Erik A. Hassing, Esq.

Hassing & DeFilippis, LLP

1 Gold Mine Road
Flanders, NJ 07836
Telephone: (973) 527-7400
Fax: (973) 527-7403
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Paula Danchuk

PAULA DANCHUK,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PLAINTIFF,
VS.
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE
BOROUGH OF MOUNT ARLINGTON,
DEFENDANT.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION: MORRIS COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: ____________________
Civil Action
COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF
PREROGATIVE WRITS, JURY
DEMAND, DEMAND FOR
PRODUCTION OF INSURANCE
AGREEMENTS, and R. 4:5-1
CERTIFICATION.

Plaintiff, residing in the Borough of Mount Arlington, County of Morris, State of New
Jersey complaining of the Defendant, deposes and says:
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1.

Plaintiff, Paula Danchuk, is a duly elected Councilwoman of the Borough of Mount

Arlington located in the County of Morris, State of New Jersey.

2.

Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount Arlington, is the

governing body of the Borough of Mount Arlington located in the County of Morris, State of
New Jersey.
3.

On or about December 16, 2014, the Defendant wrongfully and in violation of

Council Member Danchuks rights under New Jersey law and the Constitutions of the United

States and the State of New Jersey, considered, voted on, and passed in open session
Resolution 2014 - 151 (hereinafter the censure resolution.)
4.

The censure resolution is entitled:

A resolution of censure of Council Member Paula Danchuk by the
Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount Arlington, in the
County of Morris, State of New Jersey.

5.

The censure resolution states:

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington respects and relies upon transparent and open communications
and conversations between its members in order to serve the Borough and
its residents most efficiently and in a cost effective manner; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington expects its members to work with other members and bring to
light any issues that affects the Borough; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2014, the Mayor and Council of the
Borough of Mount Arlington determined that the actions of Council
Member Paula Danchuk are intentionally detrimental to the Borough;
unbecoming conduct of a Council Member; cause the Borough to expend
funds for issues that may have been resolved internally; worthy of
censure; and require a formal reprimand; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington has chosen this form of action in lieu of filing a Complaint with
the Local Finance Board for allegations of violations of the Local
Government Ethics Law in order to avoid the expense of expending
additional Borough funds; to cease the perpetuation of the discussion of
these issues; and to memorialize the issues taken with Council Member
Paula Danchuk. These actions include, but are not limited to the
following:

As an elected official, contrary to the Local Government Ethics

Law, applied for employment with the Borough Library; Borough
Recreation Department; and without approval of the Council
President, approached the Borough Attorney for personal legal
advice regarding applying for these positions;

Disclosed confidential information regarding on-going contract

negotiations to her husband, who in turn discussed same with an
FOP delegate. This conduct resulted in a Complaint by the Officer

and the FOP demanding her removal from the Police Mayor and
Council and the negotiations team. This disclosure of confidences
could have subjected the Borough to a grievance;

Filing criminal and ethical complaints with the Morris County

Prosecutor's Office based solely upon personal opinion and
analysis without first discussing such accusations with the Mayor
and Council and the Borough Professionals;

Causing the expenditure of Borough funds to research and defend

unilateral accusations that the Borough violated the Open Public
Meetings Act when she was asked in Executive Session and then
later in Public Session, mitigating any potential OPMA problems,
if she acted in her capacity as a Council Member when
orchestrating the obtaining and certifying of the Petition to
Consolidate with Roxbury Borough. In this instance, the Borough
was not permitted to defend or even view the Complaint filed by
Council Member Paula Danchuk. See correspondence from the
Morris County Prosecutor's Office, dated February 25, 2014 and
subsequent requests.

Retaliating against the Borough by contacting the press to accuse

the Borough Mayor and Council of "bullying" because of the
governing body's decision to file formal ethics charges against her
with the State Ethics Commission, which were subsequently
dropped once the cost of filing and pursuing same and the minor
potential consequences once litigated was determined;

Causing the expenditure of Borough funds to defend, research and

respond to false accusations that a Borough Employee violated a
Zoning Ordinance during her campaign for Mayor surrounding
signage, Such erroneous allegations caused the Borough Police
Department to have to expend man power and funds to perform an
investigation where it was found the Borough Employee did not
violate any Zoning Ordinance. See correspondence from the
Morris County Prosecutor's Office, dated June 12, 2014 and
Borough Police Records;

