Berkeley Heights meeting erupts over proposed Recreation Department; council removes ordinance from tonight’s agenda

Town Attorney Scott Simon presented a section‑by‑section explanation of a proposed ordinance to dissolve the existing Recreation Commission, create a Recreation Department led by an appointed recreation director, and establish a Recreation Advisory Committee.

Simon told the conference session the change was driven by auditor findings that flagged weaknesses in governance, revenue tracking and internal controls under the commission model. He emphasized the township’s intent to preserve existing recreation programming, the recreation trust fund and current staff roles while moving day‑to‑day accountability to municipal oversight.

The presentation provoked prolonged public comment and detailed question‑and‑answer exchanges. Speakers included longtime volunteers, former commissioners, parents, recreation staff and local business representatives. Many called the recreation operation ‘‘the heart of Berkeley Heights’’ and warned that dissolving the commission would centralize control, diminish resident voice, and risk politicizing programming. Multiple speakers asked the council to fill three vacant commission seats, provide the commission and staff a final copy of the auditors’ findings, or invest in targeted training and procedural fixes instead of wholesale reorganization.

Council members and the attorney said the township had repeatedly advised the commission of concerns and had tried to work with commission leadership; the attorney said the state statutory structure leaves limited in‑between options and that placing recreation under the municipal department model would allow daily professional oversight required by modern auditing, contracting and ethics rules. He also said the recreation trust fund would remain legally protected and that any expenditures would require director request, administrative approval, CFO sign‑off and annual audit review.

After more than two hours of public testimony and repeated requests from residents for additional stakeholder engagement, Council President moved to remove the ordinance from the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote with all members present voting yes.

What’s next: Council set no final adoption; members and staff said they will collect written questions, seek additional input from the recreation commission and staff, and reconvene the proposal with more stakeholder outreach before a future introduction or vote.