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:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
Amendments to OPRA/OPMA Bills
Date:
Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:47:14 AM
Attachments:
S107 Amendments.pdf
S106 Amendments.pdf
Attached are the proposed amendments to Senator Weinberg’s OPRA/OPMA bills and below is the
OLS description of the changes. 
 
Please review and provide your thoughts.
 
If you are so inclined you can listen to today’s 1pm Senate State Government Committee hearing at
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/live_audio.asp. You will need to refresh the link, maybe several
times, until you see LISTEN. Click on Listen to for the hearing. There may be moments of silence.
 
Lori
 
From: Couture, Louis 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:00 PM
To: Lori Buckelew
Subject: Amendments to S106 andS107
 
Hi Lori,
 
As promised, please find attached the draft amendments for tomorrow.
 
Here are the OLS descriptions:
 
S106 PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS :
                    The committee proposes to amend the bill to:
permit members of public bodies to communicate privately with independent consultants or
advisors about matters on an agenda;
require that the Legislature keep comprehensive, rather than reasonably comprehensible,
minutes of its meetings;
clarify that minutes shall be made available to the public within 15 business days after its next
meeting; 
provides municipalities with 5,000 or less inhabitants, boards of education with 500 or less
pupils, and public authorities with less than $10 million in assets will have 20 business days
after the next meeting to make the amendments available to the public;
permits a public body to vote in favor of a reasonable delay in making the minutes available
due to an emergency;
requires the Legislature to record its voting sessions;
requires subcommittees to prepare reports of meetings that are closed to the public;
removes language concerning a public body keeping reports of meetings of subcommittees.
 
 
S107 PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS:
                The committee proposes to amend the bill to:
remove a provision permitting volunteer fire companies or departments to contract with a
municipal governing body to have its clerk serve as the fire company’s records custodian;
exclude volunteer fire companies and departments from the definition of “public agency” and
“quasi-governmental agency”;
exempt from disclosure any portion of a document that discloses personal identifying
information of minors, except when permitted by law for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission, or when driver information is disclosed to insurance companies for use in
connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting;
remove a provision that would have included interns and volunteer employees in the
definition of “public employee”;
permit a public agency to charge a special service charge whenever a person requests a paper
copy of a record that is available electronically after  the person was advised that the record
may be emailed at no charge to the requestor or advised as to the specific location that the
record may be accessed online;
removes the requirement that the sole purpose of a requestor’s request must be harassment
in order to file a petition in court against the requestor;
incorporates into the “New Jersey Open Data Initiative” law, N.J.S.A.52:18A-234.1 et seq,
rather than creating a new section of law, the requirement that the State maintain a single,
searchable Internet website providing certain State agency information;
requires the Office of Information Technology to develop and maintain a searchable, online
database to which units of local government may submit any government record for retention
on the database;
updates certain provisions to current law and updates references to specific dates; and
makes a technical correction.
 
Let me know what you think. You can share the description with other groups, but please refrain
from sharing the documents with people outside the League.
 
Thanks,
 
Louis Couture
NJ Senate Democratic Office
 
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]
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]; [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:
DENISE SZABO
To:
Lori Buckelew ([email protected])
Subject:
FW: Request OPRA Info
Date:
Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:01:43 PM
Attachments:
OPRA_Fair_Share.pdf
Per our phone conversation.  Let me know if you find anything out.
 
Thanks.
 
Denise Szabo, RMC/MMC
Bernards Township Municipal Clerk/Assistant Administrator
1 Collyer Lane
Basking Ridge, NJ  07920
908-204-3014 (phone)
[email protected]
 
From: Justin Flood [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 4:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Request OPRA Info
 
Hello,
 
Please see attached OPRA Request.
 
Thanks,
Justin





From:
Paul Tomasko
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
Fwd: Memorandum on proposed OPRA and OPMA legislation
Date:
Tuesday, February 6, 2018 4:02:15 PM
Attachments:
[1617806] Comments to S1045-217.pdf
Comments to S1046-217.pdf
Mike and Lori, 
FYI. 
Are the OPMA and OPRA bills still being pushed?
Thanks,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Wehmann <[email protected]>
To: Paul Tomasko <[email protected]>
Cc: Nancy Wehmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Feb 6, 2018 3:14 pm
Subject: FW: Memorandum on proposed OPRA and OPMA legislation
 
 
From: John L. Shahdanian II [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:35 PM
To: Stephanie Wehmann <[email protected]>; Boro Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Memorandum on proposed OPRA and OPMA legislation
 
Mayor Tomasko:
 
Attached please find the memoranda regarding the pending bills on OPRA/OPMA.
 