Causing the expenditure of Borough funds to defend, research and

respond to false accusations that the Borough violated the Open
Public Meetings Act after being counseled by the Borough
Professionals that her understanding of the law and executive
session procedure was inaccurate. See correspondence from the
Morris County Prosecutor's Office, dated August l8, 2014;

Causing the expenditure of Borough funds to defend, research and

respond to false accusations that the Mayor and Council violated
the Open Public Meetings Act by attending the public
consolidation meeting held in Roxbury Borough as residents of the
Borough of Mt. Arlington. See correspondence from the Morris
County Prosecutor's Office, dated August l8, 2014;

Failing to reveal the contents of correspondence addressed and

delivered to her as a Council Member at Borough Hall from the
Morris County Prosecutor's Office when asked about whether she
filed additional Complaints against the Borough without first
revealing her personal issues with the governing body and its
professionals, this instance causing the expenditure of Borough
funds to research the issue and respond to OPRA requests;

Sending electronic mail to a member of the public inquiring why

that member requested certain documents in an OPRA request and
copying the Mayor and Council on the correspondence implying
that Council Member Danchuk was sending it on behalf of the
Borough, when in fact they had no knowledge of the request. This
instance was an attempt to create a public document that may not
have been discoverable under OPRA at the current time;

Discussed pending litigation items discussed in executive session

with members of the public, which the subject matter became the
topic of two OPRA requests that needed to be researched and
responded to by Borough employees and Professional;

Requested a copy of the public meeting that mentioned the

professional who appeared in the executive session in order to
further discuss the pending litigation items discussed in executive
session with the members of the public. Her actions may have
compromised negotiations and could expose the Borough to severe
financial hardship, penalties and fines;

For the reasons delineated at the public council meeting set forth in
the November 5, 2014 minutes;

For the issues discussed in the August 5,2014 Complaint; and

Council Member Danchuk acknowledges she is a member of

CARMA and continues to perpetuate their accusations that the
Borough does not act in a transparent nature.

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount

Arlington have on numerous occasions requested that Council Member

Paula Danchuk refrain from secretive behavior; filing unnecessary

complaints without discussing her personal beliefs with the entire council;
causing the Borough to defend and prosecute issues that should have been
discussed at the council meeting; cease from behavior unbecoming of a
Council Member; and to work with the Mayor and Council in a
professional manner; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Paula Danchuk has refused these
repeated requests; continues to behave in a manner detrimental to the
Borough; and frustrates the process of the council meetings; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Council Member
Paula Danchuk is hereby censured for her behavior,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be
published as required by law, within ten (10) days of its passage.
6.

The Resolution, rife with false allegations, was not given to Council Member

Danchuk until on Friday December 12, 2014 for the upcoming Tuesday December 16, 2014,
meeting in the general agenda packet presented to all Council members.
7.

Defendant passed the above-stated censure resolution publicly maligning Council

Member Danchuks character.

8.

The censure resolution was passed over Council Member Danchuks objection

without affording Council Member Danchuk even a modicum of due process to challenge and
defend herself against the allegations.
9.

Council Member Danchuk was given legally insufficient notice of the nature of any

action the Defendant was considering, insufficient time to obtain an attorney, was not
provided with an attorney, and was unable to properly defend herself before her character was
damaged by the Defendant Mayor and Council.
10. Council Member Danchuk had no opportunity to defend herself because she was
not given sufficient written charges upon which the censure resolution was based prior to the
date of its passage.

11. Council Member Danchuk, a duly elected official, was not given a trial, a hearing,
or even the opportunity to present a defense prior to the passage of the censure resolution,
which wrongfully and publicly damaged her political, professional, and personal reputation.
12. Council Member Danchuk had no opportunity to obtain an attorney or present a
defense against the charges brought and passed by Defendant, a Council comprised of many
individuals who are biased political rivals, and none of which can be said to be impartial.
13. Defendant had a duty to protect the important public interest in properly
investigating and holding fair and impartial public hearings on allegations like those contained
in the censure resolution, as provided by, and given to the sole jurisdiction of the New
Jerseys Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1, et. seq.
14. Defendant instead explicitly and deliberately avoided an impartial forum in which
Council Member Danchuk would be given a full, fair, and constitutionally adequate
opportunity to defend herself against the allegations.
15. Council Member Danchuk requested that the Defendant vacate the resolution as it
was unconstitutionally, arbitrary, capricious, and completely beyond the powers of the Mayor
and Council.
16. Council Member Danchuk also requested indemnification of her legal fees and
costs.
17. Defendant, fully cognizant of the dubious legal basis upon which the censure
resolution was based, failed to respond much less vacate the censure resolution, and instead,
chose to stand behind the constitutionally defective censure resolution in which they acted as
prosecutor, judge, and jury.

