From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: Friendly Reminder for OPRA Seminar on April 16
Date:
Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:16:09 AM
Attachments:
image002.png
image004.png
ScheindlinLeague2018.pptx
Here’s a copy of Lew’s presentation for next week’s OPRA seminar. It’s probably information you already know but I figured I’d
forward it to you anyway J
Danielle Holland-Htut, Program Specialist
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08608
Phone: 609-695-3481 ext 118
Fax: 609-695-0151
[email protected]
Follow us
Facebook:
facebook.com/njleague Twitter: @nj_league
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
****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: Lewis Scheindlin [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 4:53 PM
To: Danielle Holland
Cc: Carl Woodward
Subject: Re: Friendly Reminder for OPRA Seminar on April 16
Danielle, attached is my powerpoint presentation on OPRA and Privacy, that I'll be using at the program. I don't have any
handouts, although of course you can make copies of the powerpoint to hand out. Please let me know if you have any
questions. See you next Monday.
Lew
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Danielle Holland <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Lew and Carl,
This is friendly reminder regarding the OPRA In Depth: Privacy and Law Enforcement Issues at the Doubletree Hotel in
Tinton Falls on April 16, 2018. Our current count for this program is 100 attendees.
In terms of A/V equipment, we will have a laptop, podium, and microphone as well as a projector and screen if you
wish to make a PowerPoint presentation. If you do have a handout you want me to distribute please have it to me by
Thursday.
In case of emergency my cell number is 908-227-1142.
Have a wonderful rest of your week and if you have any questions please let me know.
Danielle Holland-Htut, Program Specialist
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08608
Phone: 609-695-3481 ext 118
Fax: 609-695-0151
[email protected]
Follow us
Facebook:
facebook.com/njleague Twitter: @nj_league
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
****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:
Clerk"s Dept .
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Date:
Friday, April 20, 2018 2:23:00 PM
Attachments:
Tax Collector"s letter - OPRA.pdf
April 20, 2018
Laurie,
I believe this issue is the reason you called. The GRC response appears below. I’ll be happy to
talk to you about this any time.
Edie
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 1:39 PM
To: 'Joseph DeIorio' <
[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:32 AM
To: 'AJ Plainfield' <[email protected]>; 'Ana Minkoff - Berkeley Heights'
<[email protected]>; 'Andrew Casais' <
[email protected]>; 'Bonnie Lacina - Scotch Plains'
<[email protected]>; 'Christina Ariemma - Garwood' <[email protected]>; 'Eileen
Birch - Union Twp.' <[email protected]>; 'Eleanor McGovern - Fanwood'
<[email protected]>; 'Joseph Bodek - Linden' <[email protected]>; 'June Planas -
Winfield' <[email protected]>; 'Laura Reinertsen - Kenilworth' <
[email protected]>;
'Linda Donnelly' <
[email protected]>; 'Martha Lopez - Mountainside'
<[email protected]>; 'Rayna Harris' <[email protected]>; 'Rosemary Licatese-
Summit' <[email protected]>; 'Wendi B. Barry - New Providence'
<[email protected]>; 'Yolanda M. Roberts - Elizabeth' <[email protected]>; Tara Rowley
<[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
GRC response below
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 10:58 AM
To: 'Government Records Council' <[email protected]>
Cc: Tax Collector <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Mr. Caruso:
Thank you for replying to this very important inquiry. I will forward your response to the township
Tax Collector. I believe this topic is worth pursuing with the Legislature. It is the obligation and
responsibility of State and Local Government to protect the privacy, safety and welfare of our
citizens, especially the most vulnerable.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From: Government Records Council <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To: Clerk's Dept. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Good evening Ms. Merkel,
Thank you for contacting the NJ Government Records Council ("GRC"). The information provided by
the GRC is guidance and does not constitute legal advice or a final decision of the GRC regarding
whether a particular record is exempt from disclosure or not since the provisions of the Open Public
Records Act ("OPRA") are applied to the specific facts of the request and/or complaint. The GRC
cannot tell you exactly how to respond to an official OPRA records request because your response
must depend on the specific facts of the records request.
Generally, OPRA provides that ". . . government records shall be readily accessible for inspection,
copying, or examination . . . with certain exceptions . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. There are 25 specific
exemptions from disclosure included in OPRA.
Additionally, OPRA defines a government record as a record "made, maintained or kept on file . . . or
that has been received in the course of . . . official business . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Also, OPRA
requires a custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible but no later than seven (7) business
days from receipt of the request. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). OPRA further requires that custodians inform
requestors of the lawful basis for any denial of government records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
Regarding your inquiry, the GRC first notes that it was unable to locate any prior cases addressing
the exact records to which you refer in your letter. Further, the GRC may not be aware of any
variables that impact the issue. Thus, guidance on this issue is difficult to provide.
Notwithstanding, the questions you raise are similar to those raised about the disclosure of accident
reports without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131. In fact, the accident report issue could be
analogous to your situation. Specifically, the Council has previously ruled on whether redactions are
warranted on auto accident reports. Specifically, in Truland v. Borough of Madison, GRC Complaint
No. 2006-88 (September 2007), the Council held that “no redactions to the requested auto accident
reports are warranted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.” The New Jersey statute cited specifically states
that “information contained [in the report] shall not be privileged or held confidential.”
See
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2006-88.pdf. The Council’s holding in Truland, has been
applied to another complaint in which accident reports were at issue.
See
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2011-154.pdf. This is a departure from the normal OPRA
procedures since driver’s license numbers, social security numbers and unlisted telephone numbers
are specifically exempt under OPRA and are routinely redacted from records.
Now, as you can probably tell, this has caused citizens to become unsettled (and other various forms
of reaction) if they are contacted by attorneys, insurance companies,
etc., after being in accident.
The GRC also receives phone calls from concerned custodians and citizens regarding the non-
confidential nature of accident reports. In each instance, the GRC is obligated to reply that it
understands that N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 and prevailing case law provides a stark conflict with the personal
information exemptions present in OPRA, which has led to some confusion across the State.
However, unless and until either the Legislature amends the statute and/or the courts/GRC decide
otherwise, accident reports are required to be disclosed without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.
The GRC’s role in OPRA is to adjudicate complaints based on the plain reading of the OPRA, which
can sometimes lead to these types of decisions. Unfortunately, if it is the case that an agency is
required by law to disclose this information in its entirety, the appropriate avenue for change would
likely be the Legislature. This is, of course, in the absence of any statutes, regulations, or executive
orders making this information exempt in part or whole.
Additionally, if the disclosure issue comes down to a question of privacy interest as opposed to a
statutory requirement to disclose the information, the following may apply:
The GRC’s earliest decisions regarding privacy interest was in Bernstein v. Borough of Allendale, GRC
Complaint No. 2004-195 (July 2005). There, the requestor sought access to the names and addresses
of dog license owners. The Council dismissed the case on the basis that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1
and Executive Order 21 the records should not be disclosed because of the unsolicited contact,
intrusion or potential harm that may result. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2004-195.html.
However, in an Appellate Division decision the Court held differently. In Atl. Cnty. SPCA v. City of
Absecon, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1370 (Jun 5, 2009), the Court held that the requested dog
license lists should be disclosed to the requestor, the ASPCA. It is important to note that both the
GRC and the Court conducted a balancing test to determine whether the records should be
disclosed. Thus, the answer is extremely fact specific. It is important to note that the Court discussed
the ASPCA’s need for this information because of its mission to investigate alleged animal abuse. See
also Renna v. Cnty. of Union, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 342 (February 17, 2012).
