WHO DOES BRENT CONNELLY REALLY REPRESENT?
The Mansfield Township Committee held its regular meeting on April 8, 2026. Under new business, Committeeman Bollard proposed amending Chapter 151 regarding the recording of public meetings, citing outdated and vague language that infringes on First Amendment rights.
Mr. Bollard asked the Mansfield Township Committee to direct the Township Attorney to prepare an amendment to Ordinance 2018-02, which regulates recording public meetings. He argued the ordinance uses vague language, carries severe penalties of up to $2,000, 90 days jail, or community service, and leaves too much to subjective enforcement instead of clear standards tied to real disruption or safety concerns. He cited the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, recognizing a right to videotape open public meetings subject to reasonable restrictions. The Township Attorney agreed, saying that the ordinance was adopted years ago when large cameras, cords, and equipment created practical concerns in meeting rooms. He acknowledged technology has changed and said updating the ordinance “is probably not a bad idea.”
Despite all this, Committeeman Brent Connelly, showed no concern for any of it. Instead, Connelly opposed moving forward with review or amendment of Ordinance 2018-02, the Township’s recording ordinance. He based his opposition on incredibly lame nonsense that reveals a conflict with the public interest. For example:
First, Connelly admitted he “hadn’t read it until it was circulated” and “didn’t even know it was on the books.” That should have been the moment for caution and review, not resistance. If a committeeman says he was unaware of an ordinance carrying fines and possible jail exposure, the responsible move is to examine it carefully.
Second, the ordinance is loaded with vague commands and broad discretion. It requires citizens to give 60 minutes verbal notice before using recording equipment, limits placement, bars movement that “attracts attention,” requires a citizen to “remain with the equipment at all times,” and authorizes the Mayor to order recording to cease whenever he determines a violation or disturbance exists. Violations are enforceable through the Township penalty section. That means ordinary residents can face severe penalties of up to $2,000, 90 days jail, or community service, all based on the self-serving, arbitrary and capricious judgment of Joe Watters.
Third, Connelly argued nobody has been charged in eight years, so why bother. This, I believe, was Connelly's most lame and appalling reason. A bad law does damage even when unused because it "chills" conduct. It warns residents they can be FINED or PROSECUTED if officials decide they crossed an unclear line. Many people simply stay quiet or stop recording. That is how overbroad rules work.
Fourth, Connelly tried to redirect the discussion to school taxes and other issues. Government can handle more than one issue at a time. Reviewing a legally sensitive ordinance that affects transparency is routine business. The Township Attorney even said updating it was “probably not a bad idea” because technology has changed since the era of large cameras and cables.
Fifth, the requested motion was modest. It did not repeal anything on the spot. It asked the Township Attorney to review the ordinance and prepare an amendment for consideration at the next meeting. Connelly helped block even that first step when no second was given.
The public interest is simple here. Clear laws. Narrow restrictions tied to real disruption. Equal enforcement. Respect for the right to document government. Mansfield instead got complacency, delay, and defense of an unlawful and harsh ordinance that even committee members said they barely knew existed.
There is another question residents should ask. Brent Connelly was never elected by Mansfield voters. He was appointed after former Committeeman Joe Farino abruptly chose to leave office early, without warning, creating a vacancy the existing power structure then filled. When someone reaches office through appointment instead of the ballot box, residents are entitled to ask whose confidence he values most, the public’s or the insiders who installed him.