Council, media panel at odds over Web site
Debate centers on action to eliminate site's opinion page
BY SETH MANDEL
Staff Writer

Call it a "Catch-22."In response to recent controversy over material published on the borough's Web site, the Milltown Borough Council Monday took action that sparked a debate between members of the council and a group of volunteers who run the Web site and local cable access Channel 22.

The council introduced an ordinance that combined the Web site and TV station volunteers under one committee, the Cable Television Advisory and Borough Web Site Committee. The ordinance also set guidelines to govern content on the Web site, www.milltownnj.org, and one guideline in particular was the subject of much discussion.

The ordinance reads: "There will be no editorial, letters, voice or any other broadcast editorials section on the Milltown Web site."

"Basically, there are no bylaws or anything with our Web site committee," Councilman William Deinzer said at Monday's meeting. "In talking with the mayor and some of the council members, we wanted to bring that up to speed. We also wanted Channel 22 to work on their bylaws and bring them up to speed."

But some of the media committee volunteers protested the council taking action Monday; Russ Einbinder, who has led the cable committee for nearly a decade, said its members have been working for months to come up with their own set of guidelines, which were requested by the council and were to be reviewed by the council before adoption.

"Before you guys go ahead and pass this, maybe you could table it for a while and see the stuff that we're coming up with first," Einbinder said. "Because that's kind of what we were led to believe, and actually pretty much told - that you're going to see what we have - and that's not happening. We're afraid it's going to go through and it won't incorporate all the things that are good for Milltown, because it's going to be a rush job."

The issue of having opinion content on the site has been the subject of debate for months.

In October, a letter appeared on the site from a former borough employee who claimed to be unfairly terminated. Chris Grotkopf, the volunteer webmaster since the site's creation in the fall of 2003, was ordered to remove the letter. After initially consenting, Grotkopf again posted the letter. Grotkopf said at the time that he had never before been asked to pull material from the site and had never censored material for the site.

The day after he reposted the letter, Grotkopf received word from borough Business Administrator Denise Biancamano that the Borough Council on Oct. 24 passed a resolution designating the Web site as the official borough site. She requested that Grotkopf remove the entire letters page until bylaws could be put in place to govern such content.

Some felt the council's move smacked of politics. Grotkopf had run for council on the Republican ticket the year before, and was the GOP campaign manager for this past November's election.

But Councilmen Mike Skarzynski and Kevin Bosworth, both Democrats, said the letter Grotkopf was ordered to remove made a private issue public, which was inappropriate because personnel matters are to be kept confidential. There was also the possibility of impending litigation concerning the employee's termination, they said.

The two sides continued to be at odds. Grotkopf said he was put in a difficult position because there was no committee, and he had no one to consult with when such issues arose. Grotkopf posted Biancamano's letter to him, which stated that any letters to be placed on the site would require council approval.

Grotkopf was subsequently locked out of the site, but was able to log back in, and the back-and-forth resumed.

In February, Grotkopf teamed up with Einbinder to form the Milltown Media Committee, and decisions regarding content were to be made by that committee.

On Monday night, Grotkopf appealed to the council to let the committee determine the future of the opinion portion of the Web site. He apologized for posting the letter in the fall and for challenging the council's ruling. At the time, he said, he alone was saddled with the responsibility of responding to the council's request for what he had considered censorship.

"There will never be another letter like that posted on the Web site," Grotkopf told the council. "But there are some informative letters that make their way to the Web site. There was some good dialogue about the school budget, there was some good dialogue about the need for a new firehouse."

Grotkopf said the committee members have been mulling over the possibility of taking down the letters page, which is now called "Milltown: A Matter of Opinions." Currently, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that reads: "The opinions expressed on this page are not necessarily the views of the mayor, Borough Council, Milltown Media Committee, Milltown businesses or any other borough employee."

Grotkopf said there is talk of starting another, unaffiliated Web site that would serve as a forum for residents.

But the decision to take down the opinion page should be made by the committee, not the council, Grotkopf said.

"It's a close vote, but we're going to do the right thing, so give us a chance," Grotkopf said.

He said the opinions page has caused him sleepless nights, and he understands the council's concerns. But he objects to the fact that the ordinance was not brought to the committee before being introduced.

"We appreciate your opinions, please appreciate ours," he said.

The issue of the former employee's letter was not the lone incident regarding such matters, however. The issue resurfaced recently when a letter that was printed in area newspapers was posted on the site.

The letter was written by a member of the Ford Avenue Redevelopment Agency, and resident Alex Wiener felt he was unfairly slighted in the letter. Wiener came before the council to protest, not the letter's content, but its placement on the borough's official site.

Wiener again appeared before the council Monday, asking the governing body not to remove the opinions page entirely, but to be watchful of its content.