Additionally, in another court case, Bolkin v. Kwasniewski, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2641, (Law
Div. December 5, 2012), plaintiff sought the names and addresses of dog and cat license owners in
Fair Lawn for the purpose of sending political literature regarding candidates who support animal
friendly legislation. The Custodian denied access citing to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1, Governor McGreevey’s Executive Order No. 26, Doe v. Poritz, and the Council’s Bernstein
decisions regarding similar records. Using the balancing factors from Doe, the trial Judge found that
the release of just the names and addresses of the dog owners with all other information contained
on the license applications redacted is appropriate. Specifically, the Judge relied on the Supreme
Court’s decision in Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), holding that names and addresses
alone, without any other identifiers, does not sufficiently implicate privacy concerns to warrant
nondisclosure under OPRA. I have attached this decision for your convenience. This decision was
affirmed on appeal. Please see attached the Appellate Division’s unpublished decision in Bolkin v.
Kwasniewski, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1409, (App. Div. 2014).
All the decisions are made on a case by case basis. More recently, the Council decided on two (2)
complaints with various outcomes regarding names, home addresses, etc. that highlight the fact
specific nature in which the GRC makes determinations on privacy interests.
See Levitt v. Twp. of
Monclair (Essex), GRC Complaint No. 2012-150 (August 2013)(
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2012-150.pdf); Bean v. Borough of Belmar (Monmouth),
GRC Complaint No. 2013-39 (Interim Order dated December 20, 2013).
Please note, though, that in the following GRC decisions the Council upheld the redaction of home
addresses and telephone numbers as well:
Merino v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, GRC Complaint No. 2003-110 (July 2004). The Complainant
sought access to “Copies of (1) all moving violations of Officer Michael Tuttle during career
with Ho-Ho-Kus Police Department, (2) training records of Officer Tuttle; and (3) records of
complaints or internal reprimands against Officer Tuttle.” After conducting a balancing test,
the Council found that the home addresses should be redacted from the records provided to
the Complainant. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2003-110.html#findings.
Paff v. Warren Cnty. Office of the Prosecutor, GRC Complaint No. 2007-167 (February 2008).
The Complainant requested various records pertaining to State v. Philip Gentile,
Indictment/Accusation No. 07-02-00060-A. After conducting a balancing test, the Council
held that the redacted portions of the requested records (name and address of victim) were
properly redacted due to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. You may view this
decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-167.pdf.
Faulkner v. Rutgers Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2007-149 (May 2008). The Complainant
requested names and addresses for Rutgers University football and basketball season ticket
holders for 2006. After conducting a balancing test, the Council held that “the Custodian did
not unlawfully deny the Complainant access to the requested season ticket holders’ lists
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, which states that a public agency has a responsibility and an
obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen’s personal information with which it has
been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen’s reasonable expectation
of privacy.” You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-149.pdf.
Sincerely,
Frank F. Caruso
Government Records Council
Communications Specialist/Resource Manager
Tel: (609) 292-6830 | Fax: (609) 633-6337
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/
_____________________________________________________
This correspondence contains advisory, consultative and deliberative
material and is intended solely for the person(s) shown as recipient(s).
_____________________________________________________
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Government Records Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA Question regarding tax records
April 18, 2018
Please provide guidance on the attached question.
Thank you in advance for any help you can offer.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Date:
Tuesday, April 24, 2018 4:16:41 PM
Attachments:
Tax Collector"s letter - OPRA.pdf
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 10:58 AM
To: 'Government Records Council' <[email protected]>
Cc: Tax Collector <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Mr. Caruso:
Thank you for replying to this very important inquiry. I will forward your response to the township
Tax Collector. I believe this topic is worth pursuing with the Legislature. It is the obligation and
responsibility of State and Local Government to protect the privacy, safety and welfare of our
citizens, especially the most vulnerable.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From: Government Records Council <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To: Clerk's Dept. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Good evening Ms. Merkel,
Thank you for contacting the NJ Government Records Council ("GRC"). The information provided by
the GRC is guidance and does not constitute legal advice or a final decision of the GRC regarding
whether a particular record is exempt from disclosure or not since the provisions of the Open Public
Records Act ("OPRA") are applied to the specific facts of the request and/or complaint. The GRC
cannot tell you exactly how to respond to an official OPRA records request because your response
must depend on the specific facts of the records request.
Generally, OPRA provides that ". . . government records shall be readily accessible for inspection,
copying, or examination . . . with certain exceptions . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. There are 25 specific
exemptions from disclosure included in OPRA.
Additionally, OPRA defines a government record as a record "made, maintained or kept on file . . . or
that has been received in the course of . . . official business . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Also, OPRA
requires a custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible but no later than seven (7) business
days from receipt of the request. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). OPRA further requires that custodians inform
requestors of the lawful basis for any denial of government records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
Regarding your inquiry, the GRC first notes that it was unable to locate any prior cases addressing
the exact records to which you refer in your letter. Further, the GRC may not be aware of any
variables that impact the issue. Thus, guidance on this issue is difficult to provide.
Notwithstanding, the questions you raise are similar to those raised about the disclosure of accident
reports without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131. In fact, the accident report issue could be
analogous to your situation. Specifically, the Council has previously ruled on whether redactions are
warranted on auto accident reports. Specifically, in Truland v. Borough of Madison, GRC Complaint
No. 2006-88 (September 2007), the Council held that “no redactions to the requested auto accident
reports are warranted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.” The New Jersey statute cited specifically states
that “information contained [in the report] shall not be privileged or held confidential.”
See
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2006-88.pdf. The Council’s holding in Truland, has been
applied to another complaint in which accident reports were at issue.
See
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2011-154.pdf. This is a departure from the normal OPRA
procedures since driver’s license numbers, social security numbers and unlisted telephone numbers
are specifically exempt under OPRA and are routinely redacted from records.
Now, as you can probably tell, this has caused citizens to become unsettled (and other various forms
of reaction) if they are contacted by attorneys, insurance companies,
etc., after being in accident.
The GRC also receives phone calls from concerned custodians and citizens regarding the non-
confidential nature of accident reports. In each instance, the GRC is obligated to reply that it
understands that N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 and prevailing case law provides a stark conflict with the personal
information exemptions present in OPRA, which has led to some confusion across the State.
However, unless and until either the Legislature amends the statute and/or the courts/GRC decide
otherwise, accident reports are required to be disclosed without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.
The GRC’s role in OPRA is to adjudicate complaints based on the plain reading of the OPRA, which
can sometimes lead to these types of decisions. Unfortunately, if it is the case that an agency is
required by law to disclose this information in its entirety, the appropriate avenue for change would
likely be the Legislature. This is, of course, in the absence of any statutes, regulations, or executive
orders making this information exempt in part or whole.
Additionally, if the disclosure issue comes down to a question of privacy interest as opposed to a
statutory requirement to disclose the information, the following may apply:
The GRC’s earliest decisions regarding privacy interest was in Bernstein v. Borough of Allendale, GRC
Complaint No. 2004-195 (July 2005). There, the requestor sought access to the names and addresses
of dog license owners. The Council dismissed the case on the basis that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1
and Executive Order 21 the records should not be disclosed because of the unsolicited contact,
intrusion or potential harm that may result. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2004-195.html.