Regards,
 
John Shahdanian
 
JOHN L. SHAHDANIAN II
CHASAN LAMPARELLO MALLON & CAPPUZZO, PC 
300 LIGHTING WAY, SUITE 200  
SECAUCUS, NEW JERSEY 07094
201-809-6038
201-348-6633
[email protected]
DOWNLOAD VCARD
 
www.chasanlaw.com
 
Celebrating our 60th anniversary 1957-2017
 
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT AND MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.  ANY
UNAUTHORIZED REVIEW, USE, DISCLOSURE OR DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER BY REPLY EMAIL AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE
ORIGINAL MESSAGE.  THANK YOU.
 
 
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
Fwd: OPRA/OPMA Bills Hearing
Date:
Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:07:58 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
Importance:
High
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------
From: Lori Buckelew <[email protected]>
Date: 6/14/18 5:18 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Dina Zawadski <[email protected]>, "Kevin Galland ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>, "Diane Pflugfelder ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>, [email protected], "Denise Szabo
([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Joel Popkin ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>, "Denise Cafone ([email protected])"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Michael F. Cerra ([email protected])" <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA/OPMA Bills Hearing
The OPRA/OPMA bills were amended and released by the Senate State Government Committee.
Below is a link to the hearing and a story recapping the hearing on the bills. I need to bring to your
attention, Senator Weinberg’s comments and the Politico article which includes the MCANJ’s two
emails on the bills.  I strongly suggest you listen to the Senator’s representation of the emails at the
hearing.  The bills are the first on the agenda after the flag salute and the MCANJ emails are brought
up at 4:40. Here is the link - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/mp.asp?M=A/2018/SSG/0614-
0100PM-M0-1.m4a&S=2018
If you wish to discuss further please call me on my cell 732-895-9611.
Here is the Politico article, I would also caution that other Reporters may use this Politico article for
the basis for their articles. So if you hear from reporters, it would be helpful to be kept in the loop.   
Senate panel advances bills to overhaul public records laws
By Matt Friedman
06/14/2018 04:32 PM EDT
State lawmakers are trying once again to overhaul New Jersey's public records laws, after
previous attempts have repeatedly stalled amid opposition from groups that represent local
governments.
The Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee on
Thursday advanced five bills related to public records, two of which make significant changes
to the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ S106 (18R), and Open Public Records Act, NJ S107
(18R).
"I believe these bills will not only protect the public and their right to know, which is the
foundation of these bills, but will make life easier for the municipalities and the people who
are the custodians of records," state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), sponsor of the two
bills, said during the committee meeting.
Both bills were approved, 4-0, with one abstention. They still need to be approved by the state
Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee before they can be voted on by the full
chamber.
The Assembly has not yet taken up the measures.
The two bills would require stronger meeting notice rules from government entities, an
expansion of public meeting and records requirements to include several types of quasi-
independent authorities and a requirement that meetings have public comment periods.
They would also require the state to assist local governments in putting information online if
they do not have their own websites. Local governments would also have to allow meeting
attendees to record the proceedings.
Groups representing local governments opposed a requirement that attorney fees be awarded
to plaintiffs who a court determines were improperly denied records. If a public official
"knowingly" violates public records law, he or she would personally face a fine of between
$100 and $500.
In addition, the Government Records Council, which hears appeals of records denials, would
be expanded from four members to five — including one who's had experience working in the
news media. The council would also have to create a searchable online index of its opinions.
One of the bills, NJ S107 (18R), would also rename the state's law the Open Public Record's
Act in honor of Martin O'Shea, the late open government activist.
The New Jersey Press Association and several open records activists testified in support of the
two bills. Tom Cafferty, general counsel of the press association, said awarding attorneys fees
to plaintiffs is especially important.
"Our Supreme Court has talked about attorneys fees in the context of OPRA and said it's the
great equalizer," Cafferty said. "It gives the citizens the power to contest denial of access by
government."
Some public records advocates, however, took issue with a provision that allows courts to
temporarily bar people who request documents to the point of harassment from making more
public records requests.
Lori Buckelew, senior legislative analyst for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities,
also questioned a provision that subcommittees formed by local governments report to the
governing bodies.
"They do not expend public funds, nor do they commit the governing body to action, and
there's a need for subcommittees to have meetings where they're not always open to the
public," Buckelew said.
Buckelew also said it should be up to the courts to determine whether someone who sued for
documents and won should be paid attorney fees. "We just think it needs to be permissive and
left to the discretion of a judge," she said.
Similar bills were approved by the same committee last year but never got a vote in the full
Senate. Earlier efforts have stalled before even getting a hearing.
Weinberg made several amendments in an attempt to assuage the government groups,
including the League of Municipalities. For instance, subcommittees would only have to
report to a governing body — either verbally or in writing — that they're having meetings.
"We started out with this bill with much more stringent regulations concerning
subcommittees," Weinberg said. "The public complaint is a municipality organizes a
subcommittee which is not subject to [the Open Public Meetings Act]. The subcommittee ...
goes out and interviews five developers, comes back to the council and the council votes 'OK,
we're going to redevelop Main Street and give the award to so-and-so. And the public has had
no ability to find out what went into that decision.
"We negotiated out the subcommittee idea until it's almost meaningless, and I really can't
understand the League's continued objection to that," she said.
Weinberg said committee members received an email from Dina Zawadski, president of the
Municipal Clerks' Association of New Jersey, opposing the bill. But she read another email
written by several other members of the association, including its incoming president, saying
Zawadski did not speak for them.
"I am very hopeful it's going to pass because every issue that was raised today was really
pretty minor, in my opinion," Weinberg said.
The committee also voted 5-0 to approve three less controversial measures:
— NJ S1232 (18R) would bar the public release of information that would identify people
who receive pet licenses and home alarm permits.
— NJ S1903 (18R) would require redaction of parts of 911 calls that could reveal a person's
health information.
— NJ S1905 (18R) would require the redaction of personal email addresses from public
records.
State Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Mercer), sponsor of the bill to exempt pet and alarm license
information, said for-profit companies often request the information to market their products
and services.
Cafferty, the New Jersey Press Association counsel, requested an amendment to the 911 bill
because he thought it was written unintentionally broadly. He said that as written, if a person
was shot and was in serious condition, that information would be barred from public release
even if it contains no information that could identify the victim.




