Download original attachment
(PDF file)

This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Open Public Records Act request 'NJ League of Municipalities Records Involving OPRA (Open Public Records Act)'.

From:
John Burns
To:
John Donnadio ([email protected]); Lori Buckelew
Subject:
FW: Latest OPRA/OPMA Amendments
Date:
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:46:17 AM
Attachments:
N209_0002.docx
N209_0001.docx
See below.
 
John J. Burns, Esq.
Counsel
NJ School Boards Association
413 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08618-5697
[email protected]
609-278-5275
www.njsba.org
 
From: Mitchell, Shane <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:25 AM
To: John Burns <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Latest OPRA/OPMA Amendments
 
Hey John,
 
Here are the amendments that would have been up yesterday. Will update you if there are any more
changes coming down the pike… but there are none planned as of right now.
 
Best,
Shane
 
From: John Burns [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:11 PM
To: Mitchell, Shane
Subject: RE: Latest OPRA/OPMA Amendments
 
Thanks!  Will review and get back to you.
 
John J. Burns, Esq.
Counsel
NJ School Boards Association
413 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08618-5697
[email protected]
609-278-5275
www.njsba.org
 
From: Mitchell, Shane <[email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:09 PM
To: John Burns <[email protected]>
Subject: Latest OPRA/OPMA Amendments
 
Hey John,
 
Just got these back from the drafter a few minutes ago! Happy to discuss any issues NJSBA might
have with the latest changes.
 
Best,
--
Shane Mitchell
Legislative Director
Senator Loretta Weinberg
Senate Majority Leader
(201) 928-0100
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA
Date:
Monday, January 7, 2019 1:17:28 PM
Attachments:
N06_0063.docx
Lori and Frank,  Please review attached.    Looks like Cryan will drop this soon.
 
mike
 
From: Paul Anzano [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 1:18 PM
To: Michael J. Darcy, CAE <[email protected]>; Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>;
Michele.Hovan <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Three M’s  Please take a look and offer me any comments you may have.  This is what Senator Cryan
is willing to introduce in response to my discussion with him about that electronic fence company
and its’ lawyer requesting pet licensing information and then suing if the government entity is a day
late with no subsequent attempt to resolve the request. Thank you. Paul
 
From: Cohen, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Please take a read…. 




From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA
Date:
Monday, January 7, 2019 1:40:01 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
N06_0063.docx
 
Michael J. Darcy, CAE | Executive Director
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608
609-695-3481 extn 116
c-609-510-9472
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
 
From: Paul Anzano [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 1:18 PM
To: Michael J. Darcy, CAE; Michael F. Cerra; Michele.Hovan
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Three M’s  Please take a look and offer me any comments you may have.  This is what Senator Cryan
is willing to introduce in response to my discussion with him about that electronic fence company
and its’ lawyer requesting pet licensing information and then suing if the government entity is a day
late with no subsequent attempt to resolve the request. Thank you. Paul
 
From: Cohen, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Please take a read…. 
From:
Paul Anzano
To:
Michael J. Darcy, CAE; Michael F. Cerra; Michele.Hovan
Subject:
FW: OPRA
Date:
Monday, January 7, 2019 1:15:30 PM
Attachments:
N06_0063.docx
Three M’s  Please take a look and offer me any comments you may have.  This is what Senator Cryan
is willing to introduce in response to my discussion with him about that electronic fence company
and its’ lawyer requesting pet licensing information and then suing if the government entity is a day
late with no subsequent attempt to resolve the request. Thank you. Paul
 
From: Cohen, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Please take a read…. 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
OPRA Case Law
Date:
Thursday, October 25, 2018 1:08:55 PM
Attachments:
BOLKIN v. Borough of Fair Lawn, NJ_ Appellate Div. 2014.pdf
Rich Bernstein v. Borough of Allendale GRC Decision 2004-195.pdf
2009 WL 1562967 Altantic County SPCA v Absecon.pdf
This communication is not legal advice and all information contained within should be review
with legal counsel for further guidance.
 
The matter of disclosure of dog and cat license applications under OPRA is not definitive but
unpublished case law has determined that dog and cat liscense applications are government records
that must be disclosed under OPRA.  Attached are two court cases dealing with the disclosure of dog
and cat license applications. 
 
Bolkin v. Fair Lawn is an unpublished appellate court decision that seemingly overturned the GRC’s
prior holding in Bernstein v Allendale (also attached) which indicated that information contained in
dog and cat license applications was exempt from OPRA under the privacy exemption.   This decision
is unique in that the requestor’s use of the dog and cat license information was for political speech
purposes. 
 
Atlantic Count SPCA v. Absecon, another unpublished decision, ruled prior to Bolkin, that dog and cat
license applications were not exempt from OPRA disclosure.  In this case the requestor’s purpose for
getting the documents was to monitor animal owners. 
 
Regards,
Frank
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
From:
Carl Woodward
To:
Frank F. Caruso ([email protected])
Cc:
Lori Buckelew ([email protected])
Subject:
OPRA Presentation for League Convention
Date:
Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:25:19 AM
Attachments:
NJILGA 2018 OPRA Prsentation V.2.DOC
Frank,
 
Enclosed is a copy of the case summary that I will be using next Wednesday.  I suggest that we speak
in advance to go over topics, order, etc.
 
