New Jersey Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project

A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
 
Letter to W.T. Barry, Aug. 4, 1822, in 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910)

NOTE: due to relocation to a larger server OGTFarchive.org has been re-united with OGTF.LPCNJ.org.

2012   2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006   2005   2004

Recent issues:

Hudson ELEC filings

 

New OPRA and OPMA bills

 

Gibbsboro/Voorhees OPRA suit concluded

 

Paff and Delgado v. Camden City Board of Ed

 

Renna v. Union County Alliance

 

Jones v. Paulsboro GLO-L-001360-11

 

Censure of former Excellence Charter School trustees

By submitting OPRA requests to the School Ethics Commission for its meeting minutes and then some of the docket numbers mentioned within those minutes, I have been able to determine that the Commission has recommended, and probably actually imposed, a "censure" upon the Institute for Excellence Charter School trustees Linda L. Clemons and Beverly J. Hutton. According to the school's site, http://tifecs.sjtp.net/, neither Clemons nor Hutton appear to still be trustees, although Clemons was a trustee as recently as mid-2011. The documents pertaining to the censure are online here. Pages 1 through 4 of that file comprise a "complaint form" filed by Antionette R. Thompson who appears to be the school's former director. The allegations are varied, but the allegation concerning the $4,950 invoice seems to be the most serious. Pages 5 through 6 comprise the Ethics Commission's October 25, 2011 public meeting minutes. Those minutes reflect that the Commission discussed this case (i.e. Docket No. C03-10) during executive session and unanimously resolved accept a settlement recommending a penalty of censure." Yet, if one searches the Commission's site (http://www.nj.gov/education/legal/ethics/index.html ) there is no listed of this case. Presumably, it will be made public on the site sometime in the future, but I believe that the public needs to know of these types of events as soon as possible. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Phone: 732-873-1251 Paff@pobox.com
 

Florence School Board

School Ethics Commission documents on Nutter's case are on-line here. Pages 1 through 4 comprise a "complaint form" filed by Nutter's family member who alleges that Nutter suggested that he could help her get a full time job with the Florence school district if the family member, who was executrix of the Nutter's deceased mother's estate, could give certain items of estate property to him. Pages 5 through 6 comprise the Ethics Commission's October 25, 2011 public meeting minutes. Those minutes reflect that the Commission discussed Nutter's case (i.e. Docket No. C35-10) during executive session and unanimously resolved "to reject the proposed settlement recommending a penalty of reprimand and instead propose a penalty of censure." Pages 7 through 8 comprise the Commission's November 22, 2011 meeting minutes reflecting that C35-10 was again discussed in executive session and that afterwards the Commission unanimously resolved to "accept the settlement with a recommended penalty of censure." Yet, if one searches the Commission's site (http://www.nj.gov/education/legal/ethics/index.html ) there is no listed of Nutter. Presumably, it will be made public on the site sometime in the future, but I believe that the public needs to know of these types of events as soon as possible.
 

Dunellen judge sued for malpractice in escalator injury case

On October 9, 2009, a Middlesex woman filed a lawsuit against Dennis Fackelman and his law firm of Vastola, Fackelman, Sullivan & Spengler for failing to properly protect her interests in a personal injury lawsuit. Fackelman, Dunellen's municipal court judge, was sued in his capacity as a private lawyer, and not as a judge. The lawsuit was filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court under Docket No. MID-L-8748-09. It was later transferred to Essex County under Docket No. ESX-L-3322-10 where it is scheduled for trial before Judge Dennis F. Carey, III on May 12, 2012. A copy of the lawsuit is on-line here The Plaintiff, Wendy Sue Clark of Second Street, Middlesex, claims that she was injured on October 25, 2007 at the Newark Airport. She alleges that her foot got stuck on a step of an escalator causing her to lose balance and fall. Besides Fackelman and his law firm, her suit names the City of Newark, the Port Authority, Schindler Elevator Corp and Jet Blue Airways as defendants. She claims that she consulted with Fackelman after her injury but that he told her "that she did not have a good and/or viable claim against the Port Authority." She also claims that Fackelman didn't tell her she had a claim against the City of Newark or that she had a potential claim against the escalator company. She alleges that Fackelman didn't file the proper tort claim notices upon Newark and "failed to institute a lawsuit against" the Port Authority within the statute of limitations "thereby barring and/or limiting [her] right to recover for her injuries. Fackelman has denied the allegations. These are only allegations and nothing has been proven in court. Clark is being represented by Patrick J. Bradshaw, law partner with of Middlesex County Counsel Thomas F. Kelso. Fackelman and his firm are being represented by Emery J. Mishky of Margolis Edelstein of Berkeley Heights. I believe that this case is of public interest because it alleges that a person in position of power and authority--a municipal court judge--was negligent in his duties as a lawyer. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey 732-873-1251 paff@pobox.com
 

Letter to Englewood Cliffs

New Jersey Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project John Paff, Project Chairman P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875-5424 Phone: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 E-mail: Paff@pobox.com January 24, 2011 Hon. Joseph C. Parisi, Jr., Mayor and members of the Englewood Cliffs Borough Council 482 Hudson Terrace Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 via e-mail to SSpohn@englewoodcliffsnj.org Hon Mayor Parisi and Council members: A recent news article ("Englewood Cliffs councilwoman alleges violation of the Open Public Meetings Act," the Record, by Melissa Hayes, January 21, 2012) reports allegations of two violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). First, it is alleged that the Council did not set aside a portion of its reorganzation meeting for public comment. If this is true, a violation occurred. N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(a) states that "a municipal governing body . . . shall be required to set aside a portion of EVERY meeting of the municipal governing body . . . for public comment on any governmental . . . issue that a member of the public feels may be of concern to the residents of the municipality . . ." (emphasis supplied). No exception is made for reorganization meetings. Second, it is alleged that at a December 20, 2011 executive session, "council members were notified that Brian Ribarro, who was hired as building subcode official for a four-year term in August, had resigned." If this is true, it appears also to be a violation because the resolution that authorized the executive session in accordance of N.J.S.A. 10:4-13, listed only one topic to be discussed: "Police Contract Negotiations." (The resolution is on-line at ) The object of the resolution is to inform the public of the topics that the council will discuss behind closed doors. In order to effectively accomplish this objective, the Council must limit its private discussions to only those topics that are set forth in the resolution. Discussing a subcode official's resignation, while arguably a "personnel matter" which may be privately discussed in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(8), is clearly outside the scope of "police contract negotiations." If the council wanted to discuss the resignation, it ought to have reconvened in public session and passed another resolution that would have informed the public of the nature of the closed discussion's topic. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /s/ John Paff P.S. The full text of the OMPA is available here http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/OPMA.htm
 

Roccisano v. Franklin, Case No. 3:11-cv-06558

 

Piscataway school board's "sunshine" compliance

On January 20, 2012, I wrote to President Maas and the other members of the Piscataway Board of Education concerning the Board's compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act (i.e. the "sunshine" law). Particularly, I am concerned that the Board a) doesn't tell the public enough information about the topics that is discusses behind closed doors (i.e. closed or executive sessions), b) doesn't keep reasonably comprehensible minutes of its executive sessions and c) may be discussing topics in executive session that ought to be discussed with the public in attendance. My letter to the Board is on-line here. WHO AM I AND WHY AM I DOING THIS? I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. We take to heart James Madison's quote: "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both." As part of our work, we monitor local governmental bodies to check on how well they inform the public about the public business they discuss behind closed doors. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/ paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251
 

open letter to Dunellen Mayor and Council

Mayor Seader and Dunellen Borough Council Members As you know, I have previously asked the Council during public session to establish a written policy to ensure that the Council's discussions and decision-making are not done via e-mail and thus outside of public view. Specifically, in a July 11, 2011 letter, I expressed concern that the Council members still list their personal e-mail addresses (e.g. Yahoo and aol) on the Borough's web site making it very difficult, if not impossible, for the Borough to reliably retain those e-mails as required by state regulations. (For your ready reference, my July 11th letter is available on-line at ) Clearly, if e-mails are not being reliably retained by the Clerk, there is no way for the public to determine whether or not important decisions are being made via e-mail rather than during public meetings. While the Council has expressed interest in adopting such an e-mail policy, it has not yet, to my knowledge, actually adopted one. And, the Borough council's web page, which I checked today, still lists personal e-mail addresses. See http://www.dunellenborough.net/mayor&council.html Following is an editorial from yesterday's Press of Atlantic City regarding Lower Township's (Cape May County) proposed e-mail policy and lamenting that "too many officials simply don't accept their duty under the Sunshine Law" and that many wait until after a Sunshine violation occurs before adopting an e-mail use policy. I think that you'll agree that Dunellen shouldn't wait for a violation to occur, but should get out in front of this issue and adopt a preemptive policy. I have OPRA'd Lower Township's e-mail policy as well as others from around the state and will forward them to Clerk Robins upon receipt. Can the Mayor and Council commit to discussing this issue at its February 6, 2012 meeting and enacting a policy within a few months thereafter? Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251 ---text of editorial Sunshine law / Emails count, too Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:01 am It's only a matter of time before you see a headline about some town council or school board violating the state's Open Public Meetings Act by conducting public business via text or Skype or Facebook or whatever new communications technology comes next to our cell phones and iPads. The current culprit is email. The Lower Township Council has introduced an ordinance to clarify the use of email by officials. This comes after Cape May County Prosecutor Robert Taylor notified council members last summer that they had violated the open-meetings act, known as the Sunshine Law, when they used email to discuss township manager candidates in December 2010. Holding discussions and making decisions via email is the same as doing this behind closed doors. It prevents the public from knowing what is going on and how decisions are being made. It cuts the people who pay the bills out of the loop. To their credit, Lower Township Council members are now trying to ensure such violations won't happen again, by delineating how email can and cannot be used for public business. The New Jersey State League of Municipalities says Lower Township is among the first towns in the state to address the issue. Most of the other towns that have passed email restrictions have done so after a Sunshine Law violation. Rather than wait for this piecemeal approach, state legislators ought to clarify that discussions using email - or any other communication technology - fit the definition of public meetings and are covered by the Sunshine Law. Such legislation has been introduced in the past, but has not been adopted. While email may be the problematic medium of the moment, the underlying issue is that too many officials simply don't accept their duty under the Sunshine Law. Officials who want to circumvent the law will always find ways. Some have used phone calls or pre-meeting meetings. Too many bodies still go into closed sessions under flimsy pretenses, to avoid embarrassing discussions or just to keep arguments out of the public eye. If our elected representatives truly understood that they work for the public, and that they must conduct the public's business in public, constant updates and clarifications of the Sunshine Law would be unnecessary. Until that understanding is widespread, advocates for governmental transparency will have to keep chasing the latest technology. http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/editorials/sunshine-law-emails-count-too/article_337acef7-cab7-5419-87ed-9fe9502bcd45.html
 

