Point Pleasant Beach Councilman Says He'll Still Say Lord's Prayer, New Policy or Not

Point Pleasant Beach Councilman Frank Rizzo said he will continue saying the Lord's Prayer if the audience does at council meetings, despite the council passing a new policy for more of a generic prayer.

The council, including Rizzo, unanimously passed a resolution at Tuesday night's meeting to adopt a policy using a prayer that is consistent with court rulings.

That means choosing a prayer that is general enough to not show preference for any specific religion, in compliance with the state Constitution.

Mayor Vincent Barrella said at the meeting that the council has delegated the task of selecting a prayer to Clerk Maryann Ellsworth.

After the meeting, she said she would pick among four prayers deemed acceptable in a precedent-setting state Supreme Court case known as Marsa v. Wernick.

But will it really make a difference? For the past few months, the council has been observing a moment of silence after the Pledge of Allegiance.

However, a group of 15 to 20 residents have been saying the Lord's Prayer and Rizzo has been mouthing the words along with them.

Will he continue that?

"Yes, I probably will," he said in an interview on Wednesday night. "But there will be another prayer said which will take pressure off the council."

Will he ask the residents to stop saying the Lord's Prayer?

"That's up to the mayor to make that decision," he said.

Barrella said, "I'm not going to comment on that."

Councilman Jeffrey Dyer, who had been a strong proponent of the council keeping a policy to allow any prayers, has sometimes mouthed the words on and off as the audience recites the Lord's Prayer.

Dyer could not be reached for comment.

The former policy has so far cost the Beach $11,200 and it could wind up having to pay more than that.

The Beach must pay $11,200 of the $37,989.30 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought for reimbursement of legal fees, according to a Feb. 15 decision issued by Superior Court Judge Vincent Grasso, sitting in Toms River.

The deadline to pay is April 19.

Jeanne LoCicero, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, has said the ACLU does not charge its clients, so the Beach will reimburse fees directly to the ACLU.

LoCicero said this week she does not have any comment on the council vote.

The fees were incurred in the first of two lawsuits filed by the ACLU on behalf of Sharon Cadalzo against the Borough Council for saying the Lord's Prayer at the openings of meetings.

Cadalzo, a Beach resident who is Jewish, filed the lawsuits because she felt the council, by saying the Lord's Prayer, was showing preference for Christian religions over others.

Cadalzo filed the first lawsuit last Sept. 16 to challenge the prayer practice under the state Constitution, which provides that "there shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another" and pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Grasso notes in his decision.

At its next meeting on Sept. 28, the council halted its longstanding practice and substituted a "moment of silence," Grasso notes in his decision.

Cadalzo then dropped her lawsuit.

At a  meeting in October, the council held another "moment of silence" instead of a prayer, the decision says.

"Both moments of silence were disrupted by protestors," Grasso wrote in his decision.

The council then passed a new "Policy Regarding Opening Invocations Before Meetings of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Council."

"Following the adoption of this policy, at the next council meeting on November 9, following the Pledge of Allegiance, the mayor introduced Councilman Dyer who closed his prayer by invoking 'Jesus Christ,' " the decision says.

"Plaintiff asserts that she remains distressed by the continued sectarian prayers that the Borough has sponsored or permitted, as well as by the new policy that permits the same," the decision states.

Consequently, on Nov. 9, the ACLU, on behalf of Cadalzo, filed a second lawsuit which is still pending.

The ACLU can also seek reimbursement of legal fees for that second lawsuit.

On Dec. 17, Grasso concurred with the ACLU's position that the secular prayers said by elected officials at their public meetings violate the state Constitution and ordered a temporary injunction against council members continuing that practice.

However, Grasso has also emphasized at court hearings in December and February that more general prayers that are not specific only to certain religions would be fine.

LoCicero has also repeatedly said that the ACLU will not challenge non-sectarian prayers or a moment of silence.