Regards,
 
Carl R. Woodward, III
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, P.A.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Phone:  (973) 994-1700
Fax:  (973) 994-1744
Email:  [email protected]
 
The contents of this e-mail message are from the law firm of Carella, Byrne and any
attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this message. This
communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable
attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the
sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver,
distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended
recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information
contained in this communication or any attachments.
 
IRS Circular 230 disclosure:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless
expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
 
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by
Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more
useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out
more Click Here.
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject:
OPRA/OPMA Amendments
Date:
Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:25:07 AM
Attachments:
N209_0001.docx
N209_0002.docx
Folks,
 
It is that time again when Senator Weinberg bills are scheduled before the Senate Budget
Committee on Monday (Oct 15) and additional amendments will be made to the bills.  Attached are
a copy of the proposed amendments we received from Senator Weinberg’s office today.  Can you
please provide me with your thoughts as soon as possible.  To expedite the discussion here are the
changes:
 
S-106 (OPMA)
 
·        The definition of agenda is amended to include collective bargaining agreements (cba) and
the number of employees covered by the cba under the identification of contracts, including
employment contracts. This requirement, in practice, would require a town when ratifying
an union contract to include on the agenda the number of employees subject to the cba and
approximate dollar value.  For example, Ratifying PBA Local 1 contract covering 8 employees
with an approximate dollar value of $800,000.  This amendment was to address the concern
with having to name every employee under the contract on the agenda to comply with the
new requirement of including “…identify the names of the parties to and approximate dollar
amounts of any contacts, including employment contracts…” for adequate notice.
 
S-107 (OPRA)
 
·        Amends legislative findings to include access to “electronic transmission”
 
·        Amends the definition of “commercial purpose” to remove “solicitation”. In speaking with
Senator Weinberg’s staff this was done at the request of the ACLU. They were concerned
that if they used names and addresses from OPRA request on another matter as part of their
solicitation they could be considered commercial. This is a problem as most of the
commercial request local units receive is for solicitation purposes.
 
·        Added “and public” to the exemption of information, including location of private alarm
systems and surveillance systems.  This was a NJLM suggestion
 
·        Added “month and day of birth” to the list of items exempted from disclosure from OPRA
 
·        Amended definition of “criminal investigatory record” to not include “footage captured on a
mobile video recording system as that term is defined in section 1 of P.L. 2014, c. 54
(C.40A:14-118.1)”
 
·        Removed the requirement of affidavit or certified written statement for redactions so it is
now just a written statement on redactions.  This was a NJAC concern.
 
·        Amends the section if the records that are in electronic format then the records custodian
notifies the requestor that the records are available in electronic format and can be provided
at no cost. The amendments include the requirement that the records custodian notify the
requestor within 3 business days; may allow the delivery in electronic format;  and removes
the requirement for the records custodian to notify the requestor if the requestor  has
requested the record be provided in a printed format. In speaking with Senator Weinberg’s
staff the 3 business day requirement was a drafting error and will be removed.
 
·        Removes the term “commercial” from the OPRA request form so it reads “The form shall
also include a space for  a requestor to certify that the information will be used for a
commercial purpose”
 
·        Removes the requirement that the denial of record be on the OPRA request form. Instead it
should be transmitted written statement specifying the reasons to the requestor.
 
·        Changes the section on appointment of additional municipal staff to response to OPRA
request. For municipalities the governing body, instead of the records custodian, may
appoint one or more deputy custodians who shall act on the record custodian’s behalf for
any OPRA request and make the record available under the law.  However such appointment
does not relieve the records custodian of any responsibility under OPRA.  
 
·         Amends the section on request received after 12 noon to be deemed to be received the
next business day to include an exception for records available under the immediate access
provisions
 
·        Removes the requirement for public agencies to adopt procedures to have computer
systems and computer applications collect, but not disclose, information exempt from
access but maintained as electronic records
 
·        Allows a requestor to institute a preceding to challenge the custodian’s decision; seek
injunction relief or both.  This was an ACLU request
 
·        Changes the composition of the Government Records Council (GRC)
 
·        Requires GRC to not only have their decisions as a searchable index on their website but
must also indicate, to the extent possible, whether or not an opinion has been superseded
by statute or invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
 
·        Removes the Office of Dispute Settlement Provision. This was done as the Office of Dispute
Settlement no longer exist.
 
·
st
        
Increases the fines for falsifying that a request is not a commercial request to be $500 for 1
offense, $1,000 for 2nd offense and $2,000 for subsequent offenses. This was a NJLM
concern
 
·        Effective date is changed from 120 days to 180 days.  This was a NJLM concern.
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
OPRA/OPMA Amendments
Date:
Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:30:23 AM
Attachments:
N209_0001.docx
N209_0002.docx
Folks,
 
As you know on Monday (Oct 15) the Senate Budget Committee will be considering Senator
Weinberg’s OPRA and OPMA bills.  Attached are additional proposed amendments we received from
Senator Weinberg’s office.  Can you please provide me with your thoughts as soon as possible.  To
expedite the discussion here are the changes:
 
S-106 (OPMA)
 
·        The definition of agenda is amended to include collective bargaining agreements (cba) and
the number of employees covered by the cba under the identification of contracts, including
employment contracts. This requirement, in practice, would require a town when ratifying
an union contract to include on the agenda the number of employees subject to the cba and
approximate dollar value.  For example, Ratifying PBA Local 1 contract covering 8 employees
with an approximate dollar value of $800,000.  This amendment was to address the concern
with having to name every employee under the contract on the agenda to comply with the
new requirement of including “…identify the names of the parties to and approximate dollar
amounts of any contacts, including employment contracts…” for adequate notice.
 
