Point Pleasant Beach Can't Afford to Appeal Prayer Ruling, says its Outgoing Attorney

Point Pleasant Beach cannot afford to appeal a Superior Court temporary injunction against saying sectarian prayers at Borough Council meetings, attorney Kevin Riordan said after defending the borough in court on Friday morning.

Riordan was defending the borough against an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to recoup legal fees.

Riordan, whose borough attorney contract was not renewed by the Point Beach Council at its Jan. 25 meeting, said on Friday he has advised the council that there are other prayers they can say that would be acceptable to the court, to the ACLU and to its client, borough resident Sharon Cadalzo.

"I don't think they can afford to fight this," said Riordan after Friday's court hearing.

He noted that while a national organization has offered to pay the borough attorney's legal fees incurred during the legal battle, it is not willing to reimburse the ACLU for any of its legal fees.

Riordan said that the borough, on the cusp of presenting its draft budget to council, is in a tight budget squeeze and cannot afford to bankroll a continuing legal battle.

Riordan and the ACLU was again before Superior Court Judge Vincent Grasso, sitting in Toms River, because the ACLU is seeking about $38,000 in legal fees.

The fees were incurred when the organization represented borough resident Sharon Cadalzo in the first of two separate lawsuits focusing on the council's use of sectarian prayers at the opening of council meetings.

Grasso said at the conclusion of Friday morning's hearing that he will issue a decision next  week.

He made a point of noting that both Riordan and attorneys for the ACLU had submitted thorough, well-done briefs in advance of Friday morning's hearing.

During the hearing, he also questioned both sides to give them a chance to elaborate on their opposing viewpoints.

The ACLU was originally seeking $42,639 in reimbursement of legal fees, but has since lowered the total to $37,989.

Riordan's contention is that the borough should not have to pay the $37,989 because it had changed its practice after being confronted with the first lawsuit.

Cadalzo had filed that first suit alleging that by saying sectarian prayers the council was violating her civil rights under the New Jersey state Constitution.

At that time, the council's practice was to have the clerk say the Lord's Prayer at the opening of each meeting.

Riordan said the council switched to a moment of silence after Cadalzo filed suit.

After the borough said it would drop the practice of saying the Lord's Prayer, Cadalzo withdrew that first lawsuit.

However, after that the council began a new practice allowing council members to take turns either saying prayers or expressing other thoughts of their choosing.

Councilman Jeffrey Dyer used his turn to say a prayer mentioning "Jesus" in a meeting last November.

That prompted Cadalzo to file a second lawsuit. The ACLU contended that the second practice was no better than the first because it left the door open for council members to utter sectarian prayers.

In December, Grasso ordered a temporary injunction against council members saying any sectarian prayers until the lawsuit is resolved either through settlement or a separate decision from the bench.

Since that injunction, Councilman Frank Rizzo has said the Lord's Prayer along with some audience members.

Rizzo acknowledged after a meeting last month that he was saying the prayer to himself and felt that because he was merely mouthing the words silently, that did not violate Grasso's injunction.

Jeanne LoCicero, ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director, has said, in response, that it continues to monitor the activities of council members in light of Grasso's injunction.

After the hearing, Grasso and attorneys for both sides met privately in his office to discuss the pending, second lawsuit.

Neither side would discuss the conference in detail afterward.

LoCicero, simply said, "The ball is in their court."

Riordan appeared on Friday as the borough's attorney despite that he was essentially fired on Jan. 25.

He did that in the interest of continuing to represent the borough on a case he had already been working on.

However, after the hearing, he said he does not know if he will be invited to appear at the next council meeting to brief the council on Friday's hearing and private conference or if he will be asked to simply send a letter.

After heated discussion at the Jan. 25 meeting, a narrow majority on council voted to hire former borough attorney William Hiering.

Riordan said he worked about 28 hours on the first lawsuit at his rate of $120 per hour, which comes to about $3,360.

During Friday morning's hearing, Grasso asked the ACLU about the difference between Riordan's fee and the ACLU's legal costs being substantially higher.

Frank Corrado, a cooperating attorney for the ACLU, acknowledged that Riordan's rate and overall fee for the first lawsuit was lower.

"I commend the borough for being frugal and I commend Mr. Riordan for being generous to them with his rate," Corrado said.

However, he went on to say that the ACLU staffed the case, with himself and LoCicero, and put in about 130 hours of work on the case, because they felt that's what was necessary.

After the hearing, LoCicero said the ACLU does not charge its clients. And Corrado, who is in private practice in Atlantic and Cape May counties, said that when he helps the ACLU as a cooperating attorney, he donates all his fees to the organization.