'Alcoholic Beverages' Ordinance Removed From Council Agenda By 5-1 Vote

After the adoption of the on Monday night, the council moved on to discuss the introduction of an ordinance that would amend the Alcoholic Beverages ordinance.

Ordinance 2011-8, which was voted down by a 3-2 vote at the April 11 meeting and for a second discussion, would amend “Chapter 109 Of The Code Of The Borough Of New Providence Entitled ‘Alcoholic Beverages.'"

Under the current ordinance, enacted in October of 2009, police officers may enter a private residence where individuals under the age of 17 are illegally consuming alcohol. The amended ordinance would allow police officers to enter a private residence where individuals under the age of 21 are consuming alcohol.

Before the subject could be discussed, Council President Michael Gennaro asked that the item be removed from the agenda, stating that the topic has already been discussed at length.

“We’ve had the opportunity to discuss this on numerous occasions prior to the last meeting,” Gennaro said. “The public has had the opportunity to hear those opinions.”

Hern disagreed, saying that the subject should be addressed in public in accordance with the Public Meetings Act. Gennaro countered that items listed on the agenda may be deferred or removed, and Robert’s Rules of Order states that any item can be postponed indefinitely. The motion to remove the item was passed 5-1, with Councilman Robert Munoz voicing the only dissenting vote.

During the public comments section of the meeting, Tracy Beckerman, Chairperson of the New Providence Alliance to Prevent Drug and Alcohol Abuse, made her disappointment known.

Beckerman, who was prepared to speak on the subject with Deputy Chief Scott Torre, was “outrage[d]” by the decision. She said that the latest round of concerns expressed by the council have not been addressed, and believed the council’s actions to be politically motivated.

“I am truly dumbfounded that a Borough Council that was elected to act in the best interest of the community would not do everything in its power to pass an ordinance that protects the most vulnerable members of this community,” Beckerman said. “I’m dumbfounded that members of the council, who had concerns with the amended ordinance, did not do everything in their power to find ways to belay these concerns, and now will not give the Alliance or the police the chance to speak."

Beckerman said there is another agenda at play that has nothing to do with the mission of this ordinance.

"I’m not sure why the issue is being used in this way; all I can say is it’s tragic that members of the community, specifically those most at risk, will have to pay for what appears to be a politically motivated action on the parts of the council members. On behalf of the Alliance to Prevent Drug and Alcohol Abuse, I’d like to publicly express my disappointment, frustration, and outrage with the actions of the council members this evening.”

Gennaro replied to Beckerman’s claim, calling it, “incorrect and improper. Each member carefully considered the ordinance and did not reach a decision lightly. Frankly, the arguments raised for it were not as persuasive as those made against it.”

Councilman Alan Lesnewich, who was not on the council when the original ordinance was enacted, added that he reached his decision after meticulous research.

“I did my homework. I appreciate and understand what the Alliance and police are doing. My vote had nothing to do with anything political," said Lesnewich, who was appointed to council in January. "It was based on my impression of an ordinance already in place. I did not think it was my place as a new councilman to take an adverse position based upon the long history of the proceedings leading up to the adoption of the ordinance.”

Lesnewich went on to say that if additional information regarding the need to change to the ordinance came forward, he would be more than happy to sit with the Alliance and police, and reconsider amending the ordinance.