likely decline of property values that the new ordinance would cause [ See upcoming article TAKE THE TARGET OFF MY HOME]. The Mayor, who obviously read the ordinance text, actually became better informed after residents slowed the process down and questioned the ordinance.
Council member Tara Astor was reached for comment about the process and said that
“If you want to understand the challenge members face in understanding what we are voting on, look no further than that Health and Life Science ordinance. From the 1st to 2nd reading, we only had giant list of 185 tax block & lots. There was no map to give us a better understanding of the areas in question. I twice requested to see a map of all the properties involved, but only received it from ERI a six days before the 2nd reading.” Council Member Astor
Regarding the treatment Mr. Villalba received, Ms. Astor stated that “we need to summon the patience to listen as long as it takes and then seek to explain where we can. That’s what we signed up for. Not only will that foster more trust in the community, but resident input often proves critical to our decision making as it did recently with the Health and Life Science zone ordinance. I think we should be more willing to bring back work sessions with the public instead of engaging in a high stakes game of proceeding to a 2nd reading without having giving issues a full gestation. Sometimes resident anger is justified when they perceive that they were not informed and consulted until the final vote was pending”
SLOW YOUR ROLL
Resolution 2025-54 may turn out to be irrelevant to the average resident who comes out to speak at a council meeting. But the sad display of impatience and disrespect we saw with Mr. Villalba and the tabling of the Health zone ordinance should serve as cautionary tales. A written resolution or ordinance, no matter how detailed, are not substitutes for patient, respectful face to face communication. While its true that 2025-54 was amended at the last second to give residents 4 minutes of speaking, what really counts is whether actual dialogue and patience is being given to residents. If Council wants to be their best version, they will need to slow their roll and listen to residents as long as it takes.
TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF MOUNT HOLLY TOWNSHIP BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-54
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING TOWNSHIP MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Township Council of Mount Holly Township values public participation and recognizes the importance of open dialogue between residents and their local government; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (N.J.S.A. 10:4-12), the Township Council is committed to providing members of the public with the opportunity to address the Council on matters of public interest during official meetings; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that such participation is conducted in a respectful, productive, and inclusive manner, the Township Council has established the following guidelines for public comment during Township meetings:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Mount Holly, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, that the following procedures shall be observed during the public comment portion of Council meetings:
1. Opportunity to Speak
o Members of the public attending in person shall be afforded the opportunity to address the Council during the designated public comment period.
o Each speaker shall be limited to three (3) minutes. [AMENDED TO 4 MINUTES]
o Each individual may comment once per public session unless otherwise recognized by the Mayor or designee.
o Time may not be transferred from one speaker to another.
2. Speaking Process
o Speakers shall be recognized in the order of their seating row.
o Upon recognition, speakers shall approach the podium, state their name and address for the record, and direct their comments to the Mayor and Council.
o Comments shall not be directed toward other attendees.
3. Council Response to Comments
o Immediate responses from the Council or Township officials may not be provided during the public comment session.
o Questions or concerns raised may be addressed at the conclusion of the public comment period or in a subsequent response.
4. Respectful and Constructive Discourse
o Civil and courteous dialogue is encouraged. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, or offensive remarks are strictly prohibited.
o Speakers who become disruptive may be asked to rephrase or conclude their comments.
o Individuals who repeatedly disrupt the meeting may be asked to leave to preserve the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Resolution Vote Results:
T. Astor and Kim Burkus: No.
Lew Brown, Rich DiFolco. Chris Bank: Yes.