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUKS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
18. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
19. The Defendant violated Plaintiffs right to due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution incorporated to the States under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and violated Plaintiffs right to due process of law under the New Jersey
Constitution.
20. Council Member Danchuk rights were violated by the censure resolution which was
passed by a bias and partial government body damaging her reputation with no opportunity for
her to defend herself or confront her accusers.
21. Indeed Defendant went out of its way to avoid giving Council Member Danchuk any
due process by explicitly and intentionally avoiding New Jerseys Local Government Ethics
Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1, et. seq., which was created with the specific intent and design to
provide constitutionally adequate due process rights to local elected officials, and giving her
wholly insufficient notice of the charges prior to the censure.
22. The Defendant Council adopted the censure resolution damaging Council Member
Danchuks reputation and maligning her character, and in doing so, failed to provide Council
Member Danchuk the most basic due process rights such as notice of the allegations, an impartial
hearing before an impartial tribunal, the opportunity to confront her accusers, and the
opportunity to present a defense.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure

Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be ordered vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees
and costs of suit.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUKS RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AS THE RESOLUTION IS
OVERBROAD, VAGUE, AND BEYOND THE POWERS OF THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNT ARLINGTON
23. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
24. The Defendant Mayor and Council took certain action, expressed itself as holding
certain views, and punished Plaintiff under color of law. The Defendant Mayor and Councils
resolution sweeps within its ambit those actions ordinarily deemed to be constitutionally
protected.
25. The censure resolution functions to unconstitutionally regulate Council Member
Danchuk, and other current and future elected office holders, for constitutionally protected and
lawful actions and speech, the affect of which may deter or chill constitutionally protected
speech and political affiliation, especially when the overbroad governmental action imposes
punishment.
26. Furthermore, the censure resolution violates the due process protection of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by prohibiting acts expressed in terms
so vague that reasonable people of ordinary intelligence might apply it differently.

27. The censure resolution punishes conduct that is so poorly defined that persons of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
leaving the question as to whether other elected office holders may be punished by the Borough
for constitutionally protected speech and conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.

COUNT III
STATE PRE-EMPTION - ULTRA VIRES RESOLUTION
28. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
29. The State of New Jersey, in N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1, et. seq. has adopted comprehensive
laws regulating and pre-empting the Defendant Mayor and Council from acting as prosecutor,
judge, and jury without properly investigating and holding fair and impartial public hearings on
allegations like those contained in the censure resolution. New Jerseys Local Government
Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 et. seq., pre-empts the archaic, antiquated, and inadequate
procedure the Defendant implemented.
30. The censure resolution shockingly and explicitly states the Mayor and Council of the
Borough of Mount Arlington has chosen this form of action in lieu of filing a Complaint with the
Local Finance Board for allegations of violations of the Local Government Ethics Law in order
to avoid the expense of expending additional Borough funds, to cease discussion of these issues
and to memorialize the issues taken with Council Member Paula Danchuk. (emphasis added).

31. Thus, the resolution clearly states the Mayor and Council are avoiding the Local
Government Ethics Laws, laws which provide Council Member Danchuk with the due process
protections, right to an attorney, and right to a defense.
32. The Mayor and Council explicitly and impermissibly attempted to control areas preempted by the State statutes the censure is thus ultra vires and unenforceable, passed with the
deliberate intent of denying Council Member Danchuk with due process rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUK RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
33. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
34. Defendant censured Council Member Danchuk for constitutionally protected speech,
political speech and affiliation, and complaints to the County Prosecutors office.
35. Defendant violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by
punishing Council Member Danchuk and maligning her character for her constitutionally
protected speech, political speech and affiliation, and complaints to the County Prosecutors
office.
36. The censure resolution unconstitutionally burdens the rights of Council Member
Danchuk and by extension all elected office holders within the Borough to communicate
protected expression.