 
 
Lori Buckelew
Senior Legislative Analyst
NJ League of Municipalities
609.695.3481 x112
 
Follow us 
 
  
  
Facebook:  facebook.com/njleague       Twitter: @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities        YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is privileged and confidential, and it is only intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this
communication is prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please advise by telephone and destroy the original document.
 
Please be advised that the New Jersey State League of Municipalities is subject to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.  As such, any email sent or
received by the League may be subject to a records request.
 
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
NorthJersey.com: Judge tosses councilman"s OPRA harassment claim
Date:
Friday, May 4, 2018 9:11:16 AM
From NorthJersey.com
Judge tosses councilman's OPRA harassment claim
https://njersy.co/2HJT7BA
HACKENSACK&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;A municipal judge dismissed a complaint by
Ridgewood Councilman Jeffrey Voigt against one of his constituents Thursday.&nbsp;Voigt
had&nbsp;alleged that resident Anne Loving violated a September&nbsp;agreement between
herself and Voigt when she filed anonymous records requests for his emails. That agreement
was set after the two traded harassment complaints late last year.&nbsp;On Thursday, Judge
Anthony Gallina said that without the opinion of a handwriting expert, there was no probable
cause to find that Loving had penned the anonymous Open Public Records Act requests, and
found&nbsp;that the requests did not constitute harassment, as they&nbsp;lacked any
&ldquo;offensively course language,&rdquo; or&nbsp;were &quot;otherwise made to cause
alarm.&quot;
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
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:
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)
 
·        
 
S-107 (OPRA)
 
·        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
·        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
 
         
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
 
        
 
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)
 
