The Echoes-Sentinel is reporting that Warren Township has disabled the ability for residents to comment on its official Facebook page—and that this decision was made unilaterally by the Township Administrator, without a vote from elected officials. From the Sentinel:

“Township Administrator Mark Krane said that he made the decision to disable comments alone and that this change is consistent with the township’s information plan and social media policy.

“I just felt that the tone of the posts were not consistent with the existing information plan and social media policy,” Krane said.

Krane made this decision without consultation of the Township Committee, he said.

The decision came shortly after an April 28 post made on all three platforms that announced the township’s decision to appeal the court-mandated affordable housing obligation of 262 units and join a federal lawsuit challenging affordable housing legislation.

The Facebook post garnered 58 comments, 13 reactions and six shares. The next visible post at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 29, which promoted a free rabies vaccination clinic, did not allow comments.”

Krane made this decision without consultation of the Township Committee, he said.”

You can view the post referenced in the Sentinel article here.

Responses to the post involved a scathing critique from former Warren Township Committeewoman Jolanta Marziaz:

“Why is the township’s official social media page being used as a campaign platform? This so called press release is tantamount to egregious misinformation, if it weren’t already obvious that it is political rather than informational. If a housing element is not adopted by June 30th, the township will, in fact, no longer be protected from builders’ remedy lawsuits. Therefore, if the township is wasting our tax dollars on litigation while at that same time spending more money preparing a housing element and fair share plan for 262 units, then there is already an expectation by the township that the township will lose which is an obvious given considering what is happening all over the state. The so called press release gives itself away further when discussing litigation costs. Litigation costs for appeals of complex issues are expensive because they don’t end suddenly when a primary is over. Which brings us back to the original point, since this press release is so slanted and bereft of relevant considerations, it is obvious this official page is being used to prop up a political candidate. Something the township claims it does not do. And if this post is claimed to be legitimate then why does a planning board member, who also happens to be involved with Lontai’s political campaign, know that the township will be issuing a press release before it is issued? Using township resources for campaign purposes is shameful, not to mention unethical. This post should be removed. And the taxpayers should be concerned that our resources are used in this manner.”

NJ21st confirmed that Facebook posts were indeed locked —but not consistently. Maziarz took the opportunity to post a public comment on an unlocked post in direct response to the decision:

“I see that commenting was turned off on some but not all township social media posts. I seem to have missed the meeting where the elected officials voted on a policy to turn off commenting on township social media posts, going forward. Unelected overseers of the township’s social media page are not authorized to unilaterally turn commenting on and off because the comments are deemed unfavorable to some. That is the nature of public discourse and it is indeed protected by both the federal and state constitutions. The people who commented on the post where commenting has been disabled presumably had their voices heard, but those who sought to comment thereafter were silenced, in my opinion, unconstitutionally. My recommendation is to follow stated township policy and put an end to posting obvious campaign fodder. Otherwise, face the music and turn the commenting back on.”

A review of Warren’s social media policy reveals that disabling comments does not appear to be an authorized remedy. Additionally, none of the comments made on the April 28 post seem to fall into categories that would even justify deletion under the township’s own standards.

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism