The scope of a citizen’s right to initiative and referendum under the Optional Municipal Charter Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1, et seq. (hereinafter “Faulkner Act”), has been further solidified at the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In Redd v. Bowman (N.J. Aug. 11, 2015), the Supreme Court held a group of citizens had the right of initiative to propose an ordinance under the Faulkner Act to restrain the city of Camden from dissolving its police department, even when the proposed ordinance conflicted with the city of Camden’s obligation to decrease its spending and payroll as consideration for its receipt of state financial aid under various state-administered municipal aid programs, including the Municipal Rehabilitation and Economic Recovery Act, N.J.S.A. §§52:27BBB–1, et seq. (MRERA); the Special Municipal Aid Act, N.J.S.A. §§52:27D–118.24, et seq. (SMAA); and the Transitional Aid to Localities Program, N.J.S.A. §§52:27D–118.42a (TALP).
The New Jersey Legislature enacted the Faulkner Act to provide for the “free adoption by the people … [of] a specific form of [municipal] government with specific powers.” Paoella v. Mayor & City Council of Hackensack, 76 N.J. Super. 86, 88-89 (Law Div. 1962). The Faulkner Act identifies and allows citizens to choose from four voluntary forms of government, each of which has varying political structures and separation of powers. The available plans under the Faulkner Act include: (1) the mayor–city council plan; (2) the city council–manager plan; (3) the small government plan; and (4) the mayor–city council–administrator plan.