·        
 
S-107 (OPRA)
 
·        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
 
         
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
 
 
·        
 
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)
 
·        
 
S-107 (OPRA)
 
·        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
·        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
 
         
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
        
 
 
·        
 
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
OPRA/OPMA Bills Hearing
Date:
Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:18:39 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
Importance:
High
The OPRA/OPMA bills were amended and released by the Senate State Government Committee.
Below is a link to the hearing and a story recapping the hearing on the bills. I need to bring to your
attention, Senator Weinberg’s comments and the Politico article which includes the MCANJ’s two
emails on the bills.  I strongly suggest you listen to the Senator’s representation of the emails at the
hearing.  The bills are the first on the agenda after the flag salute and the MCANJ emails are brought
up at 4:40. Here is the link - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/mp.asp?M=A/2018/SSG/0614-
0100PM-M0-1.m4a&S=2018
If you wish to discuss further please call me on my cell 732-895-9611.
Here is the Politico article, I would also caution that other Reporters may use this Politico article for
the basis for their articles. So if you hear from reporters, it would be helpful to be kept in the loop.   
Senate panel advances bills to overhaul public records laws
By Matt Friedman
06/14/2018 04:32 PM EDT
State lawmakers are trying once again to overhaul New Jersey's public records laws, after
previous attempts have repeatedly stalled amid opposition from groups that represent local
governments.
The Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee on
Thursday advanced five bills related to public records, two of which make significant changes
to the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ S106 (18R), and Open Public Records Act, NJ S107
(18R).
"I believe these bills will not only protect the public and their right to know, which is the
foundation of these bills, but will make life easier for the municipalities and the people who
are the custodians of records," state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), sponsor of the two
bills, said during the committee meeting.
Both bills were approved, 4-0, with one abstention. They still need to be approved by the state
Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee before they can be voted on by the full
chamber.
The Assembly has not yet taken up the measures.
The two bills would require stronger meeting notice rules from government entities, an
expansion of public meeting and records requirements to include several types of quasi-
independent authorities and a requirement that meetings have public comment periods.
They would also require the state to assist local governments in putting information online if
they do not have their own websites. Local governments would also have to allow meeting
attendees to record the proceedings.
Groups representing local governments opposed a requirement that attorney fees be awarded
to plaintiffs who a court determines were improperly denied records. If a public official
"knowingly" violates public records law, he or she would personally face a fine of between
$100 and $500.
In addition, the Government Records Council, which hears appeals of records denials, would
be expanded from four members to five — including one who's had experience working in the
news media. The council would also have to create a searchable online index of its opinions.
One of the bills, NJ S107 (18R), would also rename the state's law the Open Public Record's
Act in honor of Martin O'Shea, the late open government activist.
The New Jersey Press Association and several open records activists testified in support of the
two bills. Tom Cafferty, general counsel of the press association, said awarding attorneys fees
to plaintiffs is especially important.
"Our Supreme Court has talked about attorneys fees in the context of OPRA and said it's the
great equalizer," Cafferty said. "It gives the citizens the power to contest denial of access by
government."
Some public records advocates, however, took issue with a provision that allows courts to
temporarily bar people who request documents to the point of harassment from making more
public records requests.
Lori Buckelew, senior legislative analyst for the New Jersey State League of Municipalities,
also questioned a provision that subcommittees formed by local governments report to the
governing bodies.
"They do not expend public funds, nor do they commit the governing body to action, and
there's a need for subcommittees to have meetings where they're not always open to the
public," Buckelew said.
Buckelew also said it should be up to the courts to determine whether someone who sued for
documents and won should be paid attorney fees. "We just think it needs to be permissive and
left to the discretion of a judge," she said.
Similar bills were approved by the same committee last year but never got a vote in the full
Senate. Earlier efforts have stalled before even getting a hearing.
Weinberg made several amendments in an attempt to assuage the government groups,
including the League of Municipalities. For instance, subcommittees would only have to
report to a governing body — either verbally or in writing — that they're having meetings.
"We started out with this bill with much more stringent regulations concerning
subcommittees," Weinberg said. "The public complaint is a municipality organizes a
subcommittee which is not subject to [the Open Public Meetings Act]. The subcommittee ...
goes out and interviews five developers, comes back to the council and the council votes 'OK,