However, in an Appellate Division decision the Court held differently. In Atl. Cnty. SPCA v. City of
Absecon, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1370 (Jun 5, 2009), the Court held that the requested dog
license lists should be disclosed to the requestor, the ASPCA. It is important to note that both the
GRC and the Court conducted a balancing test to determine whether the records should be
disclosed. Thus, the answer is extremely fact specific. It is important to note that the Court discussed
the ASPCA’s need for this information because of its mission to investigate alleged animal abuse. See
also Renna v. Cnty. of Union, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 342 (February 17, 2012).
Additionally, in another court case, Bolkin v. Kwasniewski, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2641, (Law
Div. December 5, 2012), plaintiff sought the names and addresses of dog and cat license owners in
Fair Lawn for the purpose of sending political literature regarding candidates who support animal
friendly legislation. The Custodian denied access citing to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1, Governor McGreevey’s Executive Order No. 26, Doe v. Poritz, and the Council’s Bernstein
decisions regarding similar records. Using the balancing factors from Doe, the trial Judge found that
the release of just the names and addresses of the dog owners with all other information contained
on the license applications redacted is appropriate. Specifically, the Judge relied on the Supreme
Court’s decision in Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), holding that names and addresses
alone, without any other identifiers, does not sufficiently implicate privacy concerns to warrant
nondisclosure under OPRA. I have attached this decision for your convenience. This decision was
affirmed on appeal. Please see attached the Appellate Division’s unpublished decision in Bolkin v.
Kwasniewski, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1409, (App. Div. 2014).
All the decisions are made on a case by case basis. More recently, the Council decided on two (2)
complaints with various outcomes regarding names, home addresses, etc. that highlight the fact
specific nature in which the GRC makes determinations on privacy interests.
See Levitt v. Twp. of
Monclair (Essex), GRC Complaint No. 2012-150 (August 2013)(
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2012-150.pdf); Bean v. Borough of Belmar (Monmouth),
GRC Complaint No. 2013-39 (Interim Order dated December 20, 2013).
Please note, though, that in the following GRC decisions the Council upheld the redaction of home
addresses and telephone numbers as well:
Merino v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, GRC Complaint No. 2003-110 (July 2004). The Complainant
sought access to “Copies of (1) all moving violations of Officer Michael Tuttle during career
with Ho-Ho-Kus Police Department, (2) training records of Officer Tuttle; and (3) records of
complaints or internal reprimands against Officer Tuttle.” After conducting a balancing test,
the Council found that the home addresses should be redacted from the records provided to
the Complainant. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2003-110.html#findings.
Paff v. Warren Cnty. Office of the Prosecutor, GRC Complaint No. 2007-167 (February 2008).
The Complainant requested various records pertaining to State v. Philip Gentile,
Indictment/Accusation No. 07-02-00060-A. After conducting a balancing test, the Council
held that the redacted portions of the requested records (name and address of victim) were
properly redacted due to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. You may view this
decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-167.pdf.
Faulkner v. Rutgers Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2007-149 (May 2008). The Complainant
requested names and addresses for Rutgers University football and basketball season ticket
holders for 2006. After conducting a balancing test, the Council held that “the Custodian did
not unlawfully deny the Complainant access to the requested season ticket holders’ lists
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, which states that a public agency has a responsibility and an
obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen’s personal information with which it has
been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen’s reasonable expectation
of privacy.” You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-149.pdf.
Sincerely,
Frank F. Caruso
Government Records Council
Communications Specialist/Resource Manager
Tel: (609) 292-6830 | Fax: (609) 633-6337
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/
_____________________________________________________
This correspondence contains advisory, consultative and deliberative
material and is intended solely for the person(s) shown as recipient(s).
_____________________________________________________
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Government Records Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA Question regarding tax records
April 18, 2018
Please provide guidance on the attached question.
Thank you in advance for any help you can offer.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Date:
Friday, April 20, 2018 2:08:01 PM
Attachments:
Tax Collector"s letter - OPRA.pdf
FYI…
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:32 AM
To: 'AJ Plainfield' <
[email protected]>; 'Ana Minkoff - Berkeley Heights'
<
[email protected]>; 'Andrew Casais' <
[email protected]>; 'Bonnie Lacina - Scotch Plains'
<
[email protected]>; 'Christina Ariemma - Garwood' <
[email protected]>; 'Eileen
Birch - Union Twp.' <
[email protected]>; 'Eleanor McGovern - Fanwood'
<
[email protected]>; 'Joseph Bodek - Linden' <
[email protected]>; 'June Planas -
Winfield' <
[email protected]>; 'Laura Reinertsen - Kenilworth' <
[email protected]>;
'Linda Donnelly' <
[email protected]>; 'Martha Lopez - Mountainside'
<
[email protected]>; 'Rayna Harris' <
[email protected]>; 'Rosemary Licatese-
Summit' <
[email protected]>; 'Wendi B. Barry - New Providence'
<
[email protected]>; 'Yolanda M. Roberts - Elizabeth' <
[email protected]>; Tara Rowley
<
[email protected]>; '
[email protected]' <
[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
GRC response below
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 10:58 AM
To: 'Government Records Council' <[email protected]>
Cc: Tax Collector <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Mr. Caruso:
Thank you for replying to this very important inquiry. I will forward your response to the township
Tax Collector. I believe this topic is worth pursuing with the Legislature. It is the obligation and
responsibility of State and Local Government to protect the privacy, safety and welfare of our
citizens, especially the most vulnerable.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From: Government Records Council <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To: Clerk's Dept. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Good evening Ms. Merkel,
Thank you for contacting the NJ Government Records Council ("GRC"). The information provided by
the GRC is guidance and does not constitute legal advice or a final decision of the GRC regarding
whether a particular record is exempt from disclosure or not since the provisions of the Open Public
Records Act ("OPRA") are applied to the specific facts of the request and/or complaint. The GRC
cannot tell you exactly how to respond to an official OPRA records request because your response
must depend on the specific facts of the records request.
Generally, OPRA provides that ". . . government records shall be readily accessible for inspection,
copying, or examination . . . with certain exceptions . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. There are 25 specific
exemptions from disclosure included in OPRA.
Additionally, OPRA defines a government record as a record "made, maintained or kept on file . . . or
that has been received in the course of . . . official business . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Also, OPRA
requires a custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible but no later than seven (7) business
days from receipt of the request. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). OPRA further requires that custodians inform
requestors of the lawful basis for any denial of government records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
Regarding your inquiry, the GRC first notes that it was unable to locate any prior cases addressing
the exact records to which you refer in your letter. Further, the GRC may not be aware of any
variables that impact the issue. Thus, guidance on this issue is difficult to provide.
Notwithstanding, the questions you raise are similar to those raised about the disclosure of accident
reports without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131. In fact, the accident report issue could be
analogous to your situation. Specifically, the Council has previously ruled on whether redactions are
warranted on auto accident reports. Specifically, in Truland v. Borough of Madison, GRC Complaint
No. 2006-88 (September 2007), the Council held that “no redactions to the requested auto accident
reports are warranted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.” The New Jersey statute cited specifically states
that “information contained [in the report] shall not be privileged or held confidential.”
See
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2006-88.pdf. The Council’s holding in Truland, has been
applied to another complaint in which accident reports were at issue.
See
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2011-154.pdf. This is a departure from the normal OPRA
procedures since driver’s license numbers, social security numbers and unlisted telephone numbers
are specifically exempt under OPRA and are routinely redacted from records.
Now, as you can probably tell, this has caused citizens to become unsettled (and other various forms
of reaction) if they are contacted by attorneys, insurance companies,
etc., after being in accident.
The GRC also receives phone calls from concerned custodians and citizens regarding the non-
confidential nature of accident reports. In each instance, the GRC is obligated to reply that it
understands that N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 and prevailing case law provides a stark conflict with the personal
information exemptions present in OPRA, which has led to some confusion across the State.