Union Township pays $40,728 to settle police excessive force suit

On December 22, 2010, the Township of Union (Union County) agreed to pay $40,728 to an Irvington man who sued members of the Union Police Department for allegedly beating him. In his suit, Michael David Evans of 1126 Stuyvesant Ave said that on May 30, 2007, he was walking down the street when he was ordered to stop by Union Police Officers David Pinto and Dan Roman. Evans claimed that during a pat down he "turned slightly toward [the officers] to ask why he was being arrested." He alleged that Pinto "punched [him] in the face, knocking [him] to the ground." Thereafter, he claimed that he was handcuffed and then "slammed several times" into a wall. He said that because he was handcuffed, he "could not brace himself against the impact and hit the wall with his face, breaking his nose, cutting his face open and denting the aluminum siding." He claimed that his injuries were so bad that he required a hospital visit. Thereafter, he alleges, the Union County jail "would not accept him because he had been beaten so badly" resulting in him being held at "the Union police station lock-up for two or three days." Afterwards, he said he spent ten days in jail before a judge set his bail. The case is captioned Evans v. Pinto, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-02462 and Evans's attorney was Raoul Bustillo of Union City. Case documents are on-line here. According to an arbitrator's letter, out of the $40,728, Evans received $15,000 and his lawyer received $20,000 in fees and $5,728 in costs. None of Evans's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $40,728 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Union or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Union or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Evans $40,728 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Roselle Park Judge gets it wrong--cops' testimony is not automatically favored

On January 11, 2002, the Appellate Division reversed a conviction of a woman who was charged with improperly using a handicapped parking space and returned the matter to municipal court to be retried before a different judge. Central to the decision was the Roselle Park Municipal Court judge's erroneous conclusion that a police officer's testimony must automatically be considered more truthful than contradictory testimony given by an ordinary citizen. The rule in New Jersey is that police officer can't be considered more credible than any other witness simply because of their occupation. The decision is on-line here: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Ethics Board fines 5 Old Bridge officials, including ex-Ethics Board member

On January 6, 2012, the Old Bridge Township (Middlesex County) Ethics Board fined five Township officials $100 each for failure to file Financial Disclosure Statements that were due on or before April 30, 2011. The statements are designed to inform the public of certain financial information--including sources of officials' income--so that conflicts of interest can be more readily detected. The five officials fined are: Rabbi Rossi Kanelsky: Municipal Ethics Board Marilyn Liberatore: Fire District #1 Donna Ortiz: Rent Stabilization Board Robin Rosen: Economic Development Corporation Donna Thibault: Unknown The fines were a result of the New Jersey Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project's June 17, 2011 complaint against twenty (20) Old Bridge Officials who failed to file their financial statements. My complaint, the penalty letters, Ethics Board meeting minutes and other pertinent documents are on-line here: I have two comments/questions regarding the Ethics Board's actions: 1. I am unclear as to why Donna Thibault was fined, as she was not listed in the complaint that I filed. 2. My complaint was against twenty officials, yet only five were fined. Among those who were included in my complaint but were not fined was Ethics Board Attorney Brian Whitehead--who signed the penalty letters against the the five officials who were fined. I am unclear as to what criteria was used to determine which five of the twenty officials complained should be fined. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com January 9, 2012
 

Dunellen Parking Authority article identifies areas of confusion

An article appeared in today's (January 7, 2012) Courier News regarding my and the State's questioning of the financial integrity of the Dunellen Parking Authority. http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120106/NJNEWS/301060030 Background on the issue is on my blog: http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2011/12/audits-need-close-look.html Condensed version: after reading an August 30, 2010 letter from Andrew G. Hodulik, the Authority's auditor, I became concerned by his statement that due to the "inadequacy of [the Authority's] accounting system and records for the year ended December 31, 2008," he wasn't able to determine the amounts of the Authority's "accounts receivable, accounts payable and deferred parking permit revenues [which] are recorded/not recorded on the balance sheet or accompanying financial statements." http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011289UU//Auditors%20letter.pdf Mr. Hodulik's comment caused me to contact the Division of Local Government Services (DLGS) within the Department of Community Affairs. On November 29, 2011, the DLGS, apparently finding merit to my concerns, wrote the Authority a stern letter noting that for several years it had insufficient controls "surrounding the monitoring of parking permit fees and parking meter collections and proof of collections." The DLGS stated that the Authority's "ongoing failure to resolve the significant [accounting] deficiency . . . is not acceptable" and demanded that it develop a Corrective Action Plan within 90 days.http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011360ug//dunellenPA.pdf I felt that the State's finding, which in essence said that that Authority didn't keep records of how much cash it was receiving from meters and permit sales (thus allowing pilfering to occur unchecked), warranted notification of the Borough Council as well as the media. During his research of the matter, Courier News staff writer Sergio Bichao was provided with the Parking Authority's January 6, 2012 letter to the DLGS. This letter indicates that most of the more critical accountability issues had already been addressed in 2004 and 2008. Bichao's article accurately stated that the January 6, 2012 letter "baffled" me. The matters that confuse me are: a) Why did Hodulik's August 30, 2010 letter, which was written approximately two years after the Authority had installed the new, improved parking meters in 2008, not indicate that the problem with meter collections had been resolved? b) Why did the DLGS, after reviewing the matter in late 2011, come to the apparently erroneous conclusion that parking meter collections were not properly accounted for when that problem was allegedly resolved in 2008 when the new, improved meters were purchased. I've always understood that a government audit's purpose is to professionally evaluate whether public money is being properly safeguarded and accounted for and to clearly report those evaluations to the taxpaying public. In this case, the audit reports apparently did not do their job because the DLGS--the State agency officially tasked with keeping track of local agencies' fiscal integrity--erroneously concluded that the Authority's meter collection and permit revenues were not properly accounted for. If the state agency charged with ensuring the financial integrity of public agencies cannot correctly interpret those agencies' audits, I don't see how a regular citizen is supposed to do better. Also, the article reveals that the DLGS "does not normally review audits at this level of detail." If this is true, and if the audits are not written in a manner allowing them to be interpreted by the general public, I question whether the audits' value exceeds their expense. I think that this matter illustrates that some sort of reform is needed on how audits of public funds are conducted and reviewed. Currently, millions of tax dollars are spent by thousands of public agencies across the state for audits that are "not normally reviewed" in detail by the state government and, even when they are so reviewed, are fundamentally misinterpreted. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey paff@pobox.com January 7, 2012
 

Older issues:

2011

Passaic County Forfeiture Fund account holds nearly $2 million

I have uploaded checking account statements from January 2009 through August 2010 for the Passaic County (New Jersey) "Confiscated Funds Trust Account." Those statements are available here: This is the fund that holds money confiscated by police from criminal defendants and others under New Jersey's asset forfeiture law. (It may also contain moneys received through the federal government's asset forfeiture sharing program.) As of August 31, 2010, the balance in the account was $1,888,395.57. This money can be expended for "law enforcement purposes" by the county prosecutor. While the payees on the checks disbursed from this account are disclosed on the bank statements, they can easily be obtained by submitting Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests for specific checks. For example, one could submit a written OPRA request for "a copy of both sides of check number 1596 for $18,256.59 from the County's "Confiscated Funds Trust Account." While an OPRA request needs to only be in writing and not on any specific request form, Passaic County's OPRA request form is available at http://www.passaiccountynj.org/PDF/modelrequest.pdf John Paff Somerset, New Jersey Parenthetically, I note that while the fund has, since January 2009, maintained a balance of greater than $1 million, it is held in Wachovia "Government Advantage Interest Checking" account. On August 10, 2010, Wachovia paid the county $74.77 as interest for the month of July 2010 while the balance during that month was $1.9 million. This translates to approximately .05% (i.e. .0005) annually. I did a quick on-line check and found that Investor's Savings Bank pays .49% on 91 day Certificates of Deposit. So, even if Passaic County were to invest $1 million of its "Confiscated Funds Trust Account" balance in those CD's instead of the checking account, it would realize an extra $4,400 per year in interest.
 

