Gloucester County freeholders placed under judge's watch

In a rare move, a state Superior Court judge Tuesday placed the Gloucester County Board of Freeholders under his watch for six months to keep it from improperly conducting public business behind closed doors.

Assignment Judge Francis J. Orlando Jr., who sits in Camden, will appoint an independent monitor to observe the freeholders' meetings and report on whether they are complying with the state's Open Public Meetings Act.

Last summer, an appeals panel suggested that the judge consider corrective action, saying that it "found no authority" for this type of review but that the review might be warranted if "a pattern of wrongful conduct" was found. The freeholders had been accused of violating the open meetings law, also known as the Sunshine Law, more than 50 times in recent years.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said they had never heard of a state monitor being charged with overseeing an elected board this way.

Orlando said the freeholders had failed to offer any reason as to why they voted in private to create public positions, establish officials' salaries, make special payments to lawyers, adopt policies, and authorize payment of legal settlements.

Instead of citing exemptions to the law with a strict interpretation, Orlando said, the freeholders should have followed the intent of the law, which is to be transparent and "to err on the side of openness." He pointed to the appeals panel's finding that "secrecy undermines the public faith in open government."

The judge ordered lawyers on both sides to come up with suggestions within the next two weeks of retired judges who may be suitable as a monitor.

After the hearing, Mark Cimino, the lawyer who pushed for a monitor, said the decision was not just a victory for his client, David Burnett, a Clayton resident and former director of the county Republican executive committee. The ruling, he said, is about "safeguarding the public's interest."

The spokesperson for the all-Democratic freeholder board did not return calls for comment.

Michael Sullivan, the special counsel who represented the freeholders, said after the ruling that he could not comment, not even to say whether there would be an appeal. But during arguments, he suggested a court appointment of a monitor "crosses the line between the judicial and the legislative" branches of government.