However, unless and until either the Legislature amends the statute and/or the courts/GRC decide
otherwise, accident reports are required to be disclosed without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.
The GRC’s role in OPRA is to adjudicate complaints based on the plain reading of the OPRA, which
can sometimes lead to these types of decisions. Unfortunately, if it is the case that an agency is
required by law to disclose this information in its entirety, the appropriate avenue for change would
likely be the Legislature. This is, of course, in the absence of any statutes, regulations, or executive
orders making this information exempt in part or whole.
Additionally, if the disclosure issue comes down to a question of privacy interest as opposed to a
statutory requirement to disclose the information, the following may apply:
The GRC’s earliest decisions regarding privacy interest was in Bernstein v. Borough of Allendale, GRC
Complaint No. 2004-195 (July 2005). There, the requestor sought access to the names and addresses
of dog license owners. The Council dismissed the case on the basis that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1
and Executive Order 21 the records should not be disclosed because of the unsolicited contact,
intrusion or potential harm that may result. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2004-195.html.
However, in an Appellate Division decision the Court held differently. In Atl. Cnty. SPCA v. City of
Absecon, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1370 (Jun 5, 2009), the Court held that the requested dog
license lists should be disclosed to the requestor, the ASPCA. It is important to note that both the
GRC and the Court conducted a balancing test to determine whether the records should be
disclosed. Thus, the answer is extremely fact specific. It is important to note that the Court discussed
the ASPCA’s need for this information because of its mission to investigate alleged animal abuse. See
also Renna v. Cnty. of Union, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 342 (February 17, 2012).
Additionally, in another court case, Bolkin v. Kwasniewski, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2641, (Law
Div. December 5, 2012), plaintiff sought the names and addresses of dog and cat license owners in
Fair Lawn for the purpose of sending political literature regarding candidates who support animal
friendly legislation. The Custodian denied access citing to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1, Governor McGreevey’s Executive Order No. 26, Doe v. Poritz, and the Council’s Bernstein
decisions regarding similar records. Using the balancing factors from Doe, the trial Judge found that
the release of just the names and addresses of the dog owners with all other information contained
on the license applications redacted is appropriate. Specifically, the Judge relied on the Supreme
Court’s decision in Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), holding that names and addresses
alone, without any other identifiers, does not sufficiently implicate privacy concerns to warrant
nondisclosure under OPRA. I have attached this decision for your convenience. This decision was
affirmed on appeal. Please see attached the Appellate Division’s unpublished decision in Bolkin v.
Kwasniewski, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1409, (App. Div. 2014).
All the decisions are made on a case by case basis. More recently, the Council decided on two (2)
complaints with various outcomes regarding names, home addresses, etc. that highlight the fact
specific nature in which the GRC makes determinations on privacy interests.
See Levitt v. Twp. of
Monclair (Essex), GRC Complaint No. 2012-150 (August 2013)(
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2012-150.pdf); Bean v. Borough of Belmar (Monmouth),
GRC Complaint No. 2013-39 (Interim Order dated December 20, 2013).
Please note, though, that in the following GRC decisions the Council upheld the redaction of home
addresses and telephone numbers as well:
Merino v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, GRC Complaint No. 2003-110 (July 2004). The Complainant
sought access to “Copies of (1) all moving violations of Officer Michael Tuttle during career
with Ho-Ho-Kus Police Department, (2) training records of Officer Tuttle; and (3) records of
complaints or internal reprimands against Officer Tuttle.” After conducting a balancing test,
the Council found that the home addresses should be redacted from the records provided to
the Complainant. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2003-110.html#findings.
Paff v. Warren Cnty. Office of the Prosecutor, GRC Complaint No. 2007-167 (February 2008).
The Complainant requested various records pertaining to State v. Philip Gentile,
Indictment/Accusation No. 07-02-00060-A. After conducting a balancing test, the Council
held that the redacted portions of the requested records (name and address of victim) were
properly redacted due to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. You may view this
decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-167.pdf.
Faulkner v. Rutgers Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2007-149 (May 2008). The Complainant
requested names and addresses for Rutgers University football and basketball season ticket
holders for 2006. After conducting a balancing test, the Council held that “the Custodian did
not unlawfully deny the Complainant access to the requested season ticket holders’ lists
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, which states that a public agency has a responsibility and an
obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen’s personal information with which it has
been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen’s reasonable expectation
of privacy.” You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-149.pdf.
Sincerely,
Frank F. Caruso
Government Records Council
Communications Specialist/Resource Manager
Tel: (609) 292-6830 | Fax: (609) 633-6337
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/
_____________________________________________________
This correspondence contains advisory, consultative and deliberative
material and is intended solely for the person(s) shown as recipient(s).
_____________________________________________________
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Government Records Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA Question regarding tax records
April 18, 2018
Please provide guidance on the attached question.
Thank you in advance for any help you can offer.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From:
Joseph DeIorio
To:
"[email protected]"
Subject:
FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Date:
Friday, April 20, 2018 1:54:45 PM
Attachments:
Tax Collector"s letter - OPRA.pdf
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 1:39 PM
To: Joseph DeIorio
Subject: FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:32 AM
To: 'AJ Plainfield' <
[email protected]>; 'Ana Minkoff - Berkeley Heights'
<
[email protected]>; 'Andrew Casais' <
[email protected]>; 'Bonnie Lacina - Scotch Plains'
<
[email protected]>; 'Christina Ariemma - Garwood' <
[email protected]>; 'Eileen
Birch - Union Twp.' <
[email protected]>; 'Eleanor McGovern - Fanwood'
<
[email protected]>; 'Joseph Bodek - Linden' <
[email protected]>; 'June Planas -
Winfield' <
[email protected]>; 'Laura Reinertsen - Kenilworth' <
[email protected]>;
'Linda Donnelly' <
[email protected]>; 'Martha Lopez - Mountainside'
<
[email protected]>; 'Rayna Harris' <
[email protected]>; 'Rosemary Licatese-
Summit' <
[email protected]>; 'Wendi B. Barry - New Providence'
<
[email protected]>; 'Yolanda M. Roberts - Elizabeth' <
[email protected]>; Tara Rowley
<
[email protected]>; '
[email protected]' <
[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OPRA Question regarding tax records
GRC response below
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 10:58 AM
To: 'Government Records Council' <[email protected]>
Cc: Tax Collector <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Mr. Caruso:
Thank you for replying to this very important inquiry. I will forward your response to the township
Tax Collector. I believe this topic is worth pursuing with the Legislature. It is the obligation and
responsibility of State and Local Government to protect the privacy, safety and welfare of our
citizens, especially the most vulnerable.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From: Government Records Council <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To: Clerk's Dept. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Good evening Ms. Merkel,
Thank you for contacting the NJ Government Records Council ("GRC"). The information provided by
the GRC is guidance and does not constitute legal advice or a final decision of the GRC regarding
whether a particular record is exempt from disclosure or not since the provisions of the Open Public
Records Act ("OPRA") are applied to the specific facts of the request and/or complaint. The GRC
cannot tell you exactly how to respond to an official OPRA records request because your response
must depend on the specific facts of the records request.
Generally, OPRA provides that ". . . government records shall be readily accessible for inspection,
copying, or examination . . . with certain exceptions . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. There are 25 specific
exemptions from disclosure included in OPRA.