Air Force Captain sues Pemberton Twp Police

On January 6, 2011, Evan Reece, a Pemberton Township resident and Air Force Captain, filed a federal lawsuit against Pemberton Township Police Chief Robert Lewandowski, Sergeant Paul Delagarza and Patrolmen John Hall and Jason Gant for unlawfully entering into his California Trail home and arresting him. The suit arises out a January 7, 2009 visit to Reece's home by police who said that a "dropped" 911 call had been traced to Reece's home. Reece claims that after he informed officers that there was no emergency, Delagarza asked for consent to enter the home and look around. Reece claims that he denied consent and "closed his door to end the encounter." Reece then claimed that Delagarza, Gant and Hall "suddenly forced open the door" and took Reece, who claims to have not resisted, to the floor, struck him repeatedly in the face and "choked him about the neck." He claims that the officers falsely charged him with assault, obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. The lawsuit does not say whether Reece was convicted or acquitted of those charges. The lawsuit is on-line at Is there more to this story? In order to find out, I submitted the following records request to Pemberton Township today: Background: On January 6, 2011, Evan Reece filed a lawsuit against the Township of Pemberton and several members of Pemberton's police department for alleged police misconduct arising out of January 7, 2009 incident at 423 California Trail, Pemberton. The case is captioned Evan Reece v. Township of Pemberton, et al, Federal Civil Case No. 1:11-cv-00077. The lawsuit is on-line here: In his suit, Reece claimed that Sergeant Delagarza and Patrolmen Gant and Hall, without consent to enter or warrant "suddenly forced open the door" of his home and took him to the floor, struck him repeatedly in the face and "choked him about the neck." He claims that the officers falsely charged him with assault, obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. I realize that one cannot count on civil plaintiffs and their lawyers to tell the complete and unvarnished truth in their complaints, so the object of this request to obtain police reports regarding the incident to get the official side of the story. Records Requested: 1. Copies of "arrest reports" (also known as "police arrest reports" and "uniform arrest reports" issued in connection with the January 7, 2009 incident that formed the basis for the civil case of Reece v. Pemberton, Docket No. 1:11-cv-00077 For clarification, the reports I seek are required to be kept by Records Series 0007-0000 within Records Retention and Disposition Schedule No. M900000-004 (Municipal Police Departments) issued by the New Jersey Division of Archives and Records Management (www.njarchives.org). The requested reports are government records subject to disclosure. See Morgano v. Essex County Prosecutor's Office, Government Records Council Case No. 2007-156. 3. Copies of the "Daily Activity/Tally Sheets/Vehicle Logs" filed by Sergeant Delagarza and Patrolmen Gant and Hall on January 7, 2009. For clarification, the records I seek are required to be kept by Records Series 0021-0000 within Records Retention and Disposition Schedule No. M900000-004 (Municipal Police Departments) issued by the New Jersey Division of Archives and Records Management (www.njarchives.org). 4. Copy of the "Event Card/Complaint Card" issued in connection with the January 7, 2009 incident that formed the basis for the civil case of Reece v. Pemberton, Docket No. 1:11-cv-00077. For clarification, the reports I seek are required to be kept by Records Series 0026-0000 within Records Retention and Disposition Schedule No. M900000-004 (Municipal Police Departments) issued by the New Jersey Division of Archives and Records Management (www.njarchives.org). 5. Copy of the "Incident Reports" issued in connection with the January 7, 2009 incident that formed the basis for the civil case of Reece v. Pemberton, Docket No. 1:11-cv-00077 For clarification, the reports I seek are required to be kept by Records Series 0036-0000 within Records Retention and Disposition Schedule No. M900000-004 (Municipal Police Departments) issued by the New Jersey Division of Archives and Records Management (www.njarchives.org). 6. Copies of all "Use of Force Reports" that arose out of the January 7, 2009 incident that formed the basis for the civil case of Reece v. Pemberton, Docket No. 1:11-cv-00077. For clarification, these are the reports that the Appellate Division, on November 9, 2009, declared to be public records. See Martin O'Shea v. Township of West Milford, Docket No. A-1185-08. 7. Complaints issued against Evan Reece arising out of the January 7, 2009 incident that formed the basis for the civil case of Reece v. Pemberton, Docket No. 1:11-cv-00077. By "complaints" I mean the CDR-1, CDR-2 or other form of complaint issued in accordance with R.7:2-1. 8. Any records showing the dispositions (i.e. conviction, acquittal, plea bargain, dismissal, etc.) of the complaints responsive to #7 above. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. I then try to use the Open Public Records Act to determine whether the police acted appropriately. I believe that police using excessive force is of legitimate public concern. I also believe that litigants and attorneys who use the court system to advance fabricated or frivolous claims against the police similarly deserve public scrutiny. On the strength of a civil complaint alone, it is impossible to tell if the police conducted themselves appropriately, if the civil plaintiff fabricated or exaggerated the facts or neither or both. To complicate matters further, the vast majority of such civil cases reach settlement in which the plaintiff is paid a sum of cash and police deny liability. This makes it difficult or impossible for the public to know what really occurred. So, perhaps my records request to the Pemberton Township police will shed some light on this incident. When I receive Pemberton Township's response, I will post it on this forum. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey P.S. When civil cases settle, I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, are of interest to citizens and taxpayers.
 

Washington Council (kind of) improves transparency

On January 11, 2011, Jason Braff of the Pascack Valley Community Life reported that the Washington Township Council (Bergen County) agreed to begin using a new form of resolution to go into closed session. At the following link, readers will find the Township's prior resolution, the New Jersey Libertarian Party's proposed resolution and the resolution that the Township is now using. The new resolution is better than the old one because it reveals the specific item of litigation and one of the specific land acquisition matters that were privately discussed. Yet, it vaguely discloses that "contract negotiations" were privately discussed without disclosing the parties to the contracts or even how many contracts were discussed. And, it stated--without more--that "personnel" matters were discussed. In sum, Washington's new resolution, while better than the old one, is a half-hearted attempt to improve its compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Court orders release of neighbor's phone call to cops

On January 7, 2011, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Bernadette H. DeCastro ordered the Town of West New York (Hudson County) and its record custodian, Carmela Riccie, to disclose a recording of a call to the West New York Police Department that resulted in plaintiff's car being towed. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Frank Ponce's car was towed on September 4, 2010 after someone called police and reported that the car was blocking a driveway. Police also issued Ponce a summons for improperly blocking the driveway. Ponce claims that the owner of 6708 Palisade Avenue, the location from which the car was towed, "has made numerous, unfounded complaints" against him. While he suspects that the owner called police, he wants to listen to the recording so that he can verify who made the call. Since he is pleading not guilty to the summons, he says that he needs that information so that he can subpoena the caller as a witness before the Municipal Court. DeCastro ordered Riccie to provide Ponce with the recordings he sought and also declared him to be the prevailing party in the litigation who is entitled to recover his costs and attorney fees from West New York. Ponce was represented by Walter M. Luers of Oxford. The complaint, brief and DeCastro's order are on-line here.
 

Residential landlords cannot be penalized if tenants refuse to let Borough inspectors enter their homes

The Borough of National Park (Gloucester County), like many municipalities, has an ordinance that requires the owners and occupants of residential rental properties to periodically allow municipal inspectors inside the tenants' homes to conduct inspections. On January 28, 2011, Gloucester County Superior Court Judge Jean B. McMaster, ruled on consolidated appeals filed by two landlords who had been fined $150 for refusing to grant National Park inspectors access to their rental properties. (State v. Hunsberger, (Gloucester County Municipal Appeal No. 35-09) and State v. Devine (Gloucester County Municipal Appeal No. 36-09).) Judge McMaster reasoned that a) since tenants have a right to demand a search warrant before inspectors can enter their homes, and b) landlords do not have the capacity to waive the tenants' right to insist upon a search warrant, it violates landlords' due process rights to hold them liable for fines and impossible incarceration when their tenants refuse to consent to Borough inspections. Ultimately, Judge McMaster ruled that a rental property owner cannot be convicted under the ordinance if the property is occupied by a residential tenant on the day of the inspection who objects to the inspector entering his or her home. The landlords' attorney was Jamie Epstein of Cherry Hill and the court's orders and opinion are on-line here:
 

Monroe Township loses $4 records case

On January 25, 2011,the Government Records Council held that Monroe Township (Middlesex County) violated the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) by overcharging a records requestor by $4.00. The GRC found that Monroe improperly charged the requestor the fee for police accident reports even though the requestor had asked for police Internal Affairs records. The GRC's decision is on-line here. The decision indicates that the Township had the law firm of Shain, Schaffer & Rafanello, P.C. defend it in this GRC case. The Township defense, which is set forth in pages 3 to 6 of attached, appears to have been comprehensive and vigorous. It is questionable, however, whether it was sensible for the Township to pay for such a vigorous defense when all that was at stake in the matter was four dollars. Accordingly, I have submitted an OPRA request (also at the link above) to learn how much of its taxpayers' money Monroe spent on this case. I will post the Township's response on this forum. The next issue for the GRC to decide--probably in a month or two--is whether the requestor's attorney fees should be paid by the Township taxpayers. This, of course, will be in addition to the amount the Township paid its own lawyer. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

