The Borough of Englewood Cliffs (Bergen County) wishes for me to pay up to $339.79 for the audio recording of a December 8, 2010 Borough Council meeting. The Borough posits that the meeting was recorded on audio tape and that since the Borough now uses CD technology, it needs to use a private vendor, at $135 per hour, to duplicate the 2.5 hour meeting recording.
My OPRA request, the Borough's response and my reply to that response are on-line here.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Downe Township agrees to make minutes promptly available
After receiving my notice of an intended lawsuit, the Downe Township (Cumberland County) Committee passed a May 7, 2012 resolution promising to make draft copies of both its public meeting minutes and the nonexempt portions of its nonpublic (closed or executive) meeting minutes publicly available "the sooner to occur of thirty (30) days after a meeting or prior to the next scheduled meeting, whichever occurs first." My threatened lawsuit, Committee resolution and cover letters are on-line here.
Downe Township is a rural township of about 1,700 inhabitants that borders the Delaware Bay. Some towns, due to their small size, claim that they don't have the staff or resources to keep their minutes up to date. The fact that Downe is able to promise to make both its open and closed minutes publicly available prior to the next meeting challenges the "we're too small" excuse.
Downe Township is a rural township of about 1,700 inhabitants that borders the Delaware Bay. Some towns, due to their small size, claim that they don't have the staff or resources to keep their minutes up to date. The fact that Downe is able to promise to make both its open and closed minutes publicly available prior to the next meeting challenges the "we're too small" excuse.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Closed session resolutions in the minutes are different than those passed at the meeting.
I have threatened to sue the Clinton Township (Hunterdon County) Board of Education for violating the Open Public Meetings Act in a way that is new to me--by passing a verbal, closed session motion/resolution during a public meeting that differs substantially from the version of the motion/resolution that is recorded in the meeting's minutes.
By comparing the audio of the Board's meetings with the written minutes, I have found several examples where the Board passed a simple motion, in the nature of "I move that we go into executive session," but then recorded a much more verbose version of the motion in the meeting minutes. One of the main purposes of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13, which requires that public body pass a resolution in public before going into executive or closed session, is to inform the members of the public in attendance of nature of the matters that the body is going to privately discuss. For a public body to simply say that it's going into executive session and then include the details of what topics were privately discussed in the meeting's minutes--which won't be publicly available until weeks later--works against that purpose.
To make matters worse, the resolutions that eventually appear in the Clinton Board's public minutes are themselves defective because they give the public no meaningful sense of what topics were privately discussed. For example, the Board's March 26, 2012 resolution simply states that "matters of personnel and legal rendered confidential" were discussed in closed session.
My threatened lawsuit is on-line here and a Word 2007 version of it is on-line here.
I have invited the Board to discuss the proposed lawsuit at its May 14, 2012 meeting and have suggested that it could resolve the matter by agreeing to use my "model form" of closed resolution which is on-line here.
By comparing the audio of the Board's meetings with the written minutes, I have found several examples where the Board passed a simple motion, in the nature of "I move that we go into executive session," but then recorded a much more verbose version of the motion in the meeting minutes. One of the main purposes of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13, which requires that public body pass a resolution in public before going into executive or closed session, is to inform the members of the public in attendance of nature of the matters that the body is going to privately discuss. For a public body to simply say that it's going into executive session and then include the details of what topics were privately discussed in the meeting's minutes--which won't be publicly available until weeks later--works against that purpose.
To make matters worse, the resolutions that eventually appear in the Clinton Board's public minutes are themselves defective because they give the public no meaningful sense of what topics were privately discussed. For example, the Board's March 26, 2012 resolution simply states that "matters of personnel and legal rendered confidential" were discussed in closed session.
My threatened lawsuit is on-line here and a Word 2007 version of it is on-line here.
I have invited the Board to discuss the proposed lawsuit at its May 14, 2012 meeting and have suggested that it could resolve the matter by agreeing to use my "model form" of closed resolution which is on-line here.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Atlantic County Prosecutor's letter on OPMA
For the first time in my experience, the Atlantic County Prosecutor has taken a position on an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) issue. In a March 27, 2012 letter, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Diane M. Ruberton advised that the Absecon Board of Education would have violated the OPMA if it had voted "through an exchange of e-mails to amend the budget to appropriate money for an increase in high school tuition." But, Ruberton opined that since "no vote was ever taken and the matter was scheduled to be addressed at a public meeting, . . . no violation of the Open Public Meeting Act ever actually occurred." Ruberton's letter is on-line here and the complainant's letter to the prosecutor's office is on-line here.
Are "private prisons" subject to OPRA?
On Friday, April 20, 2012, at 9 a.m., Essex County Superior Court Judge Rachel N. Davidson will conduct an Order to Show Cause hearing in the case of John Paff v. Community Educational Centers, Inc., Docket No. ESX-L-1658-12. This case presents an issue of first impression in New Jersey--whether taxpayers lose their right to access government records when the government "contracts out" a traditional governmental function--in this case correctional services--to a private entity.
