“Public Discourse Continues”

For years Colts Neck public meetings have been a steaming cauldron of instability, conflict and bad blood, with disgraceful verbal attacks on residents. Mayor Tara Buss would now like everyone to play nice in the sand box!.

One past elected officials, raised a middle finger at a resident during a public meeting. A past Mayor gaveled down and denied a resident’s right to make public comments because the Mayor did not like what was being said.

Another official spewed out caustic comments after a resident wrote to a Superior Court Judge. The town’s clandestine approach to affordable housing was shared with the Court. Least we forget the verbal abuse directed at our seniors.

On July 9th, Dan Buzzetta of the governing body, took issue and shared his disagreement and his disdain over this senior citizen suggesting, after meeting private conversation be placed on the record for all to hear. It supports transparency. It also allows things to calm down, opposed to having a heated exchange in the parking lot or hallway.

Speaking with Buzzetta is like trying to catch a greased piglet. You quickly realize you are wasting your time.

Prior to the Primary Election, a passionate exchange took place after a public meeting. A member of the Committee was clearly uncomfortable / distressed and was calmly escorted out of the building. A male member of the governing body was observed with a cell phone in hand.

Opposed to defusing the situation and ensuring all were safe, the cell phone elected official appeared to be more interested in a potential video clip for Facebook. This is a terrible reflection of our town’s leadership.

I don’t feel the heated hallway conversation was staged. It is something to learn from. Making simple changes, for the safety of all, in these challenging times, was reasonable to all but Buzzetta.

Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote in NY Times v Sullivan, "that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government." Such discussion, he added, must be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," and "may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.".

"It is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, and this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. /2701

Many times, we think people are rude or repetitive, when we don't like their opinion. But they are actually speaking with conviction and at times it appears the governing body has just forgotten or refuse to accept the sound of real passion.

Citizens in other countries do not enjoy the same protections we have. In many parts of the world, people are censored, harassed, imprisoned and worse, simply for challenging or criticizing government officials. We are fortunate to live in an area the political power elite should not be able to intimidate or squelch criticism of public officials.

Kevin M. O’Brien