S-107 (OPRA)
 
·        Amends legislative findings to include access to “electronic transmission”
 
·        Amends the definition of “commercial purpose” to remove “solicitation”. In speaking with
Senator Weinberg’s staff this was done at the request of the ACLU. They were concerned
that if they used names and addresses from OPRA request on another matter as part of their
solicitation they could be considered commercial. This is a problem as most of the
commercial request local units receive is for solicitation purposes.
 
·        Added “and public” to the exemption of information, including location of private alarm
systems and surveillance systems.  This was a NJLM suggestion
 
·        Added “month and day of birth” to the list of items exempted from disclosure from OPRA
 
·        Amended definition of “criminal investigatory record” to not include “footage captured on a
mobile video recording system as that term is defined in section 1 of P.L. 2014, c. 54
(C.40A:14-118.1)”
 
·        Removed the requirement of affidavit or certified written statement for redactions so it is
now just a written statement on redactions.  This was a NJAC concern.
 
·        Amends the section if the records that are in electronic format then the records custodian
notifies the requestor that the records are available in electronic format and can be provided
at no cost. The amendments include the requirement that the records custodian notify the
requestor within 3 business days; may allow the delivery in electronic format;  and removes
the requirement for the records custodian to notify the requestor if the requestor  has
requested the record be provided in a printed format. In speaking with Senator Weinberg’s
staff the 3 business day requirement was a drafting error and will be removed.
 
·        Removes the term “commercial” from the OPRA request form so it reads “The form shall
also include a space for  a requestor to certify that the information will be used for a
commercial purpose”
 
·        Removes the requirement that the denial of record be on the OPRA request form. Instead it
should be transmitted written statement specifying the reasons to the requestor.
 
·        Changes the section on appointment of additional municipal staff to response to OPRA
request. For municipalities the governing body, instead of the records custodian, may
appoint one or more deputy custodians who shall act on the record custodian’s behalf for
any OPRA request and make the record available under the law.  However such appointment
does not relieve the records custodian of any responsibility under OPRA.  
 
·         Amends the section on request received after 12 noon to be deemed to be received the
next business day to include an exception for records available under the immediate access
provisions
 
·        Removes the requirement for public agencies to adopt procedures to have computer
systems and computer applications collect, but not disclose, information exempt from
access but maintained as electronic records
 
·        Allows a requestor to institute a preceding to challenge the custodian’s decision; seek
injunction relief or both.  This was an ACLU request
 
·        Changes the composition of the Government Records Council (GRC)
 
·        Requires GRC to not only have their decisions as a searchable index on their website but
must also indicate, to the extent possible, whether or not an opinion has been superseded
by statute or invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
 
·        Removes the Office of Dispute Settlement Provision. This was done as the Office of Dispute
Settlement no longer exist.
 
·        Increases the fines for falsifying that a request is not a commercial request to be $500 for 1st
nd
offense, $1,000 for 2  offense and $2,000 for subsequent offenses. This was a NJLM
concern
 
·        Effective date is changed from 120 days to 180 days.  This was a NJLM concern.
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
OPRA/OPMA Amendments
Date:
Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:27:53 AM
Attachments:
N209_0001.docx
N209_0002.docx
Sharing with you a summary of the proposed amendments.  I would note that I spoke with Shane
yesterday. The 3 business day requirement for electronic records was a drafting error and should be
removed.
 
 
S-106 (OPMA)
 
·        The definition of agenda is amended to include collective bargaining agreements (cba) and
the number of employees covered by the cba under the identification of contracts, including
employment contracts. This requirement, in practice, would require a town when ratifying
an union contract to include on the agenda the number of employees subject to the cba and
approximate dollar value.  For example, Ratifying PBA Local 1 contract covering 8 employees
with an approximate dollar value of $800,000.  This amendment was to address the concern
with having to name every employee under the contract on the agenda to comply with the
new requirement of including “…identify the names of the parties to and approximate dollar
amounts of any contacts, including employment contracts…” for adequate notice.
 
S-107 (OPRA)
 
·        Amends legislative findings to include access to “electronic transmission”
 
·        Amends the definition of “commercial purpose” to remove “solicitation”. In speaking with
Senator Weinberg’s staff this was done at the request of the ACLU. They were concerned
that if they used names and addresses from OPRA request on another matter as part of their
solicitation they could be considered commercial. This is a problem as most of the
commercial request local units receive is for solicitation purposes.
 
·        Added “and public” to the exemption of information, including location of private alarm
systems and surveillance systems.  This was a NJLM suggestion
 
·        Added “month and day of birth” to the list of items exempted from disclosure from OPRA
 
·        Amended definition of “criminal investigatory record” to not include “footage captured on a
mobile video recording system as that term is defined in section 1 of P.L. 2014, c. 54
(C.40A:14-118.1)”
 
·        Removed the requirement of affidavit or certified written statement for redactions so it is
now just a written statement on redactions.  This was a NJAC concern.
 
