CITY OF HOBOKEN

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

Office of Corporation Counsel

BRIAN J. ALOIA, ESQ.

RAVINDER S. BHALLA
Corporation Counsel
Mayor
ALYSSA BONGIOVANNI,
ESQ.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

SCOTT DEROSA, ESQ.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

MEMORANDUM

To: Brian Aloia, Esq., Corporation Counsel

From: Alyssa L. Bongiovanni, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel

Date: January 16, 2019

Re: Whether Certain Statements sent Through the Nixle Alert System Violate Nixle’s “Terms of
Service”

Please accept this memorandum regarding whether the City’s Administration violated

Nixle’s “Terms of Service” in releasing certain communications through the Nixle system on

January 10th and January 11th. The alert on January 10th served to advise those residents who

have signed up for Nixle alerts of Mayor Bhalla’s veto of Ordinance B-99 regarding positions in

the Mayor’s office (see attached). The message sent on January 11th was a letter from the Mayor

towards City Council members which explained the Mayor’s position on the Southwest

Redevelopment Plan and related issues (see attached).

The City Council has prepared a resolution on the agenda for the City Council meeting

on January 16, 2019 which alleges that the Administration violated Nixle’s “Terms of Service”

as follows:
  Violated “Conduct” section (a) – the resolution alleges that these communications were

made in an unwanted, threatening, harassing, abusive or offensive manner;

 Violated “Conduct” section (b)- the resolution alleges that these communications were

used for political, commercial or advertising purposes;

 Violated “Conduct” sections (c), (h), and (k)- the resolution alleges that the

Administration used these messages to post messages that were harmful, tortious,

defamatory, libelous and to discuss, incite or otherwise solicit illegal activity and transmit

fraudulent, deceptive or misleading communications;

 Violated “Prohibited Communications” section (i)- the resolution alleges that these

communications were constituting unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing,

defamatory, or otherwise objectionable material of any kind, including any material that

gives rise to civil liability;

 Violated “Prohibited Communications” section (ix)- the resolution alleges that these

communications expressed a political or other similar message;

The City Council members have indicated that they believe the January 10th and January 11th

communications were “clear political attacks” “propaganda” and “personal statements” from the

Mayor.

I have reviewed the messages transmitted through Nixle and the Terms of Service to

determine if said communications were in violation. Pursuant to the Terms of Service titled

“Grant of License” an “authorized use” of the Nixle service is for “non-profit or informational

services.” Further, in the section entitled “No Endorsement” it states that the Nixle

communication service should be used for the sole purpose of “allowing authorized government

users to send public and or private communications to Recipients.” In my opinion, the two
communications at issue fall within these categories. The first communication was a veto

statement of an ordinance. All ordinances are required to be noticed to the public in public

newspapers and subject to a public hearing at a public meeting. Ordinances are local laws and

therefore it is important that residents are aware of the status of said laws. This is why ordinances

are subject to strict notice requirements. Therefore, it follows that the veto of an ordinance

should also be made available to the public by the local government entity so that the public is

aware of the status of the legislation. Residents are entitled to know if an ordinance that was

passed is subsequently vetoed and the reason for same, just as they are made aware that the

ordinance will be voted on by the City Council and the Council’s reason for supporting or not

supporting same. I do not find that a veto statement violates the “Conduct” or “Prohibited

Communications” portion of the Terms of Service as asserted by the Council.

The second communication that was sent was from the Mayor to the City Council regarding

the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and related issues. Pursuant to the statement, the Mayor had

received inquiries from residents of Southwest Hoboken regarding a proposed development

project in the Southwest Redevelopment Area and therefore prepared said correspondence to

express his position to residents and the City Council. Again, it is my opinion that this

communication is within the Nixle Terms of Service as it is for non-profit (governmental) and

informational purposes and to allow authorized government users to send public communications

to recipients who have voluntarily signed up for this information.

I do not find that either communication was unwanted, threatening, harassing, abusive,

offensive, political, commercial or advertising in nature. Any communication that is made from a

governmental entity may necessarily beget opinions from residents on whether they agree or

disagree and may be tangentially related to a local political issue. However, both of these
communications were made for informational purposes in order for the Mayor of Hoboken to

communicate with residents who have voluntarily signed up for such community updates.

Further, I do not find that these communications were harmful, tortious, defamatory, libelous,

discuss incite or otherwise solicit illegal activity or are fraudulent, deceptive or misleading.

In conclusion, I do not find that the referenced statements sent via Nixle violate Nixle’s

Terms of Service. Both communications were made by the Administration of a municipal

government to communicate with residents regarding issues that impact the City, which I believe

is in accordance with the permitted uses and with the purpose of the Nixle service.