State fines four Roselle Park officials for failure to disclose finances

On January 31, 2011, the Local Finance Board, which is within the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, levied $100 fines against four Roselle Park (Union County) officials who failed to file their Financial Disclosure Statements (FDS) in 2008. The four officials are: Gail Bradley, Board of Health member Robert Tobe, Fire Chief Bill Heim, Zoning Board member Jeff Regan, Library Board member The Notices of Violations against the four officials are on-line here. The FDS forms are required by New Jersey's Local Government Ethics Law to be filed by elected and certain appointed municipal officials. The forms disclose officials' sources of income, business interests and real estate holdings so that members of the public can better determine if officials have a conflict of interest in any given matter. For example, a Zoning Board member's form might disclose, among other things, that the member's spouse works for a particular company. If the company for which the spouse works applies for a variance before the Zoning Board, the public might not realize that the member is conflicted from acting on that application had the member failed to file an FDS form. The fines were levied in response to an October 1, 2009 complaint filed by the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. In that complaint, the Project alleged that twenty-seven Roselle Park officials had failed to file the FDS forms due on April 30, 2008. Among those named in the complaint for failing to file was First Ward Councilman Laurence Dinardo. The New Jersey Libertarian Party's complaint and letter to the Mayor and Council are on-line here: During 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Libertarian Party filed complaints against hundreds of officials in approximately fifty municipalities around the State. Previously, the Local Finance Board has steadfastly refused to fine officials who fail to file as long as the official later files the delinquent form. In light of the Libertarian Party's complaints, however, Thomas H. Neff, who chairs the Local Finance Board, has informed the Party that "the Board is considering implementation of a stricter policy of fining local government officers who fail to file annual financial disclosure statements in a timely manner." Neff added, however, that "pending advance notice of such a policy, the past policy of not fining officers who file statements in response to complaints will continue." A January 31, 2011 letter from Neff that contains these quotes is on-line here. It is believed that the fines levied against these four Roselle Park officials are the first fines to be levied against non filers by the Local Finance Board since the Local Government Ethics Law was enacted in 1991. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Robbinsville pays $9,000 to settle employment lawsuit

On January 10, 2011, the Township of Robbinsville (Mercer County) agreed to pay $9,000 to a California man who sued Mayor David Fried, Police Chief Martin Masseroni and Township Administrator Mary K. Cafferty for reneging on an employment offer. In his suit, John M. Holliday said that in 2007 he was offered a position as a Robbinsville police officer. After he completed the application process and accepted the position, he claims that he began moving his wife and family from California to New Jersey. Holliday alleges, however, that on October 9, 2007, the Township revoked its employment offer claiming that Holliday had "lacked full disclosure of his employment history." Acording to an article in the October 16, 2009 Trentonian ("Playgirl hunk suing R'ville over disputed officer's job," by Joe D'Aqula), Holliday's employment offer was revoked because he was a former "Playgirl Magazine Man of the Year" who posed nude for the magazine. The case is captioned Holliday v. Robbinsville, New Jersey Superior Court, Docket No. MER-L-2514-09 and Holliday's attorney was Raymond C. Staub of Trenton. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Holliday's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $9,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Robbinsville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Robbinsville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Holliday $9,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Camden school board pays $75,000 to settle teacher's suit

On October 23, 2009, the Camden Board of Education (Camden County) agreed to pay $75,000 to a former fifth-grade teacher who claimed that the Board retaliated against him after after he brought public attention to a vice principal allegedly making Hispanic students eat their lunch off the cafeteria's floor. In his suit, Jose L. Rivera of Vineland said in February 2008, one of the students in his bi-lingual class, consisting exclusively of Hispanic students, spilled some water on the floor while trying to change a jug of water on a water cooler. This incident allegedly happened on day when Rivera was absent and a substitute was teaching the class. He alleges that as a result of this accident, Vice Principal Theresa Brown "decided to punish the whole class [by making the Hispanic children] eat lunch on the floor of the cafeteria without trays, while the African-American and mixed classes sat at the lunch table with trays. This went on for more than a week before [Rivera] learned of the punishment." Rivera reported that his students told him that Vice Principal Brown had threatened them with more punishment if they told anyone about having to eat off the floor. Rivera, who said he feared retaliation, advised his students to tell their parents of the punishment and have the parents call the Board of Education. In his suit, Rivera said that he didn't report the matter to Acting Principal Alex DeFlavia because he felt that he would "be either indifferent to or in support of" the punishment. After the Board received parents' complaints, Rivera said that the Board reprimanded and suspended him "for failing to notify the principal, even though the principal already knew and had taken no action." He said that he "never worked another day" for the Board, but that Vice Principal Brown was not fired but transferred to another school. The case is captioned Rivera v. Camden Board of Education, Federal Case No. 1:08-cv-04306 and Rivera's attorney was Alan H. Schorr of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. None of Rivera's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Camden or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Camden or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Rivera $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Asbury Park pays $10,000 to settle police false arrest suit

On January 24, 2010, the City of Asbury Park (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $10,000 to a local woman who sued Asbury Park Police Officer Michael Paulk for falsely arresting her. In hwe suit, Lissa McQueen said that on June 30, 2008, she smelled an odor coming from a board up house next door to her residence. She claims that she knocked on the door to speak to the occupants about the odor when she was approached by Paulk who accused her of trespassing and being engaged in drug activity. She said that after she became upset at these accusations, Paulk handcuffed her, took her to the policy station and charged her with disorderly conduct. She claims that the charges were dismissed by the court on October 14, 2008. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. The case is captioned McQueen v. Asbury Park, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv-02657 and McQueen's attorney was Dwight P. Ransom of Neptune. Case documents are on-line here. None of McQueen's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Asbury Park or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Asbury Park or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay McQueen $10,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Camden County pays $400,000 to settle wrongful death action

On July 16, 2008, the County of Camden agreed to pay $400,000 to a estate of man who hanged himself while incarcerated at the Camden County Correctional Facility (CCCF). In her suit, Agnes E. Walls, administratrix of the estate of Christopher L. Miller, claimed that CCCF officials ignored Miller's repeated threats of suicide while he was incarcerated in early January 2005. According to the suit, Miller allegedly "begged [the guards] to again place him in restraints, so as to prevent him from taking his own life." He reportedly hanged himself after guards "turned a deaf ear to his entreaties and ignored his prayer for help." Named in the suit were Facility Warden Eric Taylor and CCCF officers Harry Sweeten, Troy Jones, Walter Radlinger, Glen Titus, Donald Souder, Christopher Burcii, J. DeForge, and Donovan Washington. According to a July 16, 2008 settlement, the County agreed to pay Walls $300,000 of the $400,000 settlement immediately and work with her to file direct claims against CFG Health Systems, LLC and Steininger Behavioral Care Services, who appear to be private contractors retained by the County. According to a December 3, 2009 release, the County recovered a total of $150,000 from CFG and Steininger. The case is captioned Walls v. County of Camden, Federal Case No. 1:06-cv-05961 and Walls' attorney was Philip Stephen Fuoco of Haddonfield. Case documents are on-line here. None of Walls' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $400,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Camden or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Camden or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Walls $400,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Ridgefield pays $7,500 to settle police false arrest suit

On April 30, 2010, the Borough of Ridgefield (Bergen County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a developmentally disabled man who sued members of the Ridgefield Police Department for allegedly falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting him. In his suit, Bryan Parker said that he was at a Little League field on July 7, 2006 when he was taunted and teased by several teenage boys identified in the suit as Julian Benitez, Christopher Yakoubian, Christian Ganci, Vincent Cumella, Keith Lyons, Matthew Savinovich and Matthew Kees. Parker, who said that he became afraid, called the police. When Ridgefield Police Officers Robert Katz, Joseph Castellitto, Hagop Cigercioglu, Robert Williams and Richard Besser responded, Benitez allegedly told them that "Parker had touched him on the butt and rubbed his leg." Benitez's allegation caused Katz to arrest him and charge him with criminal sexual contact. He was released on his own recognizance after being in custody for about three hours. The charge was reportedly amended to harassment and was later dismissed by the municipal court. The complaint alleges that subsequent police interviews of Benitez revealed "contradictions that called into doubt his credibility." Even though Police Chief John Bogovich was aware of the contradictions prior to Parker's first court hearing, he allegedly did nothing to stop his prosecution from continuing. The case is captioned Parker v. Ridgefield, Federal Case No. 2:08-cv-3226 and Parker's attorney was Stephen M. Latimer of Hackensack. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. The settlement agreement releases only Ridgefield and its officers, not Julian Benitez. None of Parker's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Ridgefield or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Ridgefield or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Parker $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Bridgewater Police Sergeant settles suit with Township

