TOMS RIVER, N.J. – The new Toms River Council majority got to work early in their retribution against Mayor Dan Rodrick and passed a rule that could see opposition council members in jail for expressing their opinions and exercizing their right to free speech.
Now, they are threatening a mayor who has no legal obligation to even attend the meeting, according the township code.
That code states under subsection § 10-3Meetings, “The Mayor may attend meetings of Council and may take part in discussions of Council to the extent authorized under N.J.S.A. 40:69A-41, but shall have no vote except in the case of a tie on the question of filling a vacancy in the Council, in which case he or she may cast the deciding vote.”
The township code does not require the mayor to attend council meetings at all, contradicting the council’s new rule.
The deepening power struggle amid Toms River’s local council members aligned with former Mayor Maurice Hill and those allied with current Mayor Dan Rodrick erupted Thursday night after the township council voted 4–3 to adopt a controversial rule that restricts free speech and protest by elected officials — a move Council President David Ciccozzi admitted was meant as payback against political opponents, including Mayor Daniel Rodrick.
The new rule, introduced by Ciccozzi and Council Vice President Tom Nivison, requires elected officials to waive their rights to free speech, expression, and protest while serving on the council or as mayor in the meetings, or face penalties that could include fines or up to 90 days in jail. The policy also prohibits members from leaving meetings early, a practice that had become a form of protest during contentious public sessions.
Mayor Rodrick, who no longer holds majority support on the council, immediately condemned the measure as unconstitutional, calling it “a direct attempt to silence the mayor and others who disagree with the council majority.”
“These rules are un-American,” Rodrick said. “Members of this council and the mayor have rights under state ordinance and the United States Constitution.”
“This is what they do in banana republics and third-world dictatorships,” Rodrick said.
Ciccozzi later confirmed during the meeting that the rule was, in part, a personal response to what he described as two years of being muted by prior council leadership, adding that former council presidents under limited his ability to speak during meetings, in an attempt to maintain decorum, but there was never a rule that could put elected officials in jail.
The council majority — Ciccozzi, Nivison, Bradley, and Bianchini — voted in favor of the change, while Aber, Craig Coleman, and Lynn O’Toole opposed it.
Rodrick, in a statement following the meeting, accused the council of weaponizing parliamentary procedure to block transparency in violation of state and federal laws, and against the township ordinances governing council meetings.
“This is not about decorum or order. This is about control,” he said. “They are trying to silence the mayor’s voice and keep the public from hearing the truth about how their government is being run.”
He also criticized the council for awarding an insurance contract to the Ocean County Joint Insurance Fund, which is under state investigation for unethical businsess practices, claiming taxpayers could have saved up to $1.5 million over three years with competing bids. “Ask yourself why anyone would want to silence the mayor,” Rodrick said. “It’s because there are things they don’t want you to hear.”
Rodrick, who attends all council meetings often leaves when a group that he calls, ‘political followers’, ‘clowns’ and ‘political cheerleaders’ turn council meetings into hours long bash fests once official business has been voted on.
He has directed the township attorney to file for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment in Ocean County Superior Court, vowing to overturn the rule, which he is highly likely to receive in his favor.
Rodrick gave a speech during the meeting, saying:
Fellow Residents – today I stand before you to talk about something far bigger than
procedure, far bigger than politics, and far bigger than any single meeting. What we
are witnessing right now is an assault on transparency, accountability, and the basic
principles that define the United States of America.
The council majority has passed a set of rules that would force elected officials to sit
through an entire meeting under threat of punishment—including up to 90 days in
prison—simply for leaving early.
Let me be absolutely clear: that is wrong.
This is America.
This is not a police state.
And it is certainly not Stalinist Russia.
In the United States of America, you do not tell elected officials—or anyone—that they
must remain somewhere against their will under threat of imprisonment. That is
fundamentally un-American.
Members of this council, and the mayor, have rights under township ordinance, under
state statute, and under the United States Constitution. Participation in a meeting
does not mean incarceration. Public service does not mean surrendering your
freedom.
So why are they doing this?
In my view, it has nothing to do with “decorum” or “order.” It has everything to do
with control.
These rules are designed to force council members to sit through hours of orchestrated
attacks—from the same small group of political allies and loyalists—who show up
meeting after meeting to shout, insult, and intimidate. The goal is not public comment.
The goal is exhaustion. The goal is submission.
And that’s not all.
Another rule restricts the mayor’s ability to speak—making it nearly impossible for me
to explain critical issues to the public. Issues involving your tax dollars. Issues involving
contracts. Issues involving decisions that affect every household in this town.
Ask yourself: why would anyone want to silence the mayor?
In my opinion, it’s because there are things they do not want you to hear.
They don’t want me talking about lucrative contracts handed to political insiders.
They don’t want me asking questions about who benefits and who pays the price.
They don’t want me explaining why, just tonight, taxpayers were forced to accept the
re-upping of the Ocean County Joint Insurance Fund—despite the fact that we could
have saved anywhere from $900,000 to $1.5 million over three years.
They don’t want that debate.
They don’t want that scrutiny.
They don’t want sunlight.
Instead, they want to frame the meeting, dictate what can be said and who can say it,
and keep the public in the dark while business is conducted behind closed doors and
contracts are handed out to the same connected names over and over again.
That is not democracy.
That is not representative government.
That is not American.
The Constitution does not exist for convenience. It exists precisely for moments like
this—when those in power attempt to silence dissent, restrict speech, and coerce
compliance.
Freedom of speech does not mean “speech approved by the council majority.”
Freedom of assembly does not mean “you may leave only when we say so.”
And public service does not require surrendering your constitutional rights at the door.
We will not accept rules that punish elected officials for exercising their rights.
We will not accept rules that silence debate.
And we will not accept rules that treat this township like a captive audience rather than
a free people.
This is Toms River.
This is New Jersey.
This is the United States of America.
Shore News NetworkshorenewsnjEdit Profile
And in America, the people are informed—not managed.
And no one is jailed for standing up, speaking out, or walking away.
I am directed the township attorney to file superior court to ask for injunctive relief and
declaratory Judgment in the coming week. These rules will not stand.