The Toms River Township Council voted 4-3 on March 11, 2026 to pass a resolution of no confidence in Mayor Daniel Rodrick, according to the official council meeting minutes published on the township website.

The resolution was introduced from the floor by Council Vice President Nivison and seconded by Council Member Bradley. Council members Bradley, Bianchini, Nivison, and Council President Ciccozzi voted yes. Council members Coleman, Aber, and O’Toole voted no. Mayor Rodrick’s response to the resolution, if any, was not recorded in the minutes. No opposing council members’ remarks on the resolution appear in the minutes either.

What the resolution says

The resolution lists seven specific grievances against the mayor. A no-confidence resolution is a formal expression of the governing body’s position — it does not remove the mayor from office or change any township policy. It does become part of the official record, and the minutes note that certified copies were sent to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and the Toms River Ethics Board.

The grievances cited in the resolution are:

Police staffing. The resolution states that the township’s sworn officer count dropped from 163 in January 2024 to approximately 146 by late 2025, and that the mayor failed to act on a petition to restore police positions.

Animal shelter closure. The resolution states that the mayor closed the township animal shelter without council approval, despite a $1 million donation offer to keep it operating.

Business Administrator appointment. The resolution states that Mayor Rodrick appointed Warren “Drew” Chabot as Business Administrator after initially hiring him as Recreation Director at $105,000. Chabot was then elevated to Acting Business Administrator at $175,000, according to the resolution.

Special counsel conflict. The resolution states that the mayor pushed for the appointment of Donald Burke as Special Counsel while Burke was personally representing the mayor in a Middletown school tenure litigation matter, and that this conflict was not disclosed at the time of the council’s 4-3 vote to approve the appointment.

Insurance renewal. The resolution describes what it calls a “manufactured crisis” related to the township’s JIF insurance renewal, stating the mayor failed to secure a timely renewal.

Code enforcement. The resolution states that the mayor failed to enforce rental inspections and code enforcement requirements while pursuing affordable housing negotiations.

Publishing personal phone numbers. The resolution states that on March 10, 2026 — the day before the council meeting — the mayor sent an official township letter to residents that included the personal cell phone numbers of four council members (Bianchini, Nivison, Ciccozzi, and Bradley) without their consent.

Political context

The 4-3 vote followed the same factional split that appeared in most contested votes at the March 11 meeting, including the votes on rent leveling repeal and the affordable housing overlay zone ordinances. The four council members who voted for the no-confidence resolution (Bradley, Bianchini, Nivison, Ciccozzi) voted as a bloc on those items, while the opposing bloc (Coleman, Aber, O’Toole) carried the affordable housing ordinances with three votes and abstentions from the majority.

The meeting ran from 6:30 PM to 11:03 PM, according to the minutes. Resident Dennis Galante noted during public comment that the meeting’s live stream had ended before the meeting concluded.

What a no-confidence resolution does

Under New Jersey law, a no-confidence resolution is a statement of the council’s position. It does not trigger removal proceedings, override the mayor’s authority, or compel any action. Only a recall election under N.J.S.A. 19:27A-1 can remove a mayor before the end of a term.

What happens next

The council’s next regular meeting was scheduled for April 8, 2026. The minutes note that a separate police minimum staffing ordinance was voted on at the March 11 meeting, but the vote record is ambiguous — three council members are recorded with both “Yes” and “No” alongside a note that an amendment would be considered on April 8.

This article is based on official council meeting minutes published on the Toms River Township website. The grievances described above are claims made in the resolution — this article does not independently verify each allegation, including the specific staffing figures, the donation offer, or the special counsel conflict.