On February 17, 2011, the insurer for Bridgewater Township (Somerset County) confirmed that Police Sergeant Gerald Nunnery and the Township "have reached an agreement in principle" that will settle Nunnery's lawsuit against the Township. The insurer declined to release details regarding the settlement since it is not yet finalized. On December 1, 2008, Nunnery sued the Township, Mayor Patricia Flannery, Police Chief Richard Borden and Lieutenants Rick Hollander and Robert Wilk (Nunnery v. Bridgewater, Docket No. SOM-L-1858-08) claiming that he was unlawfully passed over for promotion to lieutenant. According to the suit, the Township promoted Hollander and Wilk to lieutenant on October 8, 2008. Nunnery alleges that the promotion process was unlawful because it "allows for arbitrary decisions based upon superiors' personal opinions" and is, in part, "geared towards candidates who are favored in the eyes of the Bridgewater Police Department." He claims that a more objective process is required by law. His suit seeks rescission of Wilk's and Hollander's promotions and a court order requiring Bridgewater to establish a more objective promotion policy. Nunnery also seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and the imposition of "fines and penalties" against the defendants. Nunnery's lawsuit, my records request and the insurer's response to my request are on-line here. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bordentown Fire District 2 pays $13,756.98 to settle firefighter lawsuit

In August 2010, Fire District No. 2 in Bordentown Township (Burlington County) agreed to pay $13,756.98 to a career firefighter who claimed that the Fire District violated his due process rights when it suspended him without pay for three months. As part of the settlement, the firefighter--David J. MacFarland of Florence--agreed to resign effective December 31, 2009. In his suit, MacFarland claimed that he was suspended by the Fire District on January 29, 2009 based on a psychogist's evaluation deeming him unfit for duty. He said that the suspension was procedurally defective because it did not provide him with meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard. He also said that the suspension was "ludicrous and irrational" because he was already excused from duty for medical reasons when the suspension was imposed. Named in the suit were Fire Commissioners Stephen Monson, Matt Dillon, Joseph Fresco, Andrew Watson and David Horsnall. The case is captioned MacFarland v. Commissioners of Fire District No. 2, Federal Case No. 1:09-cv-02865 and MacFarland's attorney was John F. Pilles, Jr. of Mount Holly. Case documents are on-line here. None of MacFarland's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $13,756.98 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Fire District or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Fire District or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay MacFarland $13,756.98 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Important OPMA case: Court forbids routine "sequencing" of open and closed sessions.

In an important ruling handed down today, the Appellate Division ruled that the routine sequencing of a five-minute open session, followed by a closed session of indeterminate duration, followed by the resumption of an open session, violates the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). The court found that such sequencing forces citizens to wait a considerable period of time while the body is in closed session and provides them no guarantee when the open session will resume. Such uncertainty, the court ruled, will inevitably cause some members of the public to leave the meeting, a result that would be avoided if the closed session did not begin until the entire public session had been completed. The court did not rule that there could never be a case where it was proper for a closed session to be held before the public portion ended. Rather, it ruled against the public body in this case because the record reflected that the body routinely engaged in this practice. Also of importance was the court's ruling that that resolutions passed in advance of a closed session AND THE PUBLIC NOTICES ADVERTISING THE CLOSED MEETING, "should contain as much information as is consistent with full public knowledge without doing any harm to the public interest." The court also ruled that the body's discussion regarding "the need for clear rules to be implemented across all facets of the University" should not have been held in closed session. The decision, McGovern v. Rutgers, is on-line here:
 

Seaside Height pays $30,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On January 20, 2011, the Borough of Seaside Height (Ocean County) agreed to pay $30,000 to an Avenel man who sued members of the Seaside Height Police Department for allegedly assaulting him. In his suit, Justin Racelis said that on July 29, 2007, he was leaving the Bamboo Bar when Police Officer Robert Rezzonico yelled to him "Hey, f*****' retard, get over here!" After he and his friends emptied their pockets in accordance with Rezzonico's instructions, Rezzonico allegedly threatened Racelis with arrest if he said "another word." After Racelis asked Rezzonico if he was serious, Rezzonico reportedly arrested and handcuffed him. Racelis' girlfriend then allegedly put her attorney's business card and a PBA card into Racelis' mouth, and Rezzonico reportedly took them out. After the girlfriend asked for the cards back, Rezzonico allegedly threatened to "kick her ass." Racelis started calling out to passersby and asked them to videotape the event. At this point, Racelis alleges, Rezzonico, together with Officers Shawn Heckler, Sean J. McGinley, Matthew Quinn and Moutros Constantino, "tackled [Racelis] to the ground, rammed a knee into [his] next and maced him." But, allegedly, a passerby by the name of George W. Kramer, did photograph the event and when police realized it, they allegedly arrested Kramer and deleted the photos from his camera. (Kramer sued and later settled for $50,000 -- see http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2010/12/seaside-heights-pays-50000-to-man-who.html ) Also named in the suit were Seaside Height Police Chief Thomas Boyd and Sergeant Terrence R. Farley. The case is captioned Racelis v. Seaside Height, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv-03066 and Racelis's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Racelis's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $30,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Height or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Height or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Racelis $30,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

East Brunswick pays $22,500 to police officer who claimed retaliation

On October 22, 2010, the Township of East Brunswick (Middlesex County) agreed to pay $22,500 to a Township police officer who claimed he was retaliated against after speaking out about the East Brunswick Police Department allegedly "engaging in illegal racial profiling" and allowing police officers who drive drunk to drive away without being charged. He also claims to have spoken out about several other safety issues, including officers in patrol cars having loaded shotguns on a rack behind their heads. In his suit, Joseph Marcantonio, who claims to have a very high success rate in arresting drunk drivers, complained about being regularly scheduled to appear in municipal court at 9 a.m. on the mornings after he completed his shift at 4 a.m. He claims that his supervisors refused to allow him sufficient time to sleep and this resulted in increased blood pressure, sleeping disorders, anxiety and depression. Named in the suit were East Brunswick Police Director Barry Roberson, Captain Scott Mayer, Lieutenant Alan Quercia and Sergeant George Kaltenbach. The case is captioned Marcantonio v. East Brunswick, Superior Court Docket No. MID-L-6428-07 and Marcantonio's attorney was William H. Buckman of Moorestown. Case documents are on-line here. None of Marcantonio's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $22,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by East Brunswick or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that East Brunswick or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Marcantonio $22,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Gloucester City pays $45,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On October 14, 2010, two officers in the Gloucester City (Camden County) Police Department agreed to pay $45,000 to a Woodbury man who sued them for allegedly falsely arresting and using excessive force against him. In his suit, Reginal Gaines, a 45 year old, African American man, said that on July 7, 2006 he was pulled over by Gloucester City Police Officer James Little for "not having a tag light and for failing to use a turn signal." Gaines claims that Little, without provocation, sprayed mace in his face and eyes. He alleged that Officer J. Flood (presumably Jason S. Flood) threatened to have Marco, a police dog, attack him. Further, he alleged that Officer Carlos A. DePoder tackled him to the asphalt without provocation. Gaines stated that he was arrested, charged with disorderly conduct, obstruction and aggravated assault on a police officer held under $20,000 bail. According to a March 3, 2010 court opinion, Gaines was later found not guilty of those charges in Audubon Municipal Court. According to the court opinion, the mobile video camera on Little's car ran out of videotape prior to the arrest and Flood's vehicle camera also did not record the police interaction with Gaines because of the way it was parked. Also named in the suit were Gloucester City Police Chief William G. Crothers, Deputy Chief Michael Kaye, Lieutenant G. Berglund (presumably George J. Berglund) and several official from Audubon Borough. These officials, as well as Flood, were dismissed from the suit. The case is captioned Gaines v. Gloucester City, Federal Case No. 1:08-cv-03879 and Gaines' attorney was Ronald P. Sierzega of Woodbury. Case documents are on-line here. None of Gaines' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $45,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Gloucester City or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Gloucester City or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Gaines $45,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Closed Minutes reveal Galloway's reasons for removing Manager Tees

I recently requested the minutes of the Galloway Township (Atlantic County) Council's December 14, 2010 and January 25, 2011 closed session in order to better understand the reasons why Galloway Mayor Keith Hartman and Council members removed Manager Roger B. Tees from his position in late January 2011. The minutes, although still heavily redacted, do provide some details on the Council's reasons for removing Tees. They are on-line here.
 

Clayton and Elk pay $35,000 to settle police harassment suit

On October 26, 2010, the Borough of Clayton and Township of Elk, (both in Gloucester County) each agreed to pay $17,500 (for a total of $35,000) to a Sewell Church, two church pastors and a church worker who alleged that police and officials from both municipalities harassed them. The suit was brought by the City Harvest World Outreach Church (on-line at http://www.cityharvestnj.org/), Pastors Richard Beatty, his wife Pastor Leola Beatty and church worker Harry Hampton. According to the lawsuit, Hampton was living at an Elk Township residence owned by City Harvest Church while the residence was being renovated and converted into a place of worship. On October 31, 2006, Elk Mayor William J. Rainey, accompanied by Elk Police Corporal Victor Molinari and Elk Police Officers Walter P. Garrison II, Joseph Pierson and Kevin Przybyszewski, allegedly knocked on the door, entered the premises and accused Hampton of possessing illegal drugs. According to the suit, Mayor Rainey and police detained Hampton while searching "the inside of closets, cabinets, rooms and storage areas." The police allegedly did not have a warrant, not did they have probable cause or permission to search the premises. The lawsuit further alleges that no charges were brought against Hampton or the other plaintiffs as a result of the search. Hampton also alleged that Clayton Police Officer Mark Konnick stopped him while he was walking down the street at about 11 a.m. on December 12, 2006. He alleges that there was no justification for the stop and that Elk Police Officers Victor Molinari and Joseph Pierson and Clayton Officer Michael J. Foley also responded to the scene and assisted in questioning Hampton. Hampton alleged that after questioning him and finding no outstanding warrants against him, the four officers transported him to his Elk Township residence, "confiscated his house keys" and opened the front door without his permission. Hampton further alleged that January 1, 2007, at about 11 p.m., Elk Police Corporal Lance Hitzelberger, who was later accompanied by Elk Officer Kevin Przybyszewski, stopped and questioned him without reason or cause. Also named in the suit were Clayton Police Chief Dennis R. Marchei, Elk Police Chief Stephen B. Brogan and the Gloucester County Sheriff's Department. According to Clayton's release, Marchei was dismissed from the suit after a successful summary judgment motion and Officers Konnick and Foley were voluntarily dismissed from the suit. It is unclear exactly what injury either pastor suffered or why Gloucester County was named in the suit. The case is captioned Beatty et al v. County of Gloucester, et al, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-02235 and the plaintiffs' attorney was Jonathan H. Lomurro of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement with Clayton contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of the plaintiffs' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreements expressly state that the $35,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Clayton, Elk, Gloucester County or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the defendants or their insurers, for whatever reason, decided they would rather pay the plaintiffs $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Livingston Township is in violation of state records retention laws.