"I think that there definitely is a place for opinions on the Web site, provided it's done in a mature and responsible way," Wiener said. He said eliminating the page "closes the door to a lot of very potentially good things."

Bob Belloff, a member of the committee, told the council that the ordinance seemed to focus more on the Web site than on Channel 22, and specifically targets the opinions portion of the site. Borough Attorney Patrick Diegnan said that was because there are existing bylaws that govern the TV station that simply require updating, but there is nothing on the books concerning the Web site.

Deinzer said the council's action does not negate the committee's work, but that the committee's efforts are focused on Channel 22, whereas the ordinance's purpose is to outline the functions of the Web site.

"There were a lot of questions with the Channel 22 bylaws from earlier years, and all we're doing is updating it," Deinzer said. "This only puts in place the Web site as we want to take it, where we want it to be. And that's what I've been working on with the mayor and council."

Belloff said his impression was that the council wanted the committee's input on the Web site.

"You wanted us not only to draft a set of bylaws that affect Channel 22, but also the Web site," Belloff said.

"Right," Deinzer responded. "And I told you to keep working on Channel 22 bylaws, and I told you I would go back to the mayor and council and I will see where we're going to be with the Web site, and this is where we're at with the Web site."

Diegnan added that the ordinance formally merges the Web site committee with the TV station's committee.

It was also pointed out that, according to the ordinance, the site's content will be at the discretion of a webmaster appointed by the council, and by the business administrator. The council will oversee any changes made to the site.

But that, Belloff contended, would effectively leave the media committee out of that equation, and the Web site technically makes up half the committee's administrative responsibilities. This is one reason, Belloff said, the committee members were surprised by the timing of the ordinance.

"Because the ordinance essentially makes an end run around what we're working for," Belloff said. There are a lot of issues to consider, he said, when discussing what is appropriate content for the Web site.

He agreed that there are letters that should not be posted on the site, but added that some residents cannot attend all the council, Board of Education and Land Use Board meetings, and can only express their opinions by posting them on the site.

"We're trying to take out the worst of that, and we're trying to incorporate the best," Belloff said, adding that some residents support the opinions page, while others are opposed.

"But I think that the volunteers of the committee deserve the chance to hash this out; we deserve to have meetings about it and we deserve to be heard," Belloff said.

Councilman Eric Steeber then asked Diegnan about the legal ramifications of a letter that makes unsubstantiated claims about a person. Diegnan responded that the issue is complicated: if the person about whom the claims were made is a public official, there is little or no legal recourse to be taken against the author of the letter. If the person is not a public official, then libel laws would apply.

"It's an issue that every town grapples with," Diegnan said, adding that it is common for a municipality's official Web site to be strictly informational.

Steeber asked if a possibly libelous letter posted on the borough's official Web site could open up the borough, the webmaster or the author to legal repercussions.

"Possibly all of the above," Diegnan responded.

Belloff returned to the microphone to state that not even in the most extreme cases would the committee choose to allow everything that is submitted to be posted on the site.

The meeting opened with a presentation honoring the memories of war veterans from the borough who had been killed in battle. Councilman John Collins, the only council member to vote against the ordinance, said just prior to the meeting's adjournment, that the right to freedom of speech was one of the freedoms those soldiers fought to protect.

"What would those 16 people get up here and say right now?" Collins asked.

After the meeting, Collins told the Sentinel he would prefer that the volunteers have a chance to make their recommendations before the council drafts the ordinance.

"I feel that it's going to infringe upon our volunteers and people's first amendment rights to express an opinion," Collins said.

Steeber then took some time to address the thought process behind the ordinance.

"My feeling is the council isn't sidestepping [the committee's efforts], although I can understand they had a dialogue going, and all of a sudden this is created. They didn't know it was coming, they were blind-sided," Steeber said. "I didn't expect to see it so soon. But I understand Councilman Deinzer's concern and I understand what he's looking to do, but I also understand that it is important for the committee to put together their bylaws."

All the council members, Steeber said, value the input of the committee. The opinions page, he said, is only one decision of many to be made, but it is the only content-related decision the ordinance makes, aside from its provision that the site has no political affiliation of any kind.

Steeber said that he supports the council having the right to appoint a webmaster, since it is the official site. He is not, however, in favor of the existence of an opinions page on the Web site.

"Although I appreciate the feeling of what they want to do, and as much as it's going to generate a lot of talk and it's going to help formulate opinions and solve problems, I really don't think that the official Web site is the place to do it," Steeber said.

One issue that was noted by both committee and council members was that the amount of negativity, confrontation and debate that has been caused by the opinions page has been counterproductive to the original goal of the site. That conflict, Steeber said, can be avoided by removing the opinions page and letting residents express their views on a site that is not funded by the borough.

"I feel that a Milltown Web site should be for informational purposes," Steeber said, "and basically put out the positive of what Milltown is and what it has to offer."