Mansfield's 1st Amendment Restriction Ordinance 2018-02

In furtherance of my initiative to bring more transparency, communication, and integrity to this office, I have been reviewing Mansfield Township Ordinance 2018-02, the measure that added Chapter 151 to our code under the title “Cell Phone, Audiotape Recorder and Camera Use During Open Public Meetings.” It was adopted by the Township Committee on May 9, 2018. According to the official town record, those voting in favor were Joe Farino, Desiree Mora-Dillon, Joe Watters, and Ronald Hayes. The lone no vote was cast by Michael Misertino.

At first glance, the ordinance appears to support openness. It acknowledges that members of the public have the right to record, videotape, and photograph open public meetings, while excluding executive session. But that recognition is immediately narrowed by a series of restrictions. A resident must give the Municipal Clerk at least 60 minutes verbal notice before the meeting or be barred from recording. Equipment must be set up at least 10 minutes before the meeting. Recording devices are limited in where they may be placed, must be battery operated, and must be “generally unobtrusive.” Citizens also may not move in any way that “attracts attention.”

The ordinance then gives the Mayor substantial discretion over enforcement. It states that the Mayor may direct videotaping, photography, or audio recording to cease whenever he determines that the equipment or its operator is disturbing the meeting or violating the regulations. That is a broad amount of subjective power, especially when paired with vague phrases like “generally unobtrusive” and “attracts attention.” When standards are unclear, enforcement becomes a matter of interpretation rather than objective conduct.

The penalty structure makes this far more serious than an ordinary room-management policy. The ordinance names the Mansfield Police Department as the enforcement agent and ties violations to the Township’s general penalty provision. That means a violation can carry a fine of up to $2,000, imprisonment for up to 90 days, or community service for up to 90 days. Public meetings are supposed to belong to the public. Yet this ordinance places the peaceful act of documenting government under a framework backed by police enforcement and penalties that can rise to 90 days of community service.

New Jersey case law points in a different direction. In Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized a common-law right to videotape a municipal council meeting, subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court also held that the borough and its mayor violated that right by imposing arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions that prevented an unintrusive recording. The principle is simple: a municipality may adopt rules to prevent actual disruption, but it may not use arbitrary barriers to burden the public’s right to document what happens in open session.

That is where this ordinance raises concern. Some rules are plainly reasonable. No one should be blocking aisles, shining lights, or creating noise in a public meeting. But this ordinance goes beyond that. It conditions recording on advance notice, uses vague behavioral standards, gives the Mayor broad shutdown authority, and attaches meaningful penalties to violations. It also includes a particularly broad provision barring photographs or video/audio recordings within a public facility of any person, place, or event relating to official municipal business. That reaches well beyond keeping order in the meeting room.

This is where the spirit of the First Amendment matters. The First Amendment is not only about the right to speak. It also protects the broader principle that citizens should be able to observe and scrutinize government. In practice, that means open meetings must be more than technically open. They must also be open to public documentation, subject only to clear and reasonable anti-disruption rules. A government that respects transparency should not make ordinary residents feel that pressing record carries legal risk.

My position is straightforward. Public meetings should be governed by objective standards that protect order without burdening oversight. Mansfield should keep the reasonable anti-disruption rules and revisit the provisions that are vague, overly broad, or punitive. Transparency should not depend on advance permission, subjective enforcement, or penalties severe enough to chill public participation.

When Transparency Comes With a Penalty

Editorial

TL;DR

Ordinance 2018-02 says citizens may record open public meetings, but then restricts that right with a 60-minute advance notice requirement, narrow setup rules, vague conduct standards, and broad mayoral discretion to stop recording. It is enforced by the police and tied to Mansfield’s general penalty clause, which allows up to $2,000 in fines, up to 90 days in jail, and up to 90 days of community service. New Jersey’s Supreme Court in Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill recognized a common-law right to videotape municipal meetings, subject only to reasonable restrictions aimed at preventing disruption. Compared to New Jersey DUI penalties listed by the MVC, this ordinance is harsher on paper than a second DUI in community-service exposure and fine exposure, even though DUI carries many other mandatory driving-related sanctions. The ordinance should be narrowed to target actual disruption, not burden the public’s right to document government in the open.

Media Coverage

https://njfog.org/4932/mansfield-twp-warren-co-ordinance-restricts-video-recording-hearing-3-14/

https://www.nj.com/warren/2018/02/mansfield_meeting_video_restrictions.html

https://www.njherald.com/story/news/2018/02/27/nj-town-proposes-restrictions-on/3631499007/

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/2018/02/mansfield_meeting_video_restri.html

Links at the bottom

Vote Count

Yay:
- Committeewoman Desiree Mora-Dillon
- Committeeman Joseph Farino
- Committeeman Ronald Hayes
- Mayor Joseph Watters

Nay:
- Committeeman Michael Mistertino

Meeting Minutes

- February 14th, 2018 (1st Reading):
http://www.mansfieldtownship-nj.gov/images/February_14_2018_min.pdf
- March 14th, 2018 (2nd Reading Tabled):
http://www.mansfieldtownship-nj.gov/images/Committee_Meetings/Committee_Agenda_and_Minutes/March_14_2018_min.pdf
- March 28th, 2018 (2nd Reading, Tabled 2nd time):
http://www.mansfieldtownship-nj.gov/images/Committee_Meetings/March_28_2018_min.pdf
- May 9th 2018 (2nd Reading/Adoption):
http://www.mansfieldtownship-nj.gov/images/Committee_Meetings/Committee_Agenda_and_Minutes/May_9_2018min.pdf

Chapter 151 w/ Penalties

Chp 151: "Cell Phone, Audiotape Recorder and Camera Use During Open Public Meetings -> https://ecode360.com/34495253
Penalties - > https://ecode360.com/13096660

Progress

04/02/2026: Discussion to amend ordinance is on the agenda for meeting 04/08/2026.

Town Audio Clip