Livingston's web site invites members of the public to contact the mayor and council members by sending e-mails to their personal accounts. While it's good for public officials to be accessible by e-mail, the fact that their personal addresses are being used for official correspondence raises a question as to how Livingston is fulfilling its duties under state regulations to archive and preserve all official e-mails. (The applicable state regulations are on-line at http://www.njarchives.org/links/circular-letter-03-10-st.html ) Suppose that a council member dies, moves out of town or has a computer crash. Suppose further that a citizen were to then submit an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for that council member's previously sent or received e-mails. Would the Township clerk be able to produce those e-mails without having to contact the former council member (or his or her estate) or subpoena them from the former council member's personal e-mail server? On February 22, 2011, I sent a letter and an OPRA request to Livingston Mayor Rudy Fernandez and the members of the Township Council. In it, I asked for three random, municipal-related e-mails that were sent or received in February 2009 by former Township Councilman Charles "Buddy" August. By letter of March 2, 2011, Township Clerk Glenn R. Turtletaub advised me that he was having trouble getting former Councilman August's e-mails because they are on his former employer's computer. He also stated that the "Township is aware of [the state record retention requirements], has been working to address the situation and is in the process of developing a policy to address the situation." He asked for a three day extension that I granted. By letter of March 7, 2011, Turtletaub advised me that August's former employer advised him that "he does not know how to retrieve and can't retrieve any such documents, and that he has no knowledge of how to retrieve old e-mails from the time period when Mr. August worked for" his previous employer but that he would "keep trying." The OPRA request and correspondence are on-line here: Livingston's inability to produce official e-mails of a former council member clearly demonstrates that the Township is not in compliance with state regulations. Unfortunately, Livingston is only one of many New Jersey municipalities that I have found to suffer from the same deficiency. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Four Gloucester officials file financial statements, three others not required to file

On September 11, 2009, I filed a complaint against nineteen (19) Gloucester City officials for failing to file their Financial Disclosure Statements that were due to be filed by no later than April 30, 2008. The complaints were filed with the Local Finance Board, which is within the Department of Community Affairs, and which has the power to fine municipal officials who fail to file. On January 31, 2011 and February 28, 2011, I received updates from the Local Finance Board advising that a) the following four officials had filed their forms: Former Councilman William R. Hagan, Planning/Zoning Board members Patrick Cerone and Jean McLaughlin and Board of Health member John Schmidt. b) Clerk Kathleen Jentsch determined that the following officials weren't required by law to file Financial Statements, even though the city previously told them that they had to file: Historic Preservation Committee member Mary Jean Goheen, Urban Enterprise Zone member Dianne Fisher and Electrical Inspector William Fisher. As of March 1, 2011, my complaint against the following twelve officials are still pending: Murphy, Ryan; Planning/Zoning Board Smallock, Michael; Planning/Zoning Board Wunsch, Frank; Planning/Zoning Board Brandt, Jack; Planning/Zoning Board Alt. Hagan; Colleen; Library Board Kain, Mary Francis; Library Board Gurick, Joanne B.; Library Board Hartzel, Joseph; Board of Health Gorman, Bernadette; Board of Health Dobleman, Dan; Board of Health Bonner, Michael; Board of Health Solicitor Gorman, Kathy J.; Housing Authority It is worth noting that the statements these twelve officials are charged with not filing are almost three years overdue. My complaint and the updates from the City are on-line here. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Millstone Valley's insurance cancellation

I was recently provided some records, obtained through another person's records request, that shed a bit of light on the cancellation and subsequent reinstatement of Millstone Valley Fire Department's insurance. The records I received, which I've pared down to eliminate duplicates, are on-line here: The documents show: a) That Millstone Valley Fire Department's and Ladies Auxiliary's coverage was deleted from the District's Commercial and Umbrella policies effective December 23, 2010. b) The Fire Department's and Auxiliary's coverage was reinstated effective January 28, 2011, BUT as of the same date, a "Designated Individual Exclusion" rider took effect that removes coverage for "Robert Sheer, Jr." [sic]. It appears that the Fire Department's and Auxiliary's coverage is back in force, but that the insurance company has specifically excluded coverage for "injury, damage, expense, cost, loss, liability, or legal obligation that arises directly or indirectly out of any actions committed or allegedly committed by [Robert Sheer, Jr.] [sic]. The exact reason why the the Fire Department and Auxiliary were deleted from the policy in the first place remains unknown. John Paff
 

Cedar Grove pays $8,000 to settle free speech lawsuit

On February 28, 2011, the Township of Cedar Grove (Essex County) agreed to pay $8,000 to a Millburn woman who sued the Township and its former mayor for refusing to let her speak during two Township Council meetings held in 2009. In her suit, Janet Piszar, along with Verona resident Marilyn English, who both oppose the killing of deer as a way of managing deer population, said that they attended an April 6, 2009 public meeting of the Cedar Grove Township Council "to present arguments and evidence regarding the efficacy of deer kills and to encourage the Township to employ alternate methods." According to the lawsuit, Paul Lee, who was Mayor at the time, and several Council members "repeatedly interrupted Plaintiffs, refused to permit [them] to finish their comments and refused to allow Ms. Piszar to make her presentation regarding deer kills." At a May 18, 2009 public meeting, Mayor Lee allegedly told the pair that "I am not listening to your comments" and accused Ms. Piszar of "denigrating" the Township and implied that unless Ms. Piszar left the podium, she would be arrested. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. The case is captioned Piszar v. Cedar Grove, Superiour Court Docket No. ESX-DC-34868-09 and Piszar's attorney was Walter M. Luers of Oxford. Case documents are on-line here. None of Piszar's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $8,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Cedar Grove or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Cedar Grove or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Piszar $8,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

OPRA/OPMA hearing in Camden this Wednesday

At 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Judge Frederick J. Schuck, sitting in Camden, will hear oral argument in a lawsuit alleging that the City of Gloucester City committed several violations the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access to government records. The lawsuit, Schmidt et al v. City of Gloucester City, et al, Docket No. CAM-L-1287-11 was filed on March 17, 2011 by Oxford, New Jersey attorney Walter M. Luers on behalf of Plaintiffs John P. Schmidt and Michael Walters, both of Gloucester City. In addition to the City, the lawsuit names the Gloucester City Board of Education, the City's Housing Authority as well as City Clerk Kathy Jentsch, Board of Education Business Administrator Margaret McDonnell and Housing Authority Records Custodian Sue McElhatton as defendants. The lawsuit and other case documents are on-line here: The complaint alleges a smorgasbord of OPRA and OPMA violations. The Plaintiffs claim that the Board of Education consistently goes into executive session without sufficiently identifying the topics to be discussed and recording minutes that are "uniformly uninformative." The City Council is accused of denying access to various meeting minutes, holding a secret, illegal meeting and failing to approve executive session minutes in a timely fashion. The Housing Authority is charged with refusing to release any of its 2010 executive session minutes, even in redacted form, and for overly-redacting its attorneys legal invoices. One of the most serious allegations is that the Mayor, on January 1, 2011, invited all City Council members along with certain administrative officials to "a meting at the democrat club on Sunday at 1 p.m. for the sole purpose of finalizing committees for the upcoming year." Despite this being a meeting that ought to have been publicly advertised in accordance with the OPMA, the complaint alleged that "no public notice of that meeting was prepared or published [and] no minutes of the January 2, 2011 secret meeting have been kept." Also of particular significance is the lawsuit's challenge to Board of Education minutes that sum up hour long meetings in one word, such as "Retirement" or "Personnel." The media and public are invited to attend and observe Wednesday's hearing. It will be held at the Hall of Justice, 101 S. 5th Street, Camden. Those who wish to attend are advised to call Judge Schuck's chambers at 856-379-2380 or the Civil Division Manager's office at 856-379-2200 ext. 3070 the day prior to the hearing to verify that it hasn't been adjourned. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Woodbury Heights 2010 municipal salaries on-line