·        Amends the section if the records that are in electronic format then the records custodian
notifies the requestor that the records are available in electronic format and can be provided
at no cost. The amendments include the requirement that the records custodian notify the
requestor within 3 business days; may allow the delivery in electronic format;  and removes
the requirement for the records custodian to notify the requestor if the requestor  has
requested the record be provided in a printed format. In speaking with Senator Weinberg’s
staff the 3 business day requirement was a drafting error and will be removed.
 
·        Removes the term “commercial” from the OPRA request form so it reads “The form shall
also include a space for  a requestor to certify that the information will be used for a
commercial purpose”
 
·        Removes the requirement that the denial of record be on the OPRA request form. Instead it
should be transmitted written statement specifying the reasons to the requestor.
 
·        Changes the section on appointment of additional municipal staff to response to OPRA
request. For municipalities the governing body, instead of the records custodian, may
appoint one or more deputy custodians who shall act on the record custodian’s behalf for
any OPRA request and make the record available under the law.  However such appointment
does not relieve the records custodian of any responsibility under OPRA.  
 
·         Amends the section on request received after 12 noon to be deemed to be received the
next business day to include an exception for records available under the immediate access
provisions
 
·        Removes the requirement for public agencies to adopt procedures to have computer
systems and computer applications collect, but not disclose, information exempt from
access but maintained as electronic records
 
·        Allows a requestor to institute a preceding to challenge the custodian’s decision; seek
injunction relief or both.  This was an ACLU request
 
·        Changes the composition of the Government Records Council (GRC)
 
·        Requires GRC to not only have their decisions as a searchable index on their website but
must also indicate, to the extent possible, whether or not an opinion has been superseded
by statute or invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
 
·        Removes the Office of Dispute Settlement Provision. This was done as the Office of Dispute
Settlement no longer exist.
 
·        Increases the fines for falsifying that a request is not a commercial request to be $500 for 1st
offense, $1,000 for 2nd offense and $2,000 for subsequent offenses. This was a NJLM
concern
 
·        Effective date is changed from 120 days to 180 days.  This was a NJLM concern.
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
RE: NJLM OPRA decision
Date:
Wednesday, September 5, 2018 10:41:11 AM
Attachments:
Fair Share Housing Center v NJSLOM - 207 NJ 489.pdf
Attached is a copy of the decision.
 
From: Michael J. Darcy, CAE 
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Frank Marshall
Subject: NJLM OPRA decision
 
Frank
Do you have a copy of the NJLM OPRA decision?  I want to give it to the bank as part of our
discussion on GUDPA.
Thanks
 
Michael J. Darcy, CAE, Executive Director
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 116
C-609-510-9472
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
From:
Mitchell, Shane
To:
Lori Buckelew
Subject:
RE: OPRA Amendments
Date:
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:26:13 AM
Attachments:
N209_0002.docx
N209_0001.docx
Hey Lori,
 
Here are the updated amendments. I’ll let you know if we get any new ideas from the Governor or
the members on SBA.
 
Best,
Shane
 
From: Mitchell, Shane 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 1:54 PM
To: 'Lori Buckelew'
Subject: RE: OPRA Amendments
 
Hey Lori,
 
Instead of a list, I just have updated amendments. Everything is much the same, except we took out
the ACLU’s change on victim’s records (with the ACLU’s agreement). The Press Association pointed
out some technical items… but otherwise I think this matches what we discussed over the summer.
Please let me know if there are any issues or if we got something wrong vis-à-vis the agreed changes
from the summer.
 
Best,
Shane
 
From: Mitchell, Shane 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:59 PM
To: 'Lori Buckelew'
Cc: Millsaps Wolfinger, Kate
Subject: RE: OPRA Amendments
 
Hey Lori,
 
I think I may have told you this in-person on Monday, but wanted to reiterate that we’re looking at
October 15th as a likely SBA date. Some of the other groups have identified issues in the
amendments, which I’m going to try to put in a list to circulate to everyone next week for comment.
If the League has something to add to that, please let me know!
 
Best,
Shane
 
From: Mitchell, Shane 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:04 AM
To: 'Lori Buckelew'
Cc: Millsaps Wolfinger, Kate
Subject: OPRA Amendments
 
Hey Lori,
 
Hope you had a good Labor Day weekend! I just received these draft amendments from OLS. Please
let me know if we missed something or added something that wasn’t agreed to! To my mind, there
are only two things here that were not discussed at the summer meeting.
 
First, we eliminated section 13 on the Office of Dispute Settlement. We mentioned at the meeting
that we were seeking a cost-neutral replacement for ODS, but none could be found! I’m talking now
with the Governor’s Office about additional funding for the GRC so they can handle their caseload in
a more expeditious fashion, but otherwise it looks like this is a problem NOT being addressed
through the bill.
 
Second, we added some language to the definition of criminal investigatory record to address the
recent Paff decision on mobile video recordings. The Senator wants to address the issue, but we’re
still thinking this one through. If the League has any suggestions, please let us know! As it stands, it
appears it will be incredibly rare for the public to ever have access to dashcam/bodycam footage;
whereas, the Senator believes that it would be appropriate for the public to have access if access
does not compromise an ongoing investigation or some privacy concern.
 