Additionally, OPRA defines a government record as a record "made, maintained or kept on file . . . or
that has been received in the course of . . . official business . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Also, OPRA
requires a custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible but no later than seven (7) business
days from receipt of the request. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). OPRA further requires that custodians inform
requestors of the lawful basis for any denial of government records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
Regarding your inquiry, the GRC first notes that it was unable to locate any prior cases addressing
the exact records to which you refer in your letter. Further, the GRC may not be aware of any
variables that impact the issue. Thus, guidance on this issue is difficult to provide.
Notwithstanding, the questions you raise are similar to those raised about the disclosure of accident
reports without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131. In fact, the accident report issue could be
analogous to your situation. Specifically, the Council has previously ruled on whether redactions are
warranted on auto accident reports. Specifically, in Truland v. Borough of Madison, GRC Complaint
No. 2006-88 (September 2007), the Council held that “no redactions to the requested auto accident
reports are warranted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.” The New Jersey statute cited specifically states
that “information contained [in the report] shall not be privileged or held confidential.”
See
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2006-88.pdf. The Council’s holding in Truland, has been
applied to another complaint in which accident reports were at issue.
See
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2011-154.pdf. This is a departure from the normal OPRA
procedures since driver’s license numbers, social security numbers and unlisted telephone numbers
are specifically exempt under OPRA and are routinely redacted from records.
Now, as you can probably tell, this has caused citizens to become unsettled (and other various forms
of reaction) if they are contacted by attorneys, insurance companies,
etc., after being in accident.
The GRC also receives phone calls from concerned custodians and citizens regarding the non-
confidential nature of accident reports. In each instance, the GRC is obligated to reply that it
understands that N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 and prevailing case law provides a stark conflict with the personal
information exemptions present in OPRA, which has led to some confusion across the State.
However, unless and until either the Legislature amends the statute and/or the courts/GRC decide
otherwise, accident reports are required to be disclosed without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.
The GRC’s role in OPRA is to adjudicate complaints based on the plain reading of the OPRA, which
can sometimes lead to these types of decisions. Unfortunately, if it is the case that an agency is
required by law to disclose this information in its entirety, the appropriate avenue for change would
likely be the Legislature. This is, of course, in the absence of any statutes, regulations, or executive
orders making this information exempt in part or whole.
Additionally, if the disclosure issue comes down to a question of privacy interest as opposed to a
statutory requirement to disclose the information, the following may apply:
The GRC’s earliest decisions regarding privacy interest was in Bernstein v. Borough of Allendale, GRC
Complaint No. 2004-195 (July 2005). There, the requestor sought access to the names and addresses
of dog license owners. The Council dismissed the case on the basis that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1
and Executive Order 21 the records should not be disclosed because of the unsolicited contact,
intrusion or potential harm that may result. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2004-195.html.
However, in an Appellate Division decision the Court held differently. In Atl. Cnty. SPCA v. City of
Absecon, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1370 (Jun 5, 2009), the Court held that the requested dog
license lists should be disclosed to the requestor, the ASPCA. It is important to note that both the
GRC and the Court conducted a balancing test to determine whether the records should be
disclosed. Thus, the answer is extremely fact specific. It is important to note that the Court discussed
the ASPCA’s need for this information because of its mission to investigate alleged animal abuse. See
also Renna v. Cnty. of Union, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 342 (February 17, 2012).
Additionally, in another court case, Bolkin v. Kwasniewski, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2641, (Law
Div. December 5, 2012), plaintiff sought the names and addresses of dog and cat license owners in
Fair Lawn for the purpose of sending political literature regarding candidates who support animal
friendly legislation. The Custodian denied access citing to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1, Governor McGreevey’s Executive Order No. 26, Doe v. Poritz, and the Council’s Bernstein
decisions regarding similar records. Using the balancing factors from Doe, the trial Judge found that
the release of just the names and addresses of the dog owners with all other information contained
on the license applications redacted is appropriate. Specifically, the Judge relied on the Supreme
Court’s decision in Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), holding that names and addresses
alone, without any other identifiers, does not sufficiently implicate privacy concerns to warrant
nondisclosure under OPRA. I have attached this decision for your convenience. This decision was
affirmed on appeal. Please see attached the Appellate Division’s unpublished decision in Bolkin v.
Kwasniewski, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1409, (App. Div. 2014).
All the decisions are made on a case by case basis. More recently, the Council decided on two (2)
complaints with various outcomes regarding names, home addresses, etc. that highlight the fact
specific nature in which the GRC makes determinations on privacy interests.
See Levitt v. Twp. of
Monclair (Essex), GRC Complaint No. 2012-150 (August 2013)(
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2012-150.pdf); Bean v. Borough of Belmar (Monmouth),
GRC Complaint No. 2013-39 (Interim Order dated December 20, 2013).
Please note, though, that in the following GRC decisions the Council upheld the redaction of home
addresses and telephone numbers as well:
Merino v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, GRC Complaint No. 2003-110 (July 2004). The Complainant
sought access to “Copies of (1) all moving violations of Officer Michael Tuttle during career
with Ho-Ho-Kus Police Department, (2) training records of Officer Tuttle; and (3) records of
complaints or internal reprimands against Officer Tuttle.” After conducting a balancing test,
the Council found that the home addresses should be redacted from the records provided to
the Complainant. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2003-110.html#findings.
Paff v. Warren Cnty. Office of the Prosecutor, GRC Complaint No. 2007-167 (February 2008).
The Complainant requested various records pertaining to State v. Philip Gentile,
Indictment/Accusation No. 07-02-00060-A. After conducting a balancing test, the Council
held that the redacted portions of the requested records (name and address of victim) were
properly redacted due to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. You may view this
decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-167.pdf.
Faulkner v. Rutgers Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2007-149 (May 2008). The Complainant
requested names and addresses for Rutgers University football and basketball season ticket
holders for 2006. After conducting a balancing test, the Council held that “the Custodian did
not unlawfully deny the Complainant access to the requested season ticket holders’ lists
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, which states that a public agency has a responsibility and an
obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen’s personal information with which it has
been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen’s reasonable expectation
of privacy.” You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-149.pdf.
Sincerely,
Frank F. Caruso
Government Records Council
Communications Specialist/Resource Manager
Tel: (609) 292-6830 | Fax: (609) 633-6337
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/
_____________________________________________________
This correspondence contains advisory, consultative and deliberative
material and is intended solely for the person(s) shown as recipient(s).
_____________________________________________________
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Government Records Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA Question regarding tax records
April 18, 2018
Please provide guidance on the attached question.
Thank you in advance for any help you can offer.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
FW: OPRA Seminar April 16, 2018
Date:
Friday, April 13, 2018 9:01:20 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
image003.png
DOCSLIB-#651139-v1-OPRA_Presentation_April_2018.DOC
Fyi J
Danielle Holland-Htut, Program Specialist
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08608
Phone: 609-695-3481 ext 118
Fax: 609-695-0151
[email protected]
Follow us
Facebook:
facebook.com/njleague Twitter: @nj_league
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
****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: Carl Woodward [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:16 PM
To: Danielle Holland; Lewis Scheindlin (
[email protected])
Subject: OPRA Seminar April 16, 2018
Danielle,
Attached please find my update on OPRA cases for 2017 and the first quarter of 2018. It should be
available for distribution to the attendees, either in hard copy or on-line, or both. I will not be using
a Powerpoint, but will refer to various decisions summarized therein.
Please contact me with any questions. Looking forward to seeing you on Monday.
Kindest 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:
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]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
NJ Supreme Court OPRA Decision Diminishes Privacy Rights
Date:
Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:30:00 PM
FYI, recent League blog post on the Brennan NJ Supreme Court case on OPRA.