10

37. Likewise, the censure resolution facially violates the Constitution of the State of New
Jersey by denying Council Member Danchuk, and by extension all employees and office holders
in Mount Arlington, the right to freely speak, affiliate, write, and publish ones sentiments absent
abuse.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT V
THE MAYOR AND COUNCILS CENSURE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WITHOUT
A SUBSTANTIVE INVESTIGATION, INTERNALLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF, AND
WAS PASSED BY POLITICALLY BIASED MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE IN VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER
DANCHUKS RIGHTS; ACCORDINGLY, IT MUST BE VACATED AS ARBITRARY
AND CAPRICIOUS.
38. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
39. The Censure resolution was passed without any substantive investigation or legal or
factual basis by politically biased members of the Boroughs Mayor and Council.
40. The Boroughs Mayor and Council exceeded it powers and acted arbitrarily and
capriciously censuring Council Member Danchuk for among other inappropriate allegations: at
times for seeking advice from the Borough attorney and at other times for not seeking that
advice; for exercising her constitutional right to file a complaint with the County Prosecutor
when she believe the actions of the Mayor and Council were in violation of law, which were
confirmed to be illegal; for actions of others, specifically of the Prosecutors Office in denying
the Mayor and Council to see or defend against a complaint; ironically for causing the Borough
to expend funds defending against complaints that they simultaneous state they were denied the
opportunity to defend against; for expressing her protected First Amendment political opinion

11

telling the Press that she was being bullied by the Defendants filing of State ethics charges,
that the Defendant dropped; for expressing her protected First Amendment opinion complaining
to the Prosecutors office that Borough Zoning sign requirements were not being enforced and/or
selectively enforced as to political signs during an election accordingly; for allegedly exercising
her right to political affiliation by belonging to a political organization CARMA and
exercising her First Amendment right of political speech by perpetuating their accusations that
the Borough does not act in a transparent nature; and for the vague statements of reasons and
issues discussed and delineated in an August 5, 2014 Complaint and a November 4, 2014
public Council meeting.
41. Such Governmentally imposed punishment in retaliation for complaints to a
prosecutors office, in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights, and for vague and
unstated reasons and issues represents a wholesale abuse the government powers given to
the Mayor and Council.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT VI
ILLEGAL RETALIATION FOR ENGAGING IN LAWFUL AND PROTECTED
SPEECH AND CONDUCT.
42. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
43. Defendant censured Council Member Danchuk in retaliation for constitutionally
protected speech, political speech, political affiliation, and complaints to the County Prosecutors
office.

12

44. Indeed, tellingly in the October 31, 2014 Council meeting, during which the Mayor
and other members of the Council voted to have the Borough Attorney draft the censure
resolution, members of the Council and the Mayor aggressively and angrily derided the Plaintiff
and cited at length to the complaints made by Plaintiff to the Prosecutors Office and the fact that
they had been reprimanded by the Prosecutors office for violations of the Open Public Meetings
Law by the Prosecutor.
45. The censure resolution itself is also rife with factual allegations purporting to support
the resolution which retaliate against the Plaintiff for Constitutionally protected speech, political
affiliation, and political speech.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount
Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER DANCHUKS RIGHTS TO NOTICE OF
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
46. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding and subsequent
paragraphs as if more specifically set forth herein at length.
47. Council Member Danchuk is a duly elected public office holder, a position for which
she is monetarily compensated.
48. Under Rice v. Union County Regional High School Board of Education, 155 N.J.
Super. 64 (App. Div. 1977), cert. den., 76 NJ 238 (1978) and its progeny, Council Member
Danchuck was entitled to proper notice of the charges and the hearing.
49. Defendant gave insufficient notice in violation of the law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Council Member Danchuk, requests that the Censure
Resolution adopted by the Defendant, the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Mount

13

Arlington, be vacated with prejudice and that she be awarded reasonable attorneys fees and
costs of suit.
Hassing & DeFilippis, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Date:

by:__________________________
Erik A. Hassing, Esq.

NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Please take notice that Erik A. Hassing, Esq. is hereby designated as Trial Counsel in the
above captioned matter pursuant to Rule 4:25 et. seq.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1

The undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge and belief the matters
delineated herein are not currently, and have not in the past, been litigated before any Court and
that they are not the subject of any arbitration proceedings. In addition, the undersigned has no
knowledge of any person or entity that should be joined in this matter.
Hassing & DeFilippis, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Date:

by:__________________________
Erik A. Hassing, Esq.

14

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:69-4

The undersigned hereby certifies that all necessary transcripts of the local agency
proceedings in this cause have been ordered.

Hassing & DeFilippis, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Date:

by:__________________________
Erik A. Hassing, Esq.

15