I’m sharing this with everyone else, too, so I imagine there will likely be a need for some tinkering
after everyone has a look. The Senator is still gunning for Senate Budget in September/October, so
hopefully we’ll all be on the same page by the end of the month!
 
Best,
Shane
From:
Mitchell, Shane
To:
Lori Buckelew
Subject:
RE: OPRA Amendments
Date:
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 1:53:50 PM
Attachments:
N209_0001.docx
N209_0002.docx
Hey Lori,
 
Instead of a list, I just have updated amendments. Everything is much the same, except we took out
the ACLU’s change on victim’s records (with the ACLU’s agreement). The Press Association pointed
out some technical items… but otherwise I think this matches what we discussed over the summer.
Please let me know if there are any issues or if we got something wrong vis-à-vis the agreed changes
from the summer.
 
Best,
Shane
 
From: Mitchell, Shane 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:59 PM
To: 'Lori Buckelew'
Cc: Millsaps Wolfinger, Kate
Subject: RE: OPRA Amendments
 
Hey Lori,
 
I think I may have told you this in-person on Monday, but wanted to reiterate that we’re looking at
October 15th as a likely SBA date. Some of the other groups have identified issues in the
amendments, which I’m going to try to put in a list to circulate to everyone next week for comment.
If the League has something to add to that, please let me know!
 
Best,
Shane
 
From: Mitchell, Shane 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 11:04 AM
To: 'Lori Buckelew'
Cc: Millsaps Wolfinger, Kate
Subject: OPRA Amendments
 
Hey Lori,
 
Hope you had a good Labor Day weekend! I just received these draft amendments from OLS. Please
let me know if we missed something or added something that wasn’t agreed to! To my mind, there
are only two things here that were not discussed at the summer meeting.
 
First, we eliminated section 13 on the Office of Dispute Settlement. We mentioned at the meeting
that we were seeking a cost-neutral replacement for ODS, but none could be found! I’m talking now
with the Governor’s Office about additional funding for the GRC so they can handle their caseload in
a more expeditious fashion, but otherwise it looks like this is a problem NOT being addressed
through the bill.
 
Second, we added some language to the definition of criminal investigatory record to address the
recent Paff decision on mobile video recordings. The Senator wants to address the issue, but we’re
still thinking this one through. If the League has any suggestions, please let us know! As it stands, it
appears it will be incredibly rare for the public to ever have access to dashcam/bodycam footage;
whereas, the Senator believes that it would be appropriate for the public to have access if access
does not compromise an ongoing investigation or some privacy concern.
 
I’m sharing this with everyone else, too, so I imagine there will likely be a need for some tinkering
after everyone has a look. The Senator is still gunning for Senate Budget in September/October, so
hopefully we’ll all be on the same page by the end of the month!
 
Best,
Shane
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA Request for Conference Registrants
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2018 1:40:34 PM
Attachments:
2018 Reg by Company #1.pdf
2018 Reg by Reg Type #2.pdf
Frank,
 
Attach are two sample reports one sorted by company and one sorted by registration
types
 
 
 
 
From: Frank Marshall 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Marie Johnson
Cc: Johnnifer Harris
Subject: OPRA Request for Conference Registrants
 
Marie & Johnnifer,
 
We received an OPRA request asking for the, “Record including title and municipality of all
those registered to attend the 2018 Conference.”  Is this something that is easily available? 
Give me a call to discuss further.
 
Thanks!
Frank 
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA request
Date:
Monday, December 10, 2018 3:50:33 PM
Attachments:
2018 Registration List 12-10-18.pdf
2018 Draft League Conference Resolutions.pdf
Survey_Report - 2018 Conference Badge Scan.xls
2018 12 03 - Katie Sobko - OPRA Request.docx
Katie,
 
In response to your records request, please find attached to this email the following:
·         “2018 Registration List 12-10-18” (pdf)
·         “2018 Draft League Conference Resolutions” (pdf)
·         “Survey_Report – 2018 Conference Badge Scan” (Microsoft Excel Worksheet)
 
Please note that the 2018 Registration List is subject to changes.  While all individuals who registered
for the League’s 2018 Conference are included in the list their titles and affiliation may be corrected.
   
 
For your convenience, I have also attached your initial OPRA request with notations regarding the
sessions with badge scanners.  The notations indicate with additional detail why scanner log
information is not available for the particular conference sessions you have requested.  There are a
variety of reasons for no scanners being present during the sessions, the most common reason is
because the sessions are not League sessions and scanners were not requested or supplied by the
League to those hosting the session.  Please note that this is merely being provided as a courtesy to
you.  While best efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of notations each session should be
verified before being relied on.
 
You should also note that the scanner records do not necessarily indicate all of those in attendance
at particular conference sessions.  There is no requirement that all of those who attend a conference
session scan in and out.  Typically those that scan in do so in order to have a record for professional
credentialing purposes.  Often times, those that do not need professional credits do not scan in or
out of conference sessions.
 
With this response I now consider your document request to be fully satisfied and complete.  Please
respond to this email to confirm receipt of these documents and to confirm full satisfaction of your
request for documents made under OPRA and the common law right of access.
 
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
 
Regards,
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
 
From: Frank Marshall 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 9:13 AM
To: 'Sobko, Katie'
Subject: RE: OPRA request
 
Katie,
 
This message is to confirm receipt of your records request. 
 