From: The Town Crier [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:04 PM
Subject: [New post] NJ Supreme Court OPRA Decision Diminishes Privacy Rights
njlmblog posted: "On Wednesday, the NJ Supreme Court issued its decision in William J. Brennan v.
Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, a case that examined the Open Public Records Act’s competing
interests of government transparency and individual privacy. In this case, the "
New post on
The Town Crier
NJ Supreme Court OPRA Decision Diminishes
Privacy Rights
by njlmblog
On Wednesday, the NJ Supreme Court issued its decision in William J. Brennan v.
Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, a case that examined the Open Public Records Act’s
competing interests of government transparency and individual privacy. In this case, the
Court was asked to determine whether OPRA compels disclosure of documents
containing the names and addresses of persons who successfully bid at an auction of
public property?
Unfortunately, as is often the case, transparency interests prevailed to the detriment of
privacy concerns. The Court found that those who participate in a public auction for
public property are aware that their names, addresses and other information which they
have provided will be available to the public. Therefore, there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy which must be protected and the unredacted records should be
disclosed.
Also, in this case, the Court created what appears to be a new rule for whenever courts
are tasked with examining the release of records and balancing transparency with
privacy. Typically, when privacy considerations are presented as reason for withholding
disclosure under an OPRA request, courts would use what is known as Doe factors to
analyze whether privacy would trump the need for disclosure. The Doe factors examine,
among other things; the type of record requested, the information contained in those
records, the potential harm of disclosure, and the degree of need for access to the
records.
In the case at hand, the Court determined that “courts are not required to analyze Doe
factors each time a party asserts that a privacy interest exists. A party must first present
a colorable claim that public access to records would invade a person’s reasonable
expectation of privacy.” Based on this, it would appear that courts must now first examine
the threshold questions of whether or not a reasonable expectation of privacy exists prior
to examining the Doe factors. Where a colorable claim of a reasonable expectation of
privacy has not been made, the courts will not need to examine the Doe factors. While
on many occasions lower courts have seemingly made this threshold determination, the
Court’s ruling in Brennan sets out a more bright-line requirement for courts to do so.
You should review this decision with your municipal attorney and your records custodian
for more information on this ruling and the impact on your municipality.
Contact: Frank Marshall, Esq., League Staff Attorney, [email protected] or 609-695-
3481 x137.
njlmblog | May 24, 2018 at 8:03 pm | Tags: OPRA | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7xPny-lx
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
OPRA Question regarding tax records
Date:
Monday, April 23, 2018 4:06:56 PM
Attachments:
Tax Collector"s letter - OPRA.pdf
Shane,
As we discussed.
Lori
From: Clerk's Dept.
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 10:58 AM
To: 'Government Records Council' <[email protected]>
Cc: Tax Collector <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Mr. Caruso:
Thank you for replying to this very important inquiry. I will forward your response to the township
Tax Collector. I believe this topic is worth pursuing with the Legislature. It is the obligation and
responsibility of State and Local Government to protect the privacy, safety and welfare of our
citizens, especially the most vulnerable.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From: Government Records Council <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 6:30 PM
To: Clerk's Dept. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OPRA Question regarding tax records
Good evening Ms. Merkel,
Thank you for contacting the NJ Government Records Council ("GRC"). The information provided by
the GRC is guidance and does not constitute legal advice or a final decision of the GRC regarding
whether a particular record is exempt from disclosure or not since the provisions of the Open Public
Records Act ("OPRA") are applied to the specific facts of the request and/or complaint. The GRC
cannot tell you exactly how to respond to an official OPRA records request because your response
must depend on the specific facts of the records request.
Generally, OPRA provides that ". . . government records shall be readily accessible for inspection,
copying, or examination . . . with certain exceptions . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. There are 25 specific
exemptions from disclosure included in OPRA.
Additionally, OPRA defines a government record as a record "made, maintained or kept on file . . . or
that has been received in the course of . . . official business . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Also, OPRA
requires a custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible but no later than seven (7) business
days from receipt of the request. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). OPRA further requires that custodians inform
requestors of the lawful basis for any denial of government records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.
Regarding your inquiry, the GRC first notes that it was unable to locate any prior cases addressing
the exact records to which you refer in your letter. Further, the GRC may not be aware of any
variables that impact the issue. Thus, guidance on this issue is difficult to provide.
Notwithstanding, the questions you raise are similar to those raised about the disclosure of accident
reports without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131. In fact, the accident report issue could be
analogous to your situation. Specifically, the Council has previously ruled on whether redactions are
warranted on auto accident reports. Specifically, in Truland v. Borough of Madison, GRC Complaint
No. 2006-88 (September 2007), the Council held that “no redactions to the requested auto accident
reports are warranted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.” The New Jersey statute cited specifically states
that “information contained [in the report] shall not be privileged or held confidential.”
See
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2006-88.pdf. The Council’s holding in Truland, has been
applied to another complaint in which accident reports were at issue.
See
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2011-154.pdf. This is a departure from the normal OPRA
procedures since driver’s license numbers, social security numbers and unlisted telephone numbers
are specifically exempt under OPRA and are routinely redacted from records.
Now, as you can probably tell, this has caused citizens to become unsettled (and other various forms
of reaction) if they are contacted by attorneys, insurance companies,
etc., after being in accident.
The GRC also receives phone calls from concerned custodians and citizens regarding the non-
confidential nature of accident reports. In each instance, the GRC is obligated to reply that it
understands that N.J.S.A. 39:4-131 and prevailing case law provides a stark conflict with the personal
information exemptions present in OPRA, which has led to some confusion across the State.
However, unless and until either the Legislature amends the statute and/or the courts/GRC decide
otherwise, accident reports are required to be disclosed without redactions per N.J.S.A. 39:4-131.
The GRC’s role in OPRA is to adjudicate complaints based on the plain reading of the OPRA, which
can sometimes lead to these types of decisions. Unfortunately, if it is the case that an agency is
required by law to disclose this information in its entirety, the appropriate avenue for change would
likely be the Legislature. This is, of course, in the absence of any statutes, regulations, or executive
orders making this information exempt in part or whole.
Additionally, if the disclosure issue comes down to a question of privacy interest as opposed to a
statutory requirement to disclose the information, the following may apply:
The GRC’s earliest decisions regarding privacy interest was in Bernstein v. Borough of Allendale, GRC
Complaint No. 2004-195 (July 2005). There, the requestor sought access to the names and addresses
of dog license owners. The Council dismissed the case on the basis that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1
and Executive Order 21 the records should not be disclosed because of the unsolicited contact,
intrusion or potential harm that may result. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2004-195.html.
However, in an Appellate Division decision the Court held differently. In Atl. Cnty. SPCA v. City of
Absecon, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1370 (Jun 5, 2009), the Court held that the requested dog
license lists should be disclosed to the requestor, the ASPCA. It is important to note that both the
GRC and the Court conducted a balancing test to determine whether the records should be
disclosed. Thus, the answer is extremely fact specific. It is important to note that the Court discussed
the ASPCA’s need for this information because of its mission to investigate alleged animal abuse. See
also Renna v. Cnty. of Union, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 342 (February 17, 2012).