As a service to the public, I have submitted an Open Public Record Act request for the amounts of money Woodbury Heights officials and employees received during 2010 and uploaded the results to the following link: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Gloucester City counterclaims against OPRA requestors

I previously posted information regarding the court case of Schmidt and Walters v. City of Gloucester City, et al, Docket No. CAM-L-1287-11, which alleges various violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access to government records. On April 12, 2011, City of Gloucester City and Acting Clerk Kathy Jentsch filed a counterclaim against Plaintiffs John Schmidt and Michael Walters seeking a court declaration that "the actions of the plaintiffs constitute a substantial disruption under OPRA [and] harassment" and a directive "controlling and regulating plaintiffs [sic] OPRA requests [and] limiting plaintiffs [sic] use of OPRA for legitimate purposes." According to the counterclaim, Schmidt and Walters "between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2011 . . . filed a total of 154 [OPRA] requests" requiring Acting Clerk Jentsch to "spend close to 26 hours in responding." The counterclaim also alleges that "when it became apparent that the plaintiffs were undertaking a campaign of harassment via OPRA" City officials asked the Government Records Council (GRC) for advice. According to the counterclaim, the GRC told City officials "that there may be some relief provided in the substantial disruption provision of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5.g" but that "the best option [is] to pursue a harassment complaint . . . in court." The counterclaim is available on-line here. The lawsuit and other other paperwork is on-line here. Alert readers may remember that Clerk Jentsch is the same records custodian who announced in January 2011 that she was only going to accept two OPRA requests per day. See http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2011/04/just-two-opra-requests-per-day-in.html
 

Should cop who pled guilty in shooting be required to forfeit his job?

On April 18, 2011, I wrote a letter to Ocean County Prosecutor Marlene Lynch Ford asking why a Hillside, New Jersey police officer who pled guilty to aggravated assault (for shooting his stepson) wasn't required to forfeit his job, in accordance with the law, when he entered his guilty plea. My letter to the prosecutor is on-line here. John Paff
 

Hearing today in North Plainfield lawsuit

At 9 a.m. this morning, April 29, 2011, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Margaret Goodzeit will hear cross-motions for summary judgment on a Plainfield's man lawsuit against the Borough, the police department, Police Officer Joseph Mazza and Municipal Court Administrator Jodi Hansen-Rodriguez. In his suit, Stephen Lancaster, of Franklin Place, claims that Mazza, when issuing him some traffic tickets in April 2009, failed to include Lancaster's apartment number on the tickets even though that number allegedly "appears on [Lancaster's] motor vehicle registration and insurance identification card." Lancaster claims that the incomplete address caused him to not receive court notices, resulting in him not appearing in court and a bench warrant being issued for his arrest and his driver license being suspended. He claims that after being stopped in Bernards Township in August 2009, and being informed of the warrant, he visited the Court and Hansen-Rodriguez gave him "a letter requesting the Motor Vehicle Commission to reinstate [his driving privileges]." But, he alleges that Hansen-Rodriguez "failed to rescind the bench warrant." Since the warrant was still active, Lancaster claims that he was stopped a week later by Irvington Police "due to a random computer search of his license plate" which revealed North Plainfield's outstanding bench warrant. He claims that he was arrested and held in the Essex County Correctional Center for three days until the $250 cash bail was posted. His suit demands compensatory and punitive damages since he was "greatly humiliated and disgraced" by his arrest and incarceration. Lancaster is represented in the suit by Joel I. Rachmiel, Esq. of Springfield. A copy of the lawsuit, Lancaster v. North Plainfield, Docket No. SOM-L-1164-10, is on-line here. This message is posted courtesy of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. John Paff, Project Chairman
 

Hunterdon County's bank account levied upon for $93,265.37

On April 15, 2011, Hunterdon County Sheriff Corporal Sandra Ford delivered a writ of execution to the Wells Fargo Bank at 74 Church Street, Flemington and levied on Hunterdon's County's bank accounts. The levy amount, $93,265.37, represented legal fees that the County owes to the South Jersey law firm Friedman Doherty, LLC of West Berlin. The County was ordered to pay the $93,265.37 by Superior Court Assignment Judge Yolanda Ciccone's February 7, 2011 order that arose out of a class action lawsuit captioned James Gensch et al v. Mary H. Melfi, Hunterdon County Clerk et al, Docket No. HNT-L-307-07. Gensch's lawsuit was a class action, filed on May 8, 2007, challenging the 25 cents per page charged by the self service copier machines located in the deeds and mortgages recording room. Gensch alleged that the 25 cents per page was too high and that the County was legally allowed only to collect its actual cost per copy, which Gensch estimated to be 7 cents. The trial court dismissed Gensch's complaint on December 22, 2008 and Gensch appealed. The Appellate Division, on February 10, 2010, reversed and held that effective July 2, 1010, the County must reevaluate its actual costs and charge no more that its actual costs of producing a copy. According to the Appellate Division's decision, the number of copies purchased from the County's machines between May 2001 and August 2008 was 1,598,563 and, at 25 cents per page, the County collected $399,640.74 for providing copies of those pages. On April 30, 2010, Gensch and the County entered into a consent judgment in which the County agreed to start charging seven cents per copy effective July 1, 2010. Thereafter, Friedman & Doherty, Gensch's attorney, filed a motion seeking to require the County to pay Gensch's legal fees. According to filed papers, the firm sought $166,255.73 in fees plus a $12,000 award to Gensch. In a March 14, 2011 written opinion, Judge Ciccone started by considering Friedman & Doherty's request to be paid $350 per hour for 309.3 hours. After removing "unnecessary billings, billings for two attorneys where the task was reasonably allotted to a single attorney, duplicative work, or work which contributed to the litigation of similar cases in other counties," Judge Ciccone reduced the attorney fee award to $93,265.37 and denied Gensch his requested $12,000 award. After the award of the attorney fees, the County moved for a stay of the attorney fee award so that the County could appeal the award to the Appellate Division. In its motion, the County argued that the County didn't have $93,265.37 in its budget and, like other local agencies, was under "extreme financial pressures" and "recently laid off nineteen (19) County employees in order to reduce its spending." The County's motion papers also noted that a judge in Hudson County had recently denied Friedman & Doherty attorney fees "on the exact same issue as this matter" and that the firm had appealed the Hudson County judge's order. On March 23, 2011, the County filed its Notice of Appeal and on April 1, 2011, Judge Ciccone denied the County's motion for a stay. Since nothing prevented legally stood in the way of the February 7, 2011 order that awarded Friedman & Doherty its $93,265.37 in fees, the firm, on April 13, 2011, applied for a writ of execution, which was signed by Judge Ciccone. The writ was then given to the Hunterdon County Sheriff's office which effected the bank levy. The County's lawyer in the Gensch matter is Michael A. DeSapio of Frenchtown. According to the most recent "Hunterdon County Legal Actions Report" on the County's Internet site, which is dated September 1, 2010, $65,769.82 had been paid to DeSapio's firm for representation. My Open Public Records Act request for DeSapio's bills show that the firm has billed the County for an additional $10,869.53 since the most recent "Hunterdon County Legal Actions Report" was prepared. All of the relevant official documents used in the preparation of this article are on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Vineland pays $12,694.05 to settle police officers' suit for legal costs

In January and March 2011, the City of Vineland (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $12,694.05 toward the legal expenses incurred by two City police officers who claimed to have been suspended for two days but had those suspensions reversed by a Superior Court judge. In theirs suit, Officers Brad Marchesano and Gregory Pacitto both claimed to have been suspended in 2008 and 2009 by Business Administrator Denise Monaco, who acted as a disciplinary hearing officer, for violating the Police Department's rules and regulations. Both officers appealed their supensions and received reversals from Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Richard J. Geiger. Marchesano and Pacitto, respectively, claimed $9,880.05 and $11,304.00 for their attorney fees expended in seeking relief from Judge Geiger. Even though they claimed a total of $21,184.05, they settled, respectively, for $5,832.15 and $6,862.90, which is about 60% of that claimed. The cases are captioned Marchesano v. City of Vineland, Docket No. CUM-L-743-10 and Pacitto v. City of Vineland, Docket No. CUM-L-744.10. Both officers were represented by Christopher Gray of the Marlton firm of Alterman & Associates, LLC. . Case documents are on-line here.
 