Regards,
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
 
 
From: Sobko, Katie [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 9:06 AM
To: OPRA
Subject: OPRA request
 
Please confirm receipt of this request via response e-mail. Thanks for your help.
 
Katie
 
 
Katie Sobko
Reporter
 
NorthJersey.com | The Record
PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK
North Jersey Media Group
1 Garret Mountain Plaza
Woodland Park, NJ 07424
Office: 973-569-7111
Cell: 973-271-8867
Fax: 201-457-2520
[email protected]
www.NorthJersey.com
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA
Date:
Monday, January 7, 2019 3:20:22 PM
Attachments:
N06 0063 - FM Comments.docx
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 x. 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
From: Michael F. Cerra 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 1:17 PM
To: Lori Buckelew; Frank Marshall
Cc: Michael J. Darcy, CAE
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Lori and Frank,  Please review attached.    Looks like Cryan will drop this soon.
 
mike
 
From: Paul Anzano [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 1:18 PM
To: Michael J. Darcy, CAE <[email protected]>; Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>;
Michele.Hovan <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Three M’s  Please take a look and offer me any comments you may have.  This is what Senator Cryan
is willing to introduce in response to my discussion with him about that electronic fence company
and its’ lawyer requesting pet licensing information and then suing if the government entity is a day
late with no subsequent attempt to resolve the request. Thank you. Paul
 
From: Cohen, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
Please take a read…. 
From:
John Burns
To:
Lori Buckelew; John Donnadio ([email protected]); Allen Weston
Cc:
Michael F. Cerra; Michael Vrancik
Subject:
RE: OPRA/OPMA Amendments
Date:
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:09:59 PM
Attachments:
N209_0001.docx
N209_0002.docx
Yes. Sorry.  I didn’t realize I was Weinberg’s point person for the loyal opposition.  Here are the
amendments.
 
I’m available all day Friday.  Perhaps Friday morning would work best?
 
John J. Burns, Esq.
Counsel
NJ School Boards Association
413 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08618-5697
[email protected]
609-278-5275
www.njsba.org
 
From: Lori Buckelew <[email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:05 PM
To: John Donnadio ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Allen Weston <[email protected]>;
John Burns <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>; Michael Vrancik <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA/OPMA Amendments
 
I understand that Senator Weinberg has sent you copies of the proposed amendments to the
OPRA/OPMA bills.  Do we want to schedule a quick conference call to discuss our game plan for
Monday?
 
Lori
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: MCANJ Statement OPMA OPRA
Date:
Monday, June 18, 2018 9:32:29 AM
 
 
From: Galland, Kevin [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 1:03 PM
To: Lori Buckelew
Subject: FW: MCANJ Statement OPMA OPRA
 
FYI
 
From: Galland, Kevin 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:15 PM
To: Mitchell, Shane ([email protected]); '[email protected]'
Cc: Zawadski, Dina ([email protected]); Diane Pflugfelder ([email protected]); Gore,
Eileen ([email protected]); [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Denise Cafone ([email protected])
Subject: MCANJ Statement OPMA OPRA
 
Good Afternoon Shane:
 
Just wanted to reach out to you to let you know that the email below, sent by the current President
of the MCANJ, is the opinion of one individual who happens to be the current President of the
Association.  Unfortunately, the content of the email was created without input from the balance of
the MCANJ Executive Board, nor did the balance of the Board have the opportunity to review and/or
discuss its content prior to its release.
 
My personal opinion was not to take a position on the amendments as I believe our meeting of April
30th was the foundation for moving forward in a positive manner.  To express a negative position
would not be new news and would only reestablish/reinforce our prior adversarial relationship.  It
goes without saying that our Association, representing Municipal Clerks, would have extreme
difficulty in supporting any OPRA legislation, but we are committed to working with the Senator in
the future to express, at a minimum, our differences. 
 
Regards on behalf of the following MCANJ Executive Board:
Kevin Galland – 1st V.P.
Diane Pflugfelder  – 2nd V.P.
Kim Marie White – Secretary
Denise Szabo – Immediate Past President
Joel Popkin – MCANJ Executive Director
 
 
 
From: Dina Zawadski [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Galland, Kevin; Diane Pflugfelder; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Lori Buckelew ([email protected])
Subject: statement
 
Good afternoon:
 
As President of MCANJ Association, we held many discussions with the Executive Board and MCANJ
representatives, MCANJ does not believe a realistic solution is feasible and does not seem that our
substantial differences can be resolved unless the amendments being proposed tomorrow address
our previous concerns. At this time  we still oppose these bills.  The costs and practical burden of
your legislation, discussed at length in the past are simply too much to overcome in attempting to
reach a consensus on the existing legislation.
 
