The Recreation Commission held an emergency meeting on Thursday, July 2 at 6:30 PM in council chambers. There were about a dozen community members in attendance including Council President John Foster and Councilman Bill Machado.
The meeting had a bit of an informal agenda with two key items of business and the remainder of the time was spent discussing past and upcoming projects and allowing for ample time for resident comments. Of the 7 person commission, there are currently 4 appointed members all of which were in attendance.
Many comments focused on the gratitude of residents for all of the good the Commission and Carolyn George have provided to our community over its decades in operation and tireless efforts to promote and support all recreation activities in our community.
During open resident comments, there was a continuation of support for the current structure and governance of the Recreation Commission to remain unchanged.
There was a notably long discussion focused on HOW we got ‘here’ and what were the contributing factors which led to the Township attempting to acquire power over the Commission. All roads seemed to lead back to events that transpired that are directly tied to the Lower Columbia Project.
I personally asked the Commission to elaborate and confirm a timeline of events that has been suspicious to me and many residents that have never been formally or directly addressed.
The Commission cited that prior to all current members’ appointments that the Commission and Township had been discussing and planning a turf field at Lower Columbia Park. The Commission was in support of a turf field at Lower Columbia, predominantly because the Township had lost scheduling ability at Snyder (under the direction of former Rec Commission Chair) and, for the opportunities a turf field would provide to the emerging increase in community and school activities, would be beneficial in ensuring all teams and clubs would have equal access to fields.
The Commission made a point to mention that following Snyder Park management being taken over by the County (which was formerly managed by the Commission and prior Chair), there have been no scheduling issues to date. They did note that with only one turf field (at Snyder Park) the idea of another turf facility would greatly increase the available times for teams to play when weather or field conditions otherwise would prevent.
Due to over-seeding and frozen conditions throughout the winter, Lower Columbia is reportedly in good shape. There was also a remark made that if the Township continues the over-seeding that eventually the field would be more sustainable and less susceptible to muddy spots or site flooding, however no specifics regarding this determination were presented or shared.
Concerns from the Commission regarding the Natural Turf Project at Lower Columbia were in regard to 3 specific areas: costs, usage and vandalism.
The ongoing costs for the maintenance of the natural field in addition to proper training of DPW workers was raised. The Commission cited that they expressed concerns about whether or not the usage of the natural field would increase as a result of the costly refurbishment of the field. The Commission also recognized that there is currently no plan in place to combat the ongoing vandalism at parks and raised serious concern about motorized vehicles driving on and through the field. Regarding the actual project plans, one Commissioner also mentioned that there were small, but significant, discrepancies on the plans, like slope of property, that were brought up but never officially addressed or amended throughout the planning process.
During the time of discussion and resistance of concerns being addressed, the Commission asked all parties involved to consider if there was a better plan for Lower Columbia.
Following the determination, from the DEP, that an artificial turf field was not feasible, due to environmental concerns, the plan pivoted to providing a new, natural grass field at the same location. The Commission cited that not enough information was available or provided for the Commission to approve the natural turf project at Lower Columbia.
The Commission stated, and was backed up by Council President John Foster that the project is “on hold.”
The time frame in which all of the above referenced sequence occurred was, (as you may have speculated), October 2025, the same time the former Chair of the Recreation Commission walked out of a meeting, resigning from her role as Chair.
In November 2025 the resigned Recreation Commission Chair was appointed, via Executive Order, for a paid position under the Township as a ‘Recreation Project Manager.’ Per the Mayor, she is “the most qualified” (and only) candidate to apply for the position.
In November 2025 the Commission was made aware that the Township had hired a third party to conduct an Evaluation of the Commission.
In January 2026 a “draft” of the evaluation was released to key members of the Township and Commission. There was NO AUDIT conducted of the Recreation Commission.
There was a formal EVALUATION conducted by Suplee, Clooney & Company CPA (which we have filed a common law right to know request for) in the amount of $3,241.25.
There was nothing significant found in the evaluation outside of procedural questions which were immediately addressed and remediated. And according to a meeting between Commission members and the Township CFO the cited questions were deemed “fixable and fixed.”
To this day, a formal report of this “evaluation,” which cost taxpayers over $3,000, has not been generated.
The Commission also noted that prior to the release of the ordinance to dissolve the commission, there was no notice or prior conversations regarding concerns.
The timeline of events that occurred leading up to the proposed dismantling of the Commission may seem more than a bit suspicious, dare I say…deliberate?
The Commission voted to approve a 3-member committee to write, review and modernize the outdated Recreation Commission Ordinance which passed unanimously. The Commission also voted to approve a maximum fee of $20,000 for a lawyer to consult in editing said ordinance. The Commission Chair commented that he hopes the Council will continue to listen to the people they were elected to represent and, in good faith, work WITH the Commission to address overuse and procedural concerns. A request for the community to stay vigilant was made, because the end of this is not near.
The public questioned if the ordinance could include language to not limit the appointment of a Recreation Director to only 3 years, but it was noted that the municipal code states the appointment must be a 3 year term.
Another resident suggested the Commission seek legal advice regarding the In Trust account and perhaps move it to an interest bearing account.
Other questions and comments were made about frustrations with lack of senior bus, concerns of continuance of senior programs and possible costs. With an abundance of seniors joining the programs offered, Carolyn vowed to do everything in her power to keep everything free but cited that the budget doesn’t always allow for all the wants.
John Foster made an offer to ‘help’ the commission with their budget although his rationale fell short for me. If you care about the Rec commission it should not have taken a threat of dismantling them to show up and offer assistance with the next budget. Also, the notion that “if you ask for more, you’ll get more” doesn’t really just happen because you are inadvertently looking to place a burden on taxpayers. Foster and Machado were, at times, in the hot seat. While I give them credit for showing up – there was nothing of substance offered but a promise was made that the July 21, 2026 Council Meeting would feature an update on Lower Columbia (which was reported to be “on hold”) and I made an additional request for a budget presentation on all accounts tied to the project (let’s see if we actually get that!).
Mondelli Park usage was brought up, and Foster commented that he would “look into it” but was pretty sure it was a public park.
The 3 open Commission seats were addressed and the Commission Chair supported the claim that there are 3 applications on the Mayor’s desk, but they happen to be all male and the Commission has always had and is interested in having a mixed gender Commission and as such, they are seeking female applicants.
There may (or may not – because it requires Mayoral approval) be a Commission seat in my future?
Related Articles
Commentary: Open Letter to the Recreation Committee
Recreation and Data Centers: Shauna’s Notes on the 06/30/2026 Berkeley Heights Town Council Meeting
