POINT PLEASANT BEACH — The borough council on Tuesday tabled a proposed ordinance that would have established a local board of ethics to enforce an ethics code for borough officials and senior municipal employees. One reason given was that the item was added late to the agenda, and council members did not have time to review it thoroughly.
The ordinance was added to the Tuesday meeting’s agenda at the request of Councilman Mike Ramos, who said “It’s no secret that the first few months of 2024 were a…period of ethical challenges.”
Ramos said the proposed measure would have “authorized (the council) to establish a municipal ethics board to administer the provisions of the LGEL (Legal Government Ethics Law), which in turn shall promulgate a code of ethics for the borough’s officers and employees that is as restrictive or more restrictive than…the LGEL.”
Key provisions of the ordinance are the establishment of a six-member committee of borough residents appointed by the council “chosen by virtue of their known and consistent reputation for integrity and their knowledge of local government affairs.” No more than three members would be allowed from the same political party. Members would serve for five years, and would not be compensated aside from “reimbursement for necessary expenses.”
The introduction was tabled in a 5-0 vote.
Councilman Ramos explained why he believes such a body should be formed.
“On tonight’s agenda there is something that I requested to be put on,” said Ramos during his transparency report. “I worked with our borough attorney (on) ordinance 2024-23 to establish a local ethics board. I felt that this is something that should really be considered for the town…I stated my desire to the council back in the first quarter that we needed to provide a mechanism to deal with unethical or illegal behavior by any elected official or borough employee or whoever.”
“It’s no secret that the first few months of 2024 were a…period of ethical challenges; threatened recalls, charges of antisemitism, disenfranchised volunteers, conflicts of interest — it’s been a lot,” the councilman said, referencing a February altercation between Council President Rosa Crowley and her neighbor, whereafter she was accused of antisemitism following the circulation of a video that appeared to show her calling her neighbor — who recorded the incident — a ‘Jew.’ No criminal charges were filed in the case, but an investigation by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office found the altercation to be a “bias incident.”
Crowley, in response during her committee reports, said, “I guess this will be my version of a transparency report that I’ve been listening to for eight months up here; sitting up here and listening to a transparency report that has been nothing but hidden attacks and agendas.”
“So much for working together, right? We all want unity, we want it all to work out, so we’re trying to work it out and then we come up here and we get this transparency report, which likes to dig into me especially, because supposedly, he was removed from some of his committees,” she said.
In January, Crowley made several successful motions to appoint other members of the council as liaisons to the recreation committee, planning board and board of education; Ramos held all those posts previous to Jan. 1, 2024. “He wasn’t removed. You shared your committees with others, which we have a right to, and votes were taken, so that’s how it was.”
Crowley added that she is not inherently opposed to the idea of an ethics board, and does not believe that any of her behavior would be subject to such a board in the first place.
“On this ethical (board) that wants to be put on by Mr. Ramos…Well, I’d like a lot more information on this,” she said, “I’m not against it; if it’s for the best, let’s do it. I mean, I’m all for it. I don’t think that anything that I’ve done, although many have tried to challenge it, have surfaced to anything that is unethical.”
The other council members were split on the ordinance’s introduction. Councilman Jack Pasola commended the move by Ramos, saying, “Mayor, Mr. Ramos has been so open. Back in (executive) session, he talked and everybody listened and he was very transparent; there were no shots thrown. We were getting along good until now, until tonight…You’re throwing the shots; Councilman Ramos didn’t throw any shots at all.”
“Thank you for judging that,” said Crowley, “and I’m not going to throw shots at you right now like I should now, right? I’m going to reserve that.”
On the other hand, Councilman Art Gant agreed that the council did not have enough time to properly review the ordinance before it was added to the night’s agenda.
“There was an ordinance that was provided to us late Saturday night, and nobody spoke to me about it,” said Gant. “I was one of the people that said, ‘hey, we’ll approve the ethics (board).’ I didn’t have the chance to give any input…Here it is, three days later, and I’m trying to read through it. I didn’t get a chance to ask a lot of questions or get a lot of answers.”
“If we’re being very transparent up here. We have to be transparent with each other on the council; that’s all I’m asking,” he said. “I want to work with everybody up here to do stuff. I just wish it was a two-way street up here on certain things. Otherwise, I think everybody’s doing a great job. I think we are coming together on important issues that need to be discussed.”
The three-page ordinance is available to view publicly at pointpleasantbeach.org/223/New-Ordinances.
This is an excerpt of the print article. For more on this story, read The Ocean Star—on newsstands Friday or online in our e-Edition.
Check out our other Point Pleasant Beach stories, updated daily. And remember to pick up a copy of The Ocean Star—on newsstands Friday or online in our e-Edition.
Subscribe today! If you're not already an annual subscriber to The Ocean Star, get your subscription today! For just $38 per year, you will receive local mail delivery weekly, with pages and pages of local news and online access to our e-edition on Starnewsgroup.com.
 3x8 4c.jpg)
 6x10 4c.jpg)