Thank you.
Dina L. Zawadski, RMC,CMC
Township Clerk
MCANJ President
Public Information Officer
1011 Cooper St.
Deptford, NJ 08096
[email protected]
 
 
(p) 856-686-2203
(fax) 856-845-8804
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DISCLAIMER:     Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of the County
of Passaic. This e-mail and any attachments to it may contain confidential information and
may be legally privileged.. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, transmit,
convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachment to it. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the originator by return e-mail and
delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail contains a forwarded message or is a reply
to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not
have been produced by this office. Although the County of Passaic attempts to sweep e-mails
and attachments for viruses, it does not guarantee that either are virus free and accepts no
 liability for any damage sustained as a result of viruses. This message is automatically
appended to each e-mail leaving the County of Passaic e-mail system. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA
Date:
Monday, July 30, 2018 2:16:29 PM
Attachments:
AdvisoryOpinionNo2006-01 - Use of Official OPRA Forms.pdf
407 NJ Super 230 - Renna v County of Union - use of official OPRAForms.pdf
Anthony,  See below and attached,
 
mike
 
From: Frank Marshall 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 2:14 PM
To: Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>; Lori Buckelew <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA
 
Mike,
 
Attached are two items.  The first is GRC Advisory Opinion No. 2006-01, this is the GRC’s position
that all OPRA requests must be on official OPRA forms.  This Advisory Opinion, however, was struck
down by the Appellate Division in Renna v. County of Union (also attached) because the court
determined that the OPRA does not require request be on official forms, but simply that a request
be in writing.
 
-Frank  
 
From: Michael F. Cerra 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 1:44 PM
To: Frank Marshall; Lori Buckelew
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
 
 
From: Cancro, Anthony [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 1:21 PM
To: Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA
 
 
Hello Michael.    I seem to recall a ruling overriding the GRC about ORPA requests not
having to be on a “official” OPRA form.   Would you happen to have a copy of that ruling?  
 
Thanks Anthony
 
Anthony Cancro
Township Administrator
Township of Plainsboro
641 Plainsboro Road
Plainsboro, NJ 08536
609.799.0909 ext 1103
[email protected]
http://www.plainsboronj.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From:
Mitchell, Shane
To:
Lori Buckelew
Cc:
Millsaps Wolfinger, Kate
Subject:
OPRA Amendments
Date:
Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:04:20 AM
Attachments:
N209_0003.pdf
Hey Lori,
 
Hope you had a good Labor Day weekend! I just received these draft amendments from OLS. Please
let me know if we missed something or added something that wasn’t agreed to! To my mind, there
are only two things here that were not discussed at the summer meeting.
 
First, we eliminated section 13 on the Office of Dispute Settlement. We mentioned at the meeting
that we were seeking a cost-neutral replacement for ODS, but none could be found! I’m talking now
with the Governor’s Office about additional funding for the GRC so they can handle their caseload in
a more expeditious fashion, but otherwise it looks like this is a problem NOT being addressed
through the bill.
 
Second, we added some language to the definition of criminal investigatory record to address the
recent Paff decision on mobile video recordings. The Senator wants to address the issue, but we’re
still thinking this one through. If the League has any suggestions, please let us know! As it stands, it
appears it will be incredibly rare for the public to ever have access to dashcam/bodycam footage;
whereas, the Senator believes that it would be appropriate for the public to have access if access
does not compromise an ongoing investigation or some privacy concern.
 
I’m sharing this with everyone else, too, so I imagine there will likely be a need for some tinkering
after everyone has a look. The Senator is still gunning for Senate Budget in September/October, so
hopefully we’ll all be on the same page by the end of the month!
 
Best,
Shane
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA Request - email addresses for municipal council members
Date:
Friday, June 22, 2018 2:59:57 PM
Attachments:
NJLM Directory - 2018.pdf
Ms. Baum,
 
Thank you for speaking with me on the phone to clarify your OPRA request.  As we discussed, I have
attached to this email the League’s 2018 Municipal Directory which satisfies your request.  With this
correspondence, I now consider your request fulfilled and complete.  Please respond to this email to
confirm receipt of this document and to confirm full satisfaction of your requests for documents
made under OPRA and the common law right of access.
 
Best regards,
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
Records Custodian
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
From: Frank Marshall 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 9:28 AM
To: 'Linda Baum (NJFOG)'; OPRA
Subject: RE: OPRA Request - email addresses for municipal council members
 
Ms. Baum,
 
This email is to confirm receipt of your request for documents made under the NJ Open Public
Records Act and the common law right of access.
 
Best regards,
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
Records Custodian
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
 
From: Linda Baum (NJFOG) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 6:39 AM
To: OPRA
Subject: OPRA Request - email addresses for municipal council members
 
To the Custodian of Records:
 
This request for public records is made under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA)
and the common law right of access.
 
I would like a document(s) listing the email addresses for the mayors and governing
body members for all municipalities in New Jersey. I would like the following
additional records along with the email addresses, if available:  name, public office
held (e.g., mayor vs. council member), municipality, and county.  The email
addresses sought are those used in the course of official public business and
therefore are disclosable under OPRA. 
 
Please provide the requested records in an Excel spreadsheet, if available, and
deliver the records to me as an attachment(s) to email.
 
If you need to discuss this request, please call me at your earliest opportunity.
 
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email via brief reply.
 
Thank you.
 
Respectfully,
Linda Baum
732-992-6550 
[email protected]
 
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA Request - email addresses for municipal council members
Date:
Friday, June 22, 2018 2:59:57 PM
Attachments:
NJLM Directory - 2018.pdf
Ms. Baum,
 
Thank you for speaking with me on the phone to clarify your OPRA request.  As we discussed, I have
attached to this email the League’s 2018 Municipal Directory which satisfies your request.  With this
correspondence, I now consider your request fulfilled and complete.  Please respond to this email to
confirm receipt of this document and to confirm full satisfaction of your requests for documents
made under OPRA and the common law right of access.
 
