Old Bridge’s hotly debated retirement ordinance was not on the ballot on Election Day after all.
Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson dismissed a complaint filed byAttorney Jordan Rickards on behalf of Old Bridge Republican Chairwoman Anita Greenberg, ruling that the party’s petition to put the ordinance on the ballot did not meet statutory standards and was not filed in time.
The case was reassigned from Middlesex County to Monmouth County to avoid a conflict of interest.
The case stemmed from a referendum petition circulated by the Old Bridge Republicans that sought to place the township’s retirement ordinance, which was amended this year to allow township employees to retire with full health benefits after 15 years of service in Old Bridge and 10 with another public agency, on the general election ballot. The Old Bridge governing body’s Democratic majority argues that the ordinance will save money by eliminating high-end salaries from the payroll as well as the township’s contributions for their pensions. Republicans contend that it will cost millions in lifetime benefits and was approved without an actuarial study to prove savings.
The Republicans collected over 2,200 valid signatures for the petition — well over the 1,670 needed. But Township Attorney Carol Berlen ruled that the petitioners did not meet a state requirement mandating that a referendum petition be filed within 20 days of final passage and approval of the ordinance by the mayor. To be timely filed, Berlen wrote, the township would have had to receive the petition by June 13. The first petition was received on Aug. 29, according to court documents.
Berlen also stated that the petition was invalid because it did not contain the full text of the ordinance.
The Republicans filed a lawsuit challenging Berlen’s decision. However, Lawson upheld the ruling, declaring that the Republicans failed to submit the referendum petition within 20 days of the passage of the ordinance.
“In the present matter, since the strict time limit to bring a referendum has elapsed, plaintiff should have pursued an initiative and paid attention to the rules that govern those petitions,” Lawson wrote. “Here, the clerk did not abuse her power, but instead faithfully and correctly enforced the statutory rules governing referendums and initiatives.”
Even if the submitted petition were classified as an initiative, it would have had to include the full text of a proposed ordinance. Lawson further wrote that the Republicans’ petition did not include information on what the petition stands for or what it would change.
“Word-of-mouth description of … an amendment the petition is attempting to repeal can often fail to capture the actual, written meaning of the amendment,” Lawson wrote. “This court does not accuse plaintiff of any misrepresentation, but reiterates and acknowledges the reason a full text of the proposed ordinance must be enclosed on initiative petitions. The purpose is to provide transparency and knowledgeable decision-making.”
Republican mayoral candidate Owen Henry said he disagreed with the judge’s decision and believes that the people have a right to decide on a matter of this magnitude.
“Adecision that is so important, that has such an impact on not only today, but the future, I think the residents need to be more involved in that and decide if they want to take on that additional burden,” Henry said.
The Republicans have another lawsuit pending in the Monmouth County Superior Court, charging that Councilman Bob Volkert should have abstained in voting on the retirement ordinance due to what the Republicans claim is a conflict of interest.
Contact Chris Zawistowski at [email protected].