Why Process Matters: Strengthening Transparency in Council Appointments
- Dan Weiss
- 23 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Serving on the Township Council comes with a responsibility to ensure that government decisions are made with transparency, fairness, and respect for both the people we serve and the institutions we are entrusted to steward.
That responsibility was put to the test at the final Council meeting of the year.
Â
In recent months, New Jersey has been engaged in a broad conversation about ethics, corruption, and the importance of institutional integrity. Senator Andy Kim has emerged as a leading voice in that movement, advocating that a strong democracy and the success of our institutions depend on transparency, ethical leadership, and respect for process.
Those values apply to all levels of government. Local government is not immune from these dynamics: it is often where they matter most. Having had the privilege of working for Senator Kim, his message resonates deeply with me and informs how I approach my responsibilities in public service.
What Happened
At the final Council meeting of the year, two last-minute resolutions were introduced to appoint alternates to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. These appointments were fast tracked with only a few days’ notice during the holiday season. Council members were not provided with adequate time to review the candidates, speak with them, or evaluate their qualifications for service on a quasi-judicial board.
There was no public notice that these positions were available, and the complete list of all applicants was not shared with the full Council.
Because appointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment are the responsibility of the Council as a body, I formally requested, prior to the public notice of the agenda, that the resolutions be tabled until after the January reorganization meeting. That would have allowed a newly constituted Council to conduct a transparent and inclusive appointment process.
My request (which can be found below), presented professionally, in writing and through proper channels, was denied, and the appointments were adopted.
What Did Not Happen
What was most troubling was not simply the outcome, but the lack of substantive discussion.
Rather than addressing the concerns I raised regarding notice, disclosure, review time, and Council authority, the response from the Council President shifted to personal criticism. My objections were characterized as politically motivated and not collegial, despite the fact that they were not partisan and were raised respectfully, in advance, in writing, and on the record.
No Council discussion followed. None of the issues I raised were debated or meaningfully engaged. The rest of the Council remained silent.
For clarity, my objection was not that the appointments were unlawful. I explicitly stated that in my public remarks. My objection was that the process was not transparent, not inclusive, and not reflective of good government.
Why This Matters
Boards like the Zoning Board of Adjustment exercise significant influence over land use, development, and residents’ property rights. They operate in a quasi-judicial capacity. That makes the integrity of the appointment process especially important.
When appointments are rushed, when information is incomplete, or when decisions appear closed off from scrutiny, public confidence suffers. Even when actions are technically permissible, the absence of a clear and documented process erodes trust in government institutions.
As Senator Kim has emphasized, corruption is not only about illegal acts. It is about the quiet normalization of behavior that sidelines transparency, discourages oversight, and concentrates decision-making authority in fewer hands. The antidote is not rhetoric. It is strong process, shared authority, and sunlight.
Moving Forward: Fixing the Process
In response to this experience, I am pressing for the adoption of an amendment to the Council’s Procedural Guidelines that would establish a clear, consistent process for all future appointments over which the Council has authority.
The proposed changes would require:
Public notice of vacancies before any appointment
Full disclosure of all applicants to every Council member
Adequate time for review, engagement, and evaluation
Clear recognition that appointment authority rests with the Council collectively, not with any single individual
A defined emergency waiver process that must be justified on the public record
These standards are aligned with best practices under New Jersey law and are especially appropriate for boards that serve in advisory or quasi-judicial roles.
Why I Am Doing This
This effort is about strengthening the rules that guide Council action so that residents can have confidence in how decisions are made. It is not about relitigating a vote or targeting any individual.
If advocating for transparency, ethical leadership, and respect for process is characterized as a political attack or as somehow unreasonable, that characterization says more about other’s discomfort with scrutiny than it does about the substance of the concerns being raised. Healthy institutions welcome questions about process. They do not seek to silence them.
I will not be discouraged or intimidated from speaking up when fundamental principles of good government are at stake. Upholding transparency and accountability are not optional, and it is certainly not partisan.
I will continue to advocate for clear rules, open processes, and informed decision-making, even when doing so is uncomfortable. It is a core responsibility of public service, and one I take seriously.
If you are interested in seeing the proposed amendment to the procedural guidelines, you can download a copy below. This was sent to the Municipal Clerk on 12/26/2025 and subsequently distributed to all Council members for review.
Below is a copy of my memo, dated 12/17/2025, where I respectfully requested that Resolutions 2025-R273 and 2025-R274Â be withdrawn, and that appointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment should should follow a transparent and inclusive process.