JIM LOGAN SPEAKS OUT

Objects To “Civility” Referendum As An Effort To Stifle Free Speech

Jim Logan wasn’t a favored choice for the Municipal Utilities Authority [MUA]. But last April, when the Town Council faction of Banks, Brown and DiFolco sought to fill a Commissioner vacancy on the MUA, the opposing faction of Astor and Burkus put Logan’s name in nomination. When Lou Brown voted “Yes”, the usual rapid fire roster vote was broken by a stunned pause. But it was too late. Everyone heard the Yes vote and Commissioner Jim Logan was sworn in a week or so later.

Logan was a Buttonwood Street neighbor of mine for years when his father was Mayor. Mayor Logan brought me into Mount Holly political life by appointing me to the Recreation Board and asking me to organize the “Mount Holly Day” parade. We may not have seen every local issue the same, but we all shared a love for the town and a bias for action. I see those same characteristics in Logan’s son, who works at a south Jersey engineering firm on public utility projects that suit him well for the MUA. Logan is only just now settling in as a Commissioner.

But even this early in his tenure, Logan is concerned that leadership at the MUA are seeking to stifle dissent via Resolution 2025-110 which is about “civility”.

Logan opposes the Resolution because it is too subjective and could be easily weaponized to punish even mild dissent. For instance, it has slippery language about what a “reasonable person” would find “intimidating” such as “repeated telephone calls, [or] emails…”.

And Logan didn’t appreciate the way the Resolution was brought to a vote.

“It was introduced late, 1:29pm to be exact, after we had already been given the agenda earlier in the week. I objected to it during the meeting as a gross violation of the first amendment. I said the wording is too vague and represents an overreach of the power given to control meetings. Mr. Fury agreed and moved to table the referendum, which was seconded and then the motion to table was passed.”

Logan intends to oppose the Resolution when it is reintroduced and he encourages residents to get involved.

He has a message for the MUA Board which he gave to the Reporter and is reproduced below:

Dear Chairman, fellow Commissioners, and members of the public: I want to make it very clear why I cannot support this proposed civility policy. My objection has nothing to do with resisting professionalism or courtesy. My objection is that this policy, as written, violates fundamental constitutional rights — including my own — and exposes this Authority to serious legal risk.

First, the policy states that it applies to all Commissioners, employees, and professionals “at all times.” Not just during meetings. Not just while conducting Authority business. “At all times.” That means this policy would attempt to regulate my speech as a private citizen, outside of MUA property, on my own social media, and even when I am speaking in completely unrelated governmental settings.

That is unconstitutional on its face. As an elected or appointed public official, I retain my full First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has been incredibly clear on this point. In Bond v. Floyd, the Court held that an elected official cannot be punished or restricted for speaking freely on public issues, even when that speech is harsh, controversial, or critical of other officials.

In 2022, in Houston Community College System v. Wilson, the Court reaffirmed that boards cannot discipline their own members for criticism or dissent. The Court held that elected officials have broad rights to engage in political expression, and the only permissible response is symbolic censure — nothing more.

But this policy goes far beyond that. It bans speech that someone might label “demeaning,” “offensive,” “antagonizing,” or “uncivil.” Those words could be applied to almost any serious criticism of government. And if criticism of public officials can be classified as a violation, then this policy would effectively chill my ability to speak openly about issues that matter to residents — including issues outside of this Authority.

Second, the policy allows Authority staff or supervisors to demand that individuals “desist” from certain speech or leave the premises if their words are perceived as intimidating or inappropriate. That is textbook unbridled discretion, and courts consistently strike those rules down because they invite selective enforcement and retaliation. What one person calls “offensive,” another calls “honest disagreement.” Government officials should not get to decide which viewpoints are acceptable.

Third, this policy directly threatens my ability — and every Commissioner’s ability — to fulfill our duty to the public. Part of our responsibility is to speak out about waste, mismanagement, or unethical behavior within local government when it arises. Strong and sometimes uncomfortable criticism is part of public service.

The First Amendment is designed to protect exactly that kind of speech — not polite, sanitized speech that offends no one. New Jersey’s own Constitution offers even stronger protection for political speech than the federal Constitution. Our courts have repeatedly held that robust expression — even emotional, angry, or unpopular speech — is fully protected. If we adopt this policy as written, we are creating a tool that can be used to silence critics, punish dissent, and retaliate against Commissioners for entirely lawful speech outside this building. That is something I will never support.

I want us to protect our employees. I want professionalism. But there is a constitutional way to do that — by focusing on conduct, not speech; on true threats, not criticism; and on objective behavior, not subjective feelings. What we cannot do — what we are not allowed to do under the First Amendment — is regulate the tone, civility, or political opinions of Commissioners or citizens. And that is exactly what this policy would allow.

For those reasons, I strongly oppose adopting this policy in its current form. I urge this board to reject it or significantly rewrite it to ensure it complies with both the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution.

Thank you. Jim Logan.