Additionally, in another court case, Bolkin v. Kwasniewski, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2641, (Law
Div. December 5, 2012), plaintiff sought the names and addresses of dog and cat license owners in
Fair Lawn for the purpose of sending political literature regarding candidates who support animal
friendly legislation. The Custodian denied access citing to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1, Governor McGreevey’s Executive Order No. 26, Doe v. Poritz, and the Council’s Bernstein
decisions regarding similar records. Using the balancing factors from Doe, the trial Judge found that
the release of just the names and addresses of the dog owners with all other information contained
on the license applications redacted is appropriate. Specifically, the Judge relied on the Supreme
Court’s decision in Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009), holding that names and addresses
alone, without any other identifiers, does not sufficiently implicate privacy concerns to warrant
nondisclosure under OPRA. I have attached this decision for your convenience. This decision was
affirmed on appeal. Please see attached the Appellate Division’s unpublished decision in Bolkin v.
Kwasniewski, 2014 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1409, (App. Div. 2014).
All the decisions are made on a case by case basis. More recently, the Council decided on two (2)
complaints with various outcomes regarding names, home addresses, etc. that highlight the fact
specific nature in which the GRC makes determinations on privacy interests.
See Levitt v. Twp. of
Monclair (Essex), GRC Complaint No. 2012-150 (August 2013)(
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/pdf/2012-150.pdf); Bean v. Borough of Belmar (Monmouth),
GRC Complaint No. 2013-39 (Interim Order dated December 20, 2013).
Please note, though, that in the following GRC decisions the Council upheld the redaction of home
addresses and telephone numbers as well:
Merino v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, GRC Complaint No. 2003-110 (July 2004). The Complainant
sought access to “Copies of (1) all moving violations of Officer Michael Tuttle during career
with Ho-Ho-Kus Police Department, (2) training records of Officer Tuttle; and (3) records of
complaints or internal reprimands against Officer Tuttle.” After conducting a balancing test,
the Council found that the home addresses should be redacted from the records provided to
the Complainant. You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2003-110.html#findings.
Paff v. Warren Cnty. Office of the Prosecutor, GRC Complaint No. 2007-167 (February 2008).
The Complainant requested various records pertaining to State v. Philip Gentile,
Indictment/Accusation No. 07-02-00060-A. After conducting a balancing test, the Council
held that the redacted portions of the requested records (name and address of victim) were
properly redacted due to privacy concerns pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. You may view this
decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-167.pdf.
Faulkner v. Rutgers Univ., GRC Complaint No. 2007-149 (May 2008). The Complainant
requested names and addresses for Rutgers University football and basketball season ticket
holders for 2006. After conducting a balancing test, the Council held that “the Custodian did
not unlawfully deny the Complainant access to the requested season ticket holders’ lists
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, which states that a public agency has a responsibility and an
obligation to safeguard from public access a citizen’s personal information with which it has
been entrusted when disclosure thereof would violate the citizen’s reasonable expectation
of privacy.” You may view this decision on our website at
http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/pdf/2007-149.pdf.
Sincerely,
Frank F. Caruso
Government Records Council
Communications Specialist/Resource Manager
Tel: (609) 292-6830 | Fax: (609) 633-6337
http://www.state.nj.us/grc/
_____________________________________________________
This correspondence contains advisory, consultative and deliberative
material and is intended solely for the person(s) shown as recipient(s).
_____________________________________________________
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:11 PM
To: Government Records Council <[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA Question regarding tax records
April 18, 2018
Please provide guidance on the attached question.
Thank you in advance for any help you can offer.
Edith L. Merkel, RMC
Township Clerk
Township of Clark
430 Westfield Ave.
Clark, NJ 07066
(732) 388-3669 ph.
(732) 388-1241 fx.
From:
Carl Woodward
To:
Danielle Holland ([email protected]); LewisScheindlin ([email protected])
Subject:
OPRA Seminar April 16, 2018
Date:
Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:15:55 PM
Attachments:
DOCSLIB-#651139-v1-OPRA_Presentation_April_2018.DOC
Danielle,
Attached please find my update on OPRA cases for 2017 and the first quarter of 2018. It should be
available for distribution to the attendees, either in hard copy or on-line, or both. I will not be using
a Powerpoint, but will refer to various decisions summarized therein.
Please contact me with any questions. Looking forward to seeing you on Monday.
Kindest 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]
Subject:
OPRA-OPMA Bills - Sen Weinberg Memo
Date:
Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:37:25 AM
Attachments:
OPRA-OPMA Weinberg Memo June 2018.pdf
All,
Sorry for the delay in sending the attached and notice that Senator Weinberg’s OPRA and OPMA bills
are before the Senate State Government Committee today. I have been out sick since Monday.
The attached is a memo from Senator Weinberg outlining the proposed changes she will be making
to the bills. The Senator has committed to meeting over the summer again to address the
outstanding issues.
Under a separate email I will forward you a copy of the proposed amendments for your review and
comments.
Thanks,
Lori
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
OPRA-OPMA Weinberg Memo June 2018.pdf
Date:
Monday, June 11, 2018 7:57:31 PM
Attachments:
OPRA-OPMA Weinberg Memo June 2018.pdf
I haven't read the document yet...in a congested/medicated haze. But I figure I would
share as soon as I received it.
Senator Weinberg is also agreeing to meet with the stakeholders over the summer.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
Personal Email under OPRA
Date:
Thursday, April 12, 2018 9:56:19 AM
Attachments:
Gettler v Wantage - OPRA Email Accounts.pdf
DAndrea v NJ Civil Service - GRC Decision.pdf
Paul,
Attached to this email please find two pdf documents. The first is William Gettler v. Twp. of
Wantage, a decision from the GRC. This case reviews the issue of redacting personal emails from an
OPRA request. The GRC analyzes disclosure using the Burnett factors and likens personal email
addresses to unlisted phone numbers, thus making it proper to redact such information.
The second pdf attached is the GRC’s final decision in James D’Andrea v. NJ Civil Service
Commission. This case upheld the Gettler ruling and reiterated that personal email addresses should
be redacted from OPRA requests.
If you have any questions or if there is anything else I can assist with, please let me know.
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:
Lewis Scheindlin
To:
Danielle Holland
Cc:
Carl Woodward
Subject:
Re: Friendly Reminder for OPRA Seminar on April 16
Date:
Monday, April 9, 2018 4:53:03 PM
Attachments:
image002.png
image004.png
ScheindlinLeague2018.pptx
Danielle, attached is my powerpoint presentation on OPRA and Privacy, that I'll be using at
the program. I don't have any handouts, although of course you can make copies of the
powerpoint to hand out. Please let me know if you have any questions. See you next Monday.
Lew
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Danielle Holland
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Lew and Carl,
This is friendly reminder regarding the OPRA In Depth: Privacy and Law Enforcement
Issues at the Doubletree Hotel in Tinton Falls on April 16, 2018. Our current count for
this program is 100 attendees.
In terms of A/V equipment, we will have a laptop, podium, and microphone as well as a
projector and screen if you wish to make a PowerPoint presentation. If you do have a
handout you want me to distribute please have it to me by Thursday.
In case of emergency my cell number is 908-227-1142.
Have a wonderful rest of your week and if you have any questions please let me know.
Danielle Holland-Htut, Program Specialist
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08608
Phone: 609-695-3481 ext 118
Fax: 609-695-0151
[email protected]
Follow us
Facebook:
facebook.com/njleague Twitter: @nj_league
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/
UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
****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:
Kim White
To:
Lori Buckelew
Subject:
Re: NJ Supreme Court OPRA Decision Diminishes Privacy Rights
Date:
Thursday, May 24, 2018 5:56:51 PM
Thanks! This just keeps getting worse.
Get Outlook for iOS
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:30 PM -0400, "Lori Buckelew"
<[email protected]> wrote:
FYI, recent League blog post on the Brennan NJ Supreme Court case on OPRA.
