WEST WINDSOR: Lawyer questioning vote on animal control officer

By Allison Musante, Staff Writer
   WEST WINDSOR – An attorney representing animal control officer Bettina Roed has submitted a legal notice to the Township Council and township attorney, asking the council to revoke or take a new vote on the resolution for shared animal control service.
   In the letter, Trenton-based attorney Walter Bliss, Jr., writes that the 3-to-2 vote approving the March 7 resolution and the procedure leading up to it violated the Open Public Meetings Act and state statutes.
   Mr. Bliss said that the act requires “every municipal governing body to provide for public comment at its meetings. This public comment is meaningless if appropriate means have not been provided to ensure that the public is heard by all members of the governing body participating in the related vote.”
   The letter notes that Councilman Charles Morgan participated in the March 7 meeting via conference call and had publicly admitted he had difficulty hearing the proceedings. If Mr. Morgan heard the public comments properly, perhaps “if he had known at the March 7 meeting what he learned later, he would have voted differently,” it says.
   The letter states, though statute permits exclusion of the public from discussing contract negotiations, council members’ comments at the March 7 meeting indicated that comments were truncated because it was considered a “personnel matter.” Mr. Bliss argues that communication between Ms. Roed and the administration did not meet the statute’s definition of personnel matters, and so could have been fully discussed in public.
   ”If for some undisclosed reason this in fact was discussed by council as a personnel matter, Ms. Roed was entitled to notice of the closed session at which she was discussed,” he wrote.
   Mr. Bliss raises concern whether the shared service agreement will effectively meet the township’s legal obligations to provide animal control services.
   The letter also mentions that “the matter raises issues as to the basis of (Ms. Roed’s) termination,” but focuses only on council’s actions regarding the resolution.
   When asked whether the letter precedes any formal legal action, Mr. Bliss responded in a phone interview, “the letter speaks for itself.”
   Township attorney Michael Herbert said he has had conversations with Mr. Bliss and would be conferring with the council, mayor and administration, but he declined to comment further.
   Ms. Roed’s last day of employment was Wednesday.