With Lawsuit Pending, Spring Lake Heights Moves to Rewrite Environmental Commission Rules

The GOP majority on the Spring Lake Heights Borough Council wants to clear up any confusion about who can serve on the town’s Environmental Commission and for how long.

Moreover, on the advice of Borough Attorney John Lane, the council majority wants to be sure the borough’s law mirrors the state statute on the books in Trenton. That law dictates how local, all-volunteer environmental commissions are to be assembled in all New Jersey municipalities.

With those goals in mind, the council introduced a new ordinance written to ensure that both the borough and state governments are on the same page when it comes to appointing the panelists for environmental commissions and determining the lengths of their terms.

Like the state statute, the proposed revised ordinance does not specifically mention that a council member ought to serve on the commission in the capacity of a council representative or liaison. Spring Lake Heights’ ordinance reads that way now.

The proposed revised ordinance, as introduced at the council’s April 11 meeting, calls for seven commission members to be appointed by the mayor. One is to be a member of the Planning Board and all must be residents of Spring Lake Heights. The terms of office are for one, two, or three years.

Those revisions would make the existing borough ordinance, which dates back to 1987, compliant with the state statute, Lane said during discussion.

The sticking point in the original ordinance, now the subject of a pending lawsuit by a former council member, is wording indicating that a sitting council member appointed to a three-year term on the commission ought to be designated as the council’s representative.

“The council member designation is ambiguous especially because of the three-year term,” Lane said.

Kathleen Crippen, a former councilwoman who lost re-election to her seat last fall, recently filed suit in Monmouth County Superior Court after Democratic Mayor Frances Enright removed her from the commission on Jan. 4, just four days after her council term ended.

Crippen broke ties with the local Democratic organization before the last election and unsuccessfully ran for re-election as an independent, citing differences with her peers. 

During council discussion, Lane indicated that Crippen could return to the commission if the proposed revisions become borough law--much to the chagrin of Democratic Councilmen John P. Brennan, Jr. and Thomas Vorbach.

Brennan and Vorbach cast negative votes when the roll was called to introduce the revised ordinance. The 4-2 decision was split along party lines.

Crippen named the Borough of Spring Lake Heights and Enright as defendants in the pending suit and is seeking a reversal of the mayor’s decision to remove her from the commission.

In the pending litigation, Crippen charges Enright, acting in her capacity as mayor,  with violating the state statute by removing her from the commission without cause. She also charges Enright with denying her due process.

Crippen and her attorney, Dennis Collins of Farmingdale, state that wording in the borough ordinance allowing a mayor to appoint a council member as a council representative does not conform to the state statute. As a result, the existing borough ordinance is invalid, Collins stated in a February letter to Lane.

Crippen was appointed by Enright to a three-year commission term on Feb. 2, 2010. That term would was due to expire in December, 2012.

Before Crippen’s council term ended, the governing body adopted an ordinance similar to the one introduced this week. That one, authored by then-Borough Attorney Fred Raffetto,  removed the language designating a council member as the council representative. The intent then was also to make the borough ordinance compliant with state law, Crippen said.

However, Enright subsequently vetoed the ordinance after council approval without signing it into law. To date, Enright has not answered emailed requests for comment from Patch.

A public hearing and final vote on the proposed ordinance to modify the original will be held at the council’s April 25 meeting.