From: The Town Crier [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 4:04 PM
Subject: [New post] NJ Supreme Court OPRA Decision Diminishes Privacy Rights
njlmblog posted: "On Wednesday, the NJ Supreme Court issued its decision in William J. Brennan v.
Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, a case that examined the Open Public Records Act’s competing
interests of government transparency and individual privacy. In this case, the "
New post on
The Town Crier
NJ Supreme Court OPRA Decision Diminishes
Privacy Rights
by
njlmblog
On Wednesday, the NJ Supreme Court issued its decision in William J. Brennan v.
Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, a case that examined the Open Public Records
Act’s competing interests of government transparency and individual privacy. In this
case, the Court was asked to determine whether OPRA compels disclosure of
documents containing the names and addresses of persons who successfully bid at an
auction of public property?
Unfortunately, as is often the case, transparency interests prevailed to the detriment of
privacy concerns. The Court found that those who participate in a public auction for
public property are aware that their names, addresses and other information which they
have provided will be available to the public. Therefore, there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy which must be protected and the unredacted records should be
disclosed.
Also, in this case, the Court created what appears to be a new rule for whenever courts
are tasked with examining the release of records and balancing transparency with
privacy. Typically, when privacy considerations are presented as reason for
withholding disclosure under an OPRA request, courts would use what is known as
Doe factors to analyze whether privacy would trump the need for disclosure. The Doe
factors examine, among other things; the type of record requested, the information
contained in those records, the potential harm of disclosure, and the degree of need for
access to the records.
In the case at hand, the Court determined that “courts are not required to analyze Doe
factors each time a party asserts that a privacy interest exists. A party must first
present a colorable claim that public access to records would invade a person’s
reasonable expectation of privacy.” Based on this, it would appear that courts must
now first examine the threshold questions of whether or not a reasonable expectation of
privacy exists prior to examining the Doe factors. Where a colorable claim of a
reasonable expectation of privacy has not been made, the courts will not need to
examine the Doe factors. While on many occasions lower courts have seemingly made
this threshold determination, the Court’s ruling in Brennan sets out a more bright-line
requirement for courts to do so.
You should review this decision with your municipal attorney and your records
custodian for more information on this ruling and the impact on your municipality.
Contact: Frank Marshall, Esq., League Staff Attorney,
[email protected] or 609-
695-3481 x137.
njlmblog | May 24, 2018 at 8:03 pm | Tags: OPRA | Categories:
Uncategorized | URL:
https://wp.me/p7xPny-lx
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
From:
[email protected]
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
RE: OPRA In Depth: Privacy and Law Enforcement Issues
Date:
Wednesday, April 18, 2018 3:16:14 PM
Attachments:
ScheindlinLeague2018.pptx
DOCSLIB-#651139-v1-OPRA_Presentation_April_2018.DOC
Good Afternoon Edith,
For this particular seminar I am not able to offer a refund. I can send you the information from the seminar(see
attached ) and I will absolutely forward your questions onto the speakers so they can answer you directly.
Danielle Holland-Htut, Program Specialist
New Jersey State League of Municipalities
222 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08608
Phone: 609-695-3481 ext 118
Fax: 609-695-0151
[email protected]
Follow us
Facebook: facebook.com/njleague Twitter: @nj_league
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/new-jersey-league-of-municipalities YouTube:
youtube.com/channel/UCbce9oVw9LvO6vxNz_89mZw
****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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clerk's Dept. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 4:40 PM
To: Danielle Holland
Subject: FW: OPRA In Depth: Privacy and Law Enforcement Issues
Importance: High
To: D. Holland, NJLM
From: Edith Merkel, Township Clerk, Township of Clark
Re: OPRA questions
Date: April 17, 2018
The Tax Collector and I were registered for yesterday's class. Flooding and poor visibility made it too dangerous for
us to make the trip. The PO is sitting on my desk, ready to be paid. Is the township obligated to pay even though we
could not get there? If so, can we have a credit to attend a class at a later date?
Please ask the presenters: Carl Woodward, Esq. and Lew Scheindlin, Esq. to address the following concerns:
1. Within the Tax Office I have received Oprah requests for all delinquent balances on properties, overpayments
on properties, tax sale properties and list of open Tax Liens.
I am aware, according to State Statute that we are required to provide this information.
My concerns:
1. After filing such OPRA requests as listed above, I have received numerous calls from residents:
a. Senior Citizens that had delinquent balances for taxes were receiving calls or letters from someone claiming to
be representing the tax office of Clark - and advising them that they were at risk of losing their property for this
delinquency.
b. A resident, that had an open lien on his property, came to the office very irate- saying that someone knocked
on their door saying that they were going to have their house taken away for an open lien. The resident was
extremely upset because his teenage daughter was home alone when this person came and really made her nervous.
c. Residents are receiving soliciting calls offering their services - to help them obtain a refund for an
overpayment on their taxes.
These are only a few of the scenarios. It concerns me that this information is being used to take advantage of our
citizens. Since our responsibility as Tax Collector's is to protect and serve the tax payer, I feel we need to address
this concern. There has to be a way to fulfill the requests while protecting the homeowners.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Laura Caliguire
Tax Collector
Township of Clark
-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected] <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:31 PM
To: Clerk's Dept. <
[email protected]>
Subject: OPRA In Depth: Privacy and Law Enforcement Issues
Dear Municipal Clerk:
On April 16, 2018 at the DoubleTree Hotel in Tinton Falls from 8:30a.m. to 12:30p.m. the NJ League of
Municipalities will have a seminar titled "OPRA In
Depth: Privacy and Law Enforcement Issues." This seminar will discuss two critical areas of OPRA: the statute's
privacy provision, and OPRA's requirements governing law enforcement records. Topics to be discussed with regard
to privacy issues include: the application of OPRA's privacy exemption to various government records and
information contained in government records; recent case law developments concerning OPRA and privacy
interests; and the procedures that public bodies should follow when in receipt of an OPRA request that presents a
privacy issue. The seminar will also provide an in depth review of OPRA and law enforcement records. This
includes an overview of the statute's provisions concerning investigatory and security records, and also a discussion
of recent court cases on the public's access to law enforcement records, such as police reports and videos from
dashcams, bodycams and surveillance cameras. In addition, there will be a discussion of other recent notable OPRA
opinions issued by the courts.
Presenters:
- Carl Woodward, Esq, League Associate Counsel, Carella,Byrne,Cecchi,Olstein,Brody & Agnello,P.C.
- Lew Scheindlin, Esq, Former Assistant Attorney General for OPRA, New Jersey Division of Law, Office of
Attorney General, Firm of Lewis A. Scheindlin, Esq.
Member Rate: $70.00* / Non-Member: $90.00 *Member rate applies to: Municipalities, State, County, and
Municipal Utilities & Authorities.
CEU's - CMFO/CCFO-4.0 Off Mgmt/Anc; CTC-4.0 Gen/Sec; CPWM-4.0 Govt;RMC-4.0 Rec; QPA- 4.0 Off
Admin/Gen Duties; RPPO/RPPS-4.0 M/S; CRP-3.0 Classroom;CPA-
4.0PD;NJCLE-4.0;PACLE-3.5*
Registration: www.njslom.org/seminars/
More Information: 609-695-3481 ext 118 or
[email protected]
DISTRIBUTION: Municipal Clerk, Chief Financial Officer, Tax Collector / County Freeholder Board Clerk, Chief
Financial Officer / Authority Officials / Fire District Officials / Procurement Officials
Document Outline