In New Jersey, 11.4% of non-federal prisoners are housed in private facilities. Yet, as currently applied, the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), while allowing citizens access to certain categories of records held by government-run prisons, denies access to those very same categories when held by private prisons. It seems to me that the public's rights under OPRA shouldn't turn on the government's decision to privatize its functions rather than executing them through government employees.
The hearing, which is open to the press and public, will be held in Courtroom 302 at the Historic Courthouse at 470 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd in Newark. Plaintiff's lawyer is Richard Gutman of Montclair (973-744-6038) and the private prison's lawyers are Debra Shannon and Nichoele Johnson of West Caldwell (973-226-2900). The briefs filed by both parties are on-line here. Anyone who wishes to attend the hearing is cautioned to telephone the court at 973-693-6716 on Thursday to ensure that it hasn't been postponed.
In New Jersey, 11.4% of non-federal prisoners are housed in private facilities. Yet, as currently applied, the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), while allowing citizens access to certain categories of records held by government-run prisons, denies access to those very same categories when held by private prisons. It seems to me that the public's rights under OPRA shouldn't turn on the government's decision to privatize its functions rather than executing them through government employees.
The hearing, which is open to the press and public, will be held in Courtroom 302 at the Historic Courthouse at 470 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd in Newark. Plaintiff's lawyer is Richard Gutman of Montclair (973-744-6038) and the private prison's lawyers are Debra Shannon and Nichoele Johnson of West Caldwell (973-226-2900). The briefs filed by both parties are on-line here. Anyone who wishes to attend the hearing is cautioned to telephone the court at 973-693-6716 on Thursday to ensure that it hasn't been postponed.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Mercer Prosecutor criticizes Trenton Council over tardy minutes
In a March 27, 2012 letter, Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph L. Bocchini, Jr. took the Trenton City Council to task for not making "available to the public written minutes of [Council] meetings for a substantial period of time."
Citing N.J.S.A. 10:4-14, Bocchini told the Council that going forward, minutes "should be made 'promptly available' to the public and noted that a 1986 court decision defined "promptly available" as meaning within two weeks after the meeting.
As for the Council's backlog of minutes from previous meetings, Bocchini asked the Council to provide him "with a timetable when minutes from past meetings will be complete and available to the public."
Bocchini's letter is on-line here.
I wish to thank Trenton resident Jim Carlucci for bringing this matter to the prosecutor's attention and for sharing Bocchini's letter with me. It's not often that a county prosecutor enforces the Open Public Meetings Act. Bocchini's letter is refreshing and may help convince other prosecutors around New Jersey to take action on complaints about tardy disclosure of meeting minutes.
Citing N.J.S.A. 10:4-14, Bocchini told the Council that going forward, minutes "should be made 'promptly available' to the public and noted that a 1986 court decision defined "promptly available" as meaning within two weeks after the meeting.
As for the Council's backlog of minutes from previous meetings, Bocchini asked the Council to provide him "with a timetable when minutes from past meetings will be complete and available to the public."
Bocchini's letter is on-line here.
I wish to thank Trenton resident Jim Carlucci for bringing this matter to the prosecutor's attention and for sharing Bocchini's letter with me. It's not often that a county prosecutor enforces the Open Public Meetings Act. Bocchini's letter is refreshing and may help convince other prosecutors around New Jersey to take action on complaints about tardy disclosure of meeting minutes.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Lavallette to investigate taxpayer organization critical of Borough operations
According to the ninth page of its March 12, 2012 minutes, the Lavallette Borough Council (Ocean County) voted to have its Borough attorney "investigate the non-profit, non-partisan status" of the Lavallette Voters & Taxpayers Association.
The decision came after Mayor Walter G. LaCicero received the Association's recent newsletter and found it "pretty disturbing and filled with a lot of inaccuracies." Mayor LaCicero said that he investigated the Association and found it to be run by a cabal of Democrats who "commandeered" the Association in order to mount "a partisan attack against the Republican Council."
As evidence of the Association's evil intent, Mayor LaCicero noted that the Association "brought in" an open government advocate from Somerset County which "resulted in thousands of dollars in costs to the Borough to comply" with the Open Public Records Act. (The Government Records Council (GRC) decision, which found that Lavallette failed to abide by OPRA as well as the GRC's December 18, 2008 Interim Order is on-line here.)
When Joseph Ardito, a member of the Association, attempted to address the mayor's comments and the council's action, Mayor LaCicero did not permit him to speak.
The decision came after Mayor Walter G. LaCicero received the Association's recent newsletter and found it "pretty disturbing and filled with a lot of inaccuracies." Mayor LaCicero said that he investigated the Association and found it to be run by a cabal of Democrats who "commandeered" the Association in order to mount "a partisan attack against the Republican Council."
As evidence of the Association's evil intent, Mayor LaCicero noted that the Association "brought in" an open government advocate from Somerset County which "resulted in thousands of dollars in costs to the Borough to comply" with the Open Public Records Act. (The Government Records Council (GRC) decision, which found that Lavallette failed to abide by OPRA as well as the GRC's December 18, 2008 Interim Order is on-line here.)
When Joseph Ardito, a member of the Association, attempted to address the mayor's comments and the council's action, Mayor LaCicero did not permit him to speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