we're going to redevelop Main Street and give the award to so-and-so. And the public has had
no ability to find out what went into that decision.
"We negotiated out the subcommittee idea until it's almost meaningless, and I really can't
understand the League's continued objection to that," she said.
Weinberg said committee members received an email from Dina Zawadski, president of the
Municipal Clerks' Association of New Jersey, opposing the bill. But she read another email
written by several other members of the association, including its incoming president, saying
Zawadski did not speak for them.
"I am very hopeful it's going to pass because every issue that was raised today was really
pretty minor, in my opinion," Weinberg said.
The committee also voted 5-0 to approve three less controversial measures:
— NJ S1232 (18R) would bar the public release of information that would identify people
who receive pet licenses and home alarm permits.
— NJ S1903 (18R) would require redaction of parts of 911 calls that could reveal a person's
health information.
— NJ S1905 (18R) would require the redaction of personal email addresses from public
records.
State Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Mercer), sponsor of the bill to exempt pet and alarm license
information, said for-profit companies often request the information to market their products
and services.
Cafferty, the New Jersey Press Association counsel, requested an amendment to the 911 bill
because he thought it was written unintentionally broadly. He said that as written, if a person
was shot and was in serious condition, that information would be barred from public release
even if it contains no information that could identify the victim.
 
 
Lori Buckelew
Senior Legislative Analyst
NJ League of Municipalities
609.695.3481 x112
 
Follow us 
 
  
  
Facebook:  facebook.com/njleague       Twitter: @nj_league        
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities        YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is privileged and confidential, and it is only intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this
communication is prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please advise by telephone and destroy the original document.
 
Please be advised that the New Jersey State League of Municipalities is subject to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act.  As such, any email sent or
received by the League may be subject to a records request.
 
 
From:
TOM DUNN
To:
"Frank Marshall"
Cc:
Trishka Waterbury Cecil Esq .
Subject:
RE: Facebook OPRA Case
Date:
Friday, February 15, 2019 4:12:19 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
2018-10 LGLR.pdf
Frank,
I have attached the October Law Review in which we reported on both the Larkin case and the
Gelber case that came to different conclusions. I don’t know whether either of them have been
appealed, but there certainly were no Appellate decisions reported on them in our January edition. 
The January edition did contain a squib about Carter v. Franklin Fire Dist. No. 1 (Unpub. App.
Div. Oct. 3, 2018)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11074235840564658428. That case deals with
a little different fact pattern: PAC emails on a Fire District’s server which were declared not to
be public records.  We are currently in the process of preparing for the April edition and, in the
48 cases we have assigned to the editors for summary, there appear to be none that deal with
similar issues.
I am forwarding the thread to Trishka in case she knows of any cases or other information on
Facebook and OPRA.
Regards,
Tom
 
From: Frank Marshall <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Facebook OPRA Case
 
Tom,
 
Back in October you asked for a copy of the Larkin v. Glen Rock case (see,
below).  You were going to publish them in the law review.  I have had a
few questions about this issue recently and was wondering if you put
together any other information on the topic that I could pass along.
 
Thanks,
Frank
From: TOM DUNN [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:12 PM
To: Trishka Waterbury Cecil Esq.; Frank Marshall; 'Carl R. Woodword, III Esq'
Subject: LARKIN V GLEN ROCK
 
“Would any of you have immediately available the opinion in Larkin v. Glen Rock – a Facebook OPRA
case—that we discussed in the amicus committee and at the ILGA Board meeting?  If so can you send
me a pdf ASAP?  Sorry for the procrastination but apparently my copy of the case got swallowed by
the internet.
Steve Kleinman has given me an opinion by Judge Mizdol in which – under somewhat similar, but




different, facts—she came to a different conclusion.  I want to publish them both in the Law Review
and would like to have the Larkin case today or tomorrow if possible.”
 
NJLM has recently changed its web and email addresses to njlm.org (previously
njslom.org). Please update your email safe lists and saved web bookmarks.
 
Frank Marshall, Esq. | Staff Attorney
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608
609-695-3481 x. 137
NJLM is subject to the Open Public Records Act; any email sent or received 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]; [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
 

Document Outline