Defining act of bizarre May 1 fracas was Committeewoman Kemp’s taking the gavel from Deputy Mayor Ferrara.
By John Tredrea
Shrill anarchy and venomous disagreement were on lengthy public display during the May 1 Hopewell Township Committee meeting.
The session was dominated by a bitterly raucous debate on whether the committee should entertain a resolution, written by Committeewoman Arlene Kemp, stating that the township should not pay for legal expenses Committeeman Jon Edwards may incur as a result of a controversial e-mail he wrote in January.
Ms. Kemp and Committeewoman Vanessa Sandom said repeatedly that, because the public has a right to know the township’s position on the issue of Mr. Edwards’ possible legal expenses, they wanted the Kemp resolution read aloud and voted on while the committee was in public session.
Saying the resolution dealt with issues that could involve the township in litigation, Deputy Mayor Marylou Ferrara who was presiding in the absence of Mayor Fran Bartlett and Mr. Edwards said the resolution should be discussed in closed session first. A motion to go into closed session was defeated, however, with Ms. Ferrara and Mr. Edwards voting "yes" and Ms. Kemp and Ms. Sandom voting "no." Under state law, the tie vote on the motion meant it had been defeated.
The defining act of the bizarre May 1 fracas was Ms. Kemp’s taking the gavel from Ms. Ferrara. Ms. Ferrara did not see Ms. Kemp take the gavel. When the deputy mayor looked for the small wooden mallet and saw that Ms. Kemp had it in her possession, Ms. Ferrara asked Ms. Kemp to return it. Ms. Kemp refused. The deputy mayor thereupon stood up and reached for the gavel herself. But Ms. Kemp picked the gavel up and moved it to where the mayor could not reach it. Shrugging helplessly and rolling her eyes in disbelief, the deputy mayor backed off from the possibility of an actual physical tug of war on the Township Committee dais and sat down. The gavel stayed with Ms. Kemp.
After the meeting adjourned, Ms. Kemp said she took the gavel because she felt Ms. Ferrara "was running the meeting improperly."
Insisting she would be on solid legal ground if she read her resolution aloud, Ms. Kemp did so, after the committee voted against adding the resolution to the agenda. Ms. Kemp and Committeewoman Sandom voted to add it to the agenda. Ms. Ferrara and Mr. Edwards voted against adding it. Under state law, the tie vote meant that the resolution could not be added to the agenda.
Ms. Kemp and Ms. Sandom said Mr. Edwards should not have been allowed to vote on whether the resolution should be added to the agenda, since the resolution pertained to Mr. Edwards. However, Township Attorney Ed Konin voiced the opinion that Mr. Edwards was entitled to vote on whether the resolution should be added to the agenda, since that vote was on a "procedural" matter. Mr. Konin also said that, if the committee were to vote to on the resolution itself, Mr. Edwards should abstain, since the resolution pertained to expenses Mr. Edwards could incur.
With the gavel still at her left side Ms. Ferrara was sitting on her right it took Ms. Kemp several minutes to read her resolution. After the first few words of it had left her mouth, Ms. Ferrara declared: "I will talk over you the entire time." And, with no gavel, she did. With both women talking loudly in an attempt to drown out the words of the other, nothing either of them said was understandable.
The cause of all the fuss was an e-mail Mr. Edwards wrote and sent to members of the township Democratic organization in January. In that e-mail, he said Sam Plumeri, who was chairman of the county Democratic organization at the time, had told Mr. Edwards in November 2001 that the county organization would funnel $10,000 from Princeton attorney Josh Markowitz to the township Democratic organization if Mr. Markowitz were hired as township attorney. In his e-mail, Mr. Edwards said he turned down the offer.
In a story published in another newspaper about six weeks ago, when the Edwards’ e-mail became public knowledge, Messrs. Plumeri and Markowitz were quoted denying that they had made the offer Mr. Edwards had said they had made. Calls from the HVN to the offices of Messrs. Plumeri and Markowitz have not been returned.
In a subsequent story, the newspaper that published the piece about the Mr. Edwards’ e-mail quoted attorney John Furlong, who said he was representing Mr. Markowitz, saying Mr. Edwards would be sued for libel if he did not retract his e-mail statement about the $10,000 offer. Mr. Furlong also was quoted as saying Hopewell Township also would be sued, as well as Princeton University, where Mr. Edwards works. It was on a computer at the university that he wrote the e-mail. The story quoting Mr. Furlong also said Mr. Plumeri would join Mr. Markowitz in suing Mr. Edwards if he did not retract his e-mail statement. Calls from the HVN to the offices of Mr. Furlong and the attorney representing Mr. Plumeri have not been returned.
In the story that quoted him, Mr. Furlong said no lawsuit would be filed until the county prosecutor’s office had completed its investigation of the Edwards e-mail. That investigation, begun about a month ago, is still under way. Mr. Edwards has said he will make no comment until the investigation is complete.

