March 10, 2011
BY JEFF SISTRUNK
A Sparta resident said he plans to bring the issues central to his recently dismissed lawsuit against Sparta Township to a member of the state Legislature.
On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Theodore Bozonelis dismissed a lawsuit brought against Sparta by Jesse Wolosky, who claimed that Sparta’s governing council violated petition laws on several occasions last year through the manner in which it handled the restructuring of the township’s Department of Parks and Recreation.
The Sparta Township Council passed an ordinance last year restructuring the department. That ordinance had some language similar to that found in an ordinance the council repealed earlier in 2010 in light of a successful petition drive by township residents.
While Bozonelis agreed that the action that Sparta’s council took to pass the ordinance was valid, he also agreed with some of Wolosky’s points on the issue.
According to court documents, during oral arguments, “Bozonelis agreed with (Wolosky’s) position that the governing body of a municipal agency should not be allowed to re-introduce an ordinance that was repealed or voted down in response to a referendum petition.”
However, Bozonelis held that he was limited by the vague language of the Faulkner Act — the legislation that governs municipalities such as Sparta — and that the situation should be corrected by the Legislature, not the courts.
While Wolosky can take his case to appellate court, he said he won’t pursue that option because he expects that judges at the appellate level would give him the same answer.
Instead, Wolosky said he plans to bring his concerns to a member of the state Legislature, possibly a member from Sussex County. If Sussex County legislators “are not interested in correcting the statute” in question, he said he will approach Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen County), with whom he said he’s had “past communication” on Open Public Records Act issues.
“I feel the law needs to be corrected for all Faulkner Act municipalities in New Jersey before governing bodies realize this loophole in the statute and silence the will of the people when they make the effort and take the time to submit a petition,” Wolosky said.
Wolosky said the “loophole” he refers to is a governing body’s legal ability to re-introduce an ordinance that’s identical or similar to an ordinance that has been repealed.