Best regards,
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
Records Custodian
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
From: Frank Marshall 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 9:28 AM
To: 'Linda Baum (NJFOG)'; OPRA
Subject: RE: OPRA Request - email addresses for municipal council members
 
Ms. Baum,
 
This email is to confirm receipt of your request for documents made under the NJ Open Public
Records Act and the common law right of access.
 
Best regards,
 
Frank Marshall, Esq., Staff Attorney
Records Custodian
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 137
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
Visit NJ Municipalities’ digital bookshelf at njmmagazine.org.
Follow us 
Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/njleague 
Follow us on Twitter @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1P7GsVR
The NJLM is subject to Open Public Records Act.  Any email sent or received by the League may be subject to a records
request.
 
 
From: Linda Baum (NJFOG) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 6:39 AM
To: OPRA
Subject: OPRA Request - email addresses for municipal council members
 
To the Custodian of Records:
 
This request for public records is made under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA)
and the common law right of access.
 
I would like a document(s) listing the email addresses for the mayors and governing
body members for all municipalities in New Jersey. I would like the following
additional records along with the email addresses, if available:  name, public office
held (e.g., mayor vs. council member), municipality, and county.  The email
addresses sought are those used in the course of official public business and
therefore are disclosable under OPRA. 
 
Please provide the requested records in an Excel spreadsheet, if available, and
deliver the records to me as an attachment(s) to email.
 
If you need to discuss this request, please call me at your earliest opportunity.
 
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email via brief reply.
 
Thank you.
 
Respectfully,
Linda Baum
732-992-6550 
[email protected]
 
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA Request #166-2018
Date:
Monday, June 18, 2018 11:55:42 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Verry v Franklin Fire District No 1 GRC Complaint No 2014-387.pdf
Michael,
The attached GRC Decision may be instructive to the councilman.  There is no specific statute which
would mention text messages but the attached decision addresses some of the issues.
-Frank
 
From: Michael J. Darcy, CAE 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:45 AM
To: Michael F. Cerra; Frank Marshall
Cc: Lori Buckelew
Subject: RE: OPRA Request #166-2018
 
I left him a vm this morning responding to this inquiry.
 
Michael J. Darcy, CAE, Executive Director
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
609-695-3481 extn 116
C-609-510-9472
222 West State St.
Trenton, NJ 08608
This email is not confidential communication and is read by others.
 
 
From: Michael F. Cerra 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 10:26 AM
To: Michael J. Darcy, CAE; Frank Marshall
Cc: Lori Buckelew
Subject: FW: OPRA Request #166-2018
 
FYI. 
 
From: Daniel G. Flynn [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 10:25 AM
To: Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: OPRA Request #166-2018
 
Mike,
 
As you can see by this email someone is OPRA requesting our private cell texts between a
certain date.  Do you have a statue I can cite that refers to why this would not be legal?  I am
sure our attorney will render the proper decision.
 
Thank you,
Daniel G. Flynn

Councilman
Town of Newton
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michelle Estremera <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:01 AM
Subject: OPRA Request #166-2018
To: Helen LeFrois <[email protected]>, Sandra Diglio
<[email protected]>, Daniel Flynn <[email protected]>, Kevin
Elvidge <[email protected]>
Cc: "Lorraine A. Read" <[email protected]>, "Thomas S. Russo Jr."
<[email protected]>
Good Morning Council,
 
Please be advised we are in receipt of an OPRA requesting your personal cell phone records
including texts for the dates of February 21, 2018 through March 10, 2018 pertaining to the
3/5/18 hearing and other related matters.  The Attorney is reviewing said request and will
advise if we need any information directly from you. Thank you.
 
Kind regards,
 
Michelle Estremera
Municipal Clerk Secretary
39 Trinity Street
Newton, NJ 07860
PH: 973-383-3521 ext. 221
E-mail: [email protected]
 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information contained in this message and in any attachments is time-sensitive
and confidential.  If you are not an intended recipient, please inform the sender immediately.  Any
unauthorized use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.
 
 
 
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA
Date:
Monday, July 30, 2018 2:14:13 PM
Attachments:
AdvisoryOpinionNo2006-01 - Use of Official OPRA Forms.pdf
407 NJ Super 230 - Renna v County of Union - use of official OPRAForms.pdf
Mike,
 
Attached are two items.  The first is GRC Advisory Opinion No. 2006-01, this is the GRC’s position
that all OPRA requests must be on official OPRA forms.  This Advisory Opinion, however, was struck
down by the Appellate Division in Renna v. County of Union (also attached) because the court
determined that the OPRA does not require request be on official forms, but simply that a request
be in writing.
 
-Frank  
 
From: Michael F. Cerra 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 1:44 PM
To: Frank Marshall; Lori Buckelew
Subject: FW: OPRA
 
 
 
From: Cancro, Anthony [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 1:21 PM
To: Michael F. Cerra <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA
 
 
Hello Michael.    I seem to recall a ruling overriding the GRC about ORPA requests not
having to be on a “official” OPRA form.   Would you happen to have a copy of that ruling?  
 
Thanks Anthony
 
Anthony Cancro
Township Administrator
Township of Plainsboro
641 Plainsboro Road
Plainsboro, NJ 08536
609.799.0909 ext 1103
[email protected]
http://www.plainsboronj.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Document Outline