It appears every Council member may owe the residents an apology and an explanation as to why official minutes of their council meetings have never shown when and by what vote the introduction of the cannabis ordinance was first proposed by the governing body.
Council members may also want to explain why they all approved the official
minutes of that meeting when the ordinance was proposed even though those minutes did not include any reference to the ordinance that is on the agenda for public hearing
and possible adoption Thursday night.
A record crowd is anticipated to show up at Thursday’s meeting for the public hearing on 09-2022, the ordinance which, if approved, would spell out the rules and regulations which would be in place for any cannabis manufacturing or sales business in the borough for cannabis.
The very first step in making new laws, its introduction and vote at a public meeting, does not even appear in the official minutes of any meeting of the Mayor and Council for the cannabis ordinance. Nor is there any indication in any official minutes of how council members voted on the introduction.
What’s worse, all six borough council members unanimously approved the minutes at which the introduction took place at their next meeting, in spite of the fact it was never even mentioned in the minutes they approved. Votes were taken on the proposed code and money was spent to advertise it. But the official minutes they approved unanimously don’t even mention anything about the ordinance.
Whether Council can justify how the cannabis ordinance was introduced and
voted on but not included in the minutes, or how council could unanimously
approve the minutes absent any mention of the ordinance are questions that
might be answered Thursday before council takes any further action on what is
probably the most controversial ordinance to be introduced by the governing
body in years, if not decades … remains to be seen.
When Borough Administrator Robert Ferragina was alerted to the fact the official minutes do not show if, when and how the ordinance was introduced, he immediately promised his own attention to the query as well as referring the matter to the borough attorney, Jason Sena, for his information and input. He also indicated he would report back to the questioner as soon as he had anything to report, including his own verification the facts as presented to him were accurate.
As of this printing, there has been no response since it was brought to his attention.
With signs popping up throughout the borough urging people to attend Thursday’s meeting to have their voices heard, and with petitions being circulated and drawing thousands of signatures opposing cannabis, it is difficult to see how Thursday’s action on the ordinance spelling out restrictions for any cannabis business permitted either for sale or manufacture will be acted on without all questions about its introduction being answered first.
In reviewing the history of the proposed ordinance, VeniVidiScripto.com
referred to the official approved minutes of the meeting in which it was introduced as posted on the borough’s official website, ahnj.com. The minutes for the June 9 meeting, while the agenda lists the introduction of 9-2022, make no reference to the ordinance at all.
The recording of that same meeting makes it clear action was taken and the ordinance was introduced. But the minutes do not even indicate it was a matter of discussion, let alone a vote, in spite of the agenda promising otherwise.
The cannabis ordinance introduced that night was written to include definitions for new terms and the licensing and taxation of cannabis facilities. The public hearing on the proposed code that would spell out locations and types of cannabis businesses allowed in the borough was set July 14.
Residents may also want to ask themselves whether they should have been more attentive to borough business before holding meetings to circulate petitions and having signs made. Were it not for a lack of communication, a glitch somewhere, or simply action without having proper advice, the cannabis ordinance that is expected to draw overflowing crowds opposing its passage Thursday could already have been acted on with very few people attending the meeting or commenting on it if they were present.
You cannot even credit or blame the planning board for the delay, regardless on which side you are on when it comes to marijuana businesses in town. Still, it would seem the Council members voting on any ordinance without including it in the official minutes would put the governing body in a unique position.
After the ordinance introduction in June which is not included in any minutes, the public hearing and final action was set for the July 14 meeting. Conceivably, that’s the first time the residents got to know what the governing body had in mind for cannabis businesses in town. News of the meeting and its actions were on the media and the proposed ordinance was advertised in the local newspapers.
In June, though not included in the minutes, four members of the governing body voted to introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for the following month.
Councilman John Murphy opposed it, indicating he did not want any cannabis business in the borough to even be considered. Councilman Brian Boms abstained from voting, citing a business deal he felt put him in a conflict of interest if he voted. Councilman Steve Boracchia and the three Democrats on council, Lori Hohenleitner, Jon Crowley and Brian Dougherty, voted in favor of the code’s introduction. Mayor Loretta Gluckstein only votes in cases of ties so did not have any input on the proposed ordinance. There were no objections or comments during the public portion of the meeting.
Once the ordinance was duly advertised, talked about in newspaper articles and blog, the public hearing was set for July 21. Ironically, the same evening council unanimously approved a resolution declaring Wednesday, Aug. 31, International Overdose Awareness Day.
The proposed code had already been to the planning board; they acted on it at their July 7 meeting and they found it was consistent with the borough‘s Master Plan. There were no residents at that meeting to oppose anything about the code or to give any input in what should be included in it, should cannabis be a permitted use.
But at that time the planners also said that while it was in conformance with the Master Plan, they were going to set up a subcommittee and would make recommendations on the proposed code for the governing body. Their recommendations could only deal with visuals within borough areas, without any input on any opinions of a business that is consistent with the Master Plan.
Martin Hawley introduced the motion seconded by Michael Goldrick on the conformance
with the Plan and the idea of recommendations after a subcommittee was formed.
Given that information, on the evening of the advertised public hearing, July 14, borough attorney Sena pointed out the council had missed a step.
Since the planning board members had indicated they would have recommendations, he suggested the public hearing be delayed until council got those recommendations. He explained the Planning Board’s consistency review was not complete since they had mentioned they had formed a subcommittee to provide the council with recommendations.
There was some discussion among council at that July 14 meeting on what to do about the hearing, with all members eventually agreeing it should be held.
Murphy, who opposed the introduction, approved the public hearing, and Boms,who had recused himself from the introduction, said his conflict no longer existed and Sena approved his right to vote.
After more discussion on July 14, Crowley offered a second motion to continue the hearing, seconded by Dougherty and again unanimously approved.
While continuing a public hearing is generally understood it would continue at presumably the next meeting, no date was suggested or included in the motion approved by all members of council.
After voting to continue the hearing, the governing body did not open the hearing to anyone present at the July 14, meeting. There was a small group of residents at the meeting, however, and several said they wanted to express their views on cannabis anyway.
So they did, during the public portion at the end of the meeting when comments on any subject can be made, and several residents did speak. Of them, 13 people mentioned cannabis: four spoke in favor of it, seven spoke against it, one said he hoped he didn’t have to hear it was going to be cancelled yet again in August and one questioned a definition of who could enter a building wherecannabis is sold.
And that’s how the public hearing on an ordinance which is not even included in the official minutes of a meeting and which was not advertised since, got to be scheduled for Aug. 11.