Murdered teen's family sue Lawnside Borough

On April 8, 2011, the family of Sergio Rivera sued the Borough of Lawnside (Camden County) after Sergio was fatally shot on April 13, 2009 at the Wayne R. Bryant Community Center. In her lawsuit, Lissette Rivera, Sergio's mother, claimed that Lawnside officials were negligent for allowing a "young unruly crowd" to congregate at the center on the night of her son's shooting. The suit was filed by Marlton attorney Timothy J. McNamara of Stark & Stark. It is on-line here: ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these cases aren't written about in the newspapers or publicly discussed during municipal council meetings. Therefore, taxpayers usually aren't aware of them. But, these cases often end up in settlement, paid for with taxpayer dollars, and almost always result in taxpayers, or the municipal government's insurer, footing the bill for the lawsuit. I don't express any opinion on whether or not the suit is valid--I just think that the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent. For those interested, please visit the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com where I report on settlements that are reached in such lawsuits. John Paff, Project Chairman
 

Libertarians ask Egg Harbor Township to revise its police internal affairs form

In a May 23, 2011 letter, the chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project asked Egg Harbor Township (Atlantic County) Mayor James McCullough to review and update the police department's on-line internal affairs reporting form. In the letter, Project's chairman John Paff noted that the department's on-line form, upon which citizens are asked to report police misconduct, improperly requests that citizens submit their dates of birth, social security numbers and identify the race to which they belong. Paff claims that although complaint forms can be submitted without these questions being answered, asking for this highly sensitive information is likely to "dissuade many members of the public from bringing internal affairs complaints to the police administration's attention." Also, Paff questioned the police department's decision to put a photograph of a police SWAT team breaking down a residence's door at the top of the complaint form. Would you please direct the Police Department to review and update its on-line Internal Affairs complaint form? We look forward to your response. The letter to Mayor McCullough and a screen-shot of the current reporting form are on-line here:
 

Union County's web site creation--Part II

In my May 19, 2011 posting (see http://www.countywatchers.com/?p=4608) I questioned why and how Union County decided to award a $136,600 no-bid contract to Web Creation of New Jersey, LLC, web design company which had no apparent history and was created less than a month prior to the contract being awarded. On that day, I requested that Union County provide me with: 1. Other than Rich Loalbo's May 10, 2010 letter and the company's "Union County Multi Channel Communication Portal Design and Maintenance Proposal," any records upon which Mr. Faella based his conclusion that Web Creations of New Jersey, LLC possessed "experience and artistic web design expertise." 2. The quotation and proposal submitted by the web designing firm that the County rejected. In response to my first request, the County advised me that there are no records responsive to my request. (See page 1 of the PDF at the link below.) In response to my second request, the company provided me with a proposal from JK Design of Hillsborough, New Jersey which has created web sites for companies such as Phillips Lighting and LG Commercial and public entities such as the City of Jersey City. For examples of the firm's work, see http://www.jkdesign.com/links While JK Design's and Web Creations' are difficult to compare to one another, JK Design offered to charge between $99,000 to $129,000 for its "core project total fees." (See page 11 of the PDF.) Also, JK Design's proposal contains biographies for twelve "Project Leaders" that shows each person's areas of experience and accomplishments. (See page 34 of the PDF.) Web Creations' proposal has no similar section. The PDF referred to above is at John Paff
 

Union County's web site creation--Part II

In my May 19, 2011 posting (see http://www.countywatchers.com/?p=4608) I questioned why and how Union County decided to award a $136,600 no-bid contract to Web Creation of New Jersey, LLC, web design company which had no apparent history and was created less than a month prior to the contract being awarded. On that day, I requested that Union County provide me with: 1. Other than Rich Loalbo's May 10, 2010 letter and the company's "Union County Multi Channel Communication Portal Design and Maintenance Proposal," any records upon which Mr. Faella based his conclusion that Web Creations of New Jersey, LLC possessed "experience and artistic web design expertise." 2. The quotation and proposal submitted by the web designing firm that the County rejected. In response to my first request, the County advised me that there are no records responsive to my request. (See page 1 of the PDF at the link below.) In response to my second request, the company provided me with a proposal from JK Design of Hillsborough, New Jersey which has created web sites for companies such as Phillips Lighting and LG Commercial and public entities such as the City of Jersey City. For examples of the firm's work, see http://www.jkdesign.com/links While JK Design's and Web Creations' are difficult to compare to one another, JK Design offered to charge between $99,000 to $129,000 for its "core project total fees." (See page 11 of the PDF.) Also, JK Design's proposal contains biographies for twelve "Project Leaders" that shows each person's areas of experience and accomplishments. (See page 34 of the PDF.) Web Creations' proposal has no similar section. The PDF referred to above is at John Paff
 

Help wanted: NJLP Police Accountability Project

Chairman Jay Edgar recently created a "Police Accountability Project" within the New Jersey Libertarian Party. The project, which I'm current chairing, searches court cases of police misconduct and then files formal Internal Affairs (IA) complaints against the involved officers. For example, I located an April 27, 2011 case in which the Appellate Division held that a State Trooper improperly conducted a warrantless search of an automobile that he stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike. That court decision is on-line here: This case prompted me to file an IA complaint against the Trooper, which is on-line here: One of the Project's objects is to see how responsive various police departments are to these types of complaints. It's possible, perhaps likely, that some police agencies won't even acknowledge receipt of the complaints. Another goal is to see if our complaints lead to any changes to police policy. This project is in its infancy and, with proper help and coordination, could grow into something substantial. I'm stretched pretty thin due to my work on the Open Government Advocacy and Preempted Ordinance Repeal Projects, so I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to devote to it. If anyone wishes to plug in and help, please e-mail policeaccountability@njlp.org which currently goes to Jay and me. While I don't want to limit the directions that the Project may take, here are some of my ideas on how a person could help: 1. Create and maintain a web site that tracks each IA complaint the Project files and periodically checks back for a response from the police agency. 2. Select police agencies around the state and, using OPRA requests, audit how well they are abiding by the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Standard Operating Procedures and reporting the results of those audits on our web site. 3. Speak to citizen groups to help them better understand the IA process. I hope this sparks some interest and look forward to hearing from you. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Citing statute as reason for redaction ruled insufficient

In a May 24, 2011 decision, the Government Records Council (GRC) held that that it is improper for a records custodian to simply cite a statute as its reason for suppressing or redacting a document. The GRC stated that "simply citing to a specific provision of a law would force a requestor to search out the law and identify those provisions that may apply. It is often possible that members of the New Jersey citizenry would have no knowledge of where to find a particular statute or be able to single out the exemption within the statute that authorizes a redaction." The case is Paff v. Teaneck Township, GRC Complaint No. 2010-09 and is available on-line at At issue was the Teaneck Township Council's October 28, 2008 executive session minutes. In response to my OPRA request, the Township provided me with the minutes with large blocks of text redacted. As an example, a large block of redacted text appeared after the heading "Compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." The only reason that the custodian gave for the redaction was "N.J.S.A. 10:4-12b7." (That page from the minutes is at page 33 of the PDF at the above link.) The GRC said that "the Custodian should have included an explanation of each legal citation similar to how the Custodian set forth same in the document index submitted as part of the [Statement of Information] SOI." In its SOI, the Custodian gave the following reason for redacting the portion of the minutes dealing with Uniform Traffic Control Devices manual compliance: "Potential litigation and liability regarding installation of certain traffic control devises [sic] and attorney-client communications in connection therewith." John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Comprehensive e-mail policy adopted

On May 23, 2011, the Franklin Township (Somerset County) Fire District No. 1 Board of Commissioners passed a comprehensive e-mail usage policy that might serve as a model for public bodies across New Jersey. The policy, which is on-line here , provides each elected and other Board official with a District e-mail account and requires officials to use that account for official business. Officials who receive official e-mails on their personal e-mail accounts are required to "immediately copy the e-mail together with all attachments to their official District e-mail address [and notify the sender] that all future correspondence and e-mails pertaining to [official business] must be sent to their official District e-mail address." The policy also prohibits officials from using e-mail to "correspond back and forth with a majority of the Board of Commissioners . . . unless such e-mail is strictly informational in purpose." It also prohibits officials from attempting to "permanently delete any information or e-mails that are send to the District e-mail account." Interested citizens may wish to forward the above link to their elected public bodies and request them to adopt a similar e-mail policy. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Is Maplewood convicting people of violating repealed, invalid ordinances

On May 25, 2011, I found that police in Maplewood Township (Essex County) cited a man for violating the Township's "public intoxication" code even though the Township Committee repealed that provision of the code approximately a year and a half earlier. The uncial court accepted the man's guilty plea to the violation and assessed $80 in fines and costs. I believe that it's reasonable for citizens, at a minimum, to expect government officials to refrain from enforcing laws that the government itself has previously repealed. Accordingly, I wrote to Maplewood Mayor Victor DeLuca and the Township Committee requesting that immediate steps be taken to prevent more people from being charged with repealed ordinances. My letter, with exhibits, is on-line here. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project
 

What if executive session minutes are heavily redacted due to "personnel issues" being discussed?

I recently requested executive session minutes from the Belmar Housing Authority. I believe that the minutes that I received, which are on-line here and my follow-up records request to the Housing Authority's records custodian (set forth below) might be helpful to others who confront the same problem. If the follow-up request does not get me unredacted or properly redacted minutes, it will at least put me in a better position to file an action in Superior Court or the Government Records Council for disclosure of the minutes. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project --text of records request Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: In response to a recent request, I recently received a two-page, handwritten set of minutes from a closed or executive meeting held in "June of 2010" by the Belmar Housing Authority. (I note that the minutes are undated, even though N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 requires minutes to contain "the time and place" of the meeting.) The minutes disclose that the meeting was called "to discuss raises for the three employees. Paul Caverly, Amy Spena, Bruce Petitt." But the entire substance of the minutes was redacted. In the record custodian's June 2, 2011 handwritten letter that accompanied the minutes, he noted that the minutes were redacted, but gave no reason for their redaction. Although "personnel matters" such as employee raises, may be discussed by a public body in executive session (see N.J.S.A. 10:4-12b8), it does not necessarily follow that the minutes of such an executive session may be kept confidential. In South Jersey Publishing Company, Inc. v. New Jersey Expressway Authority, 124 N.J. 478 (1991), the New Jersey Supreme Court found that there was "no inconsistency between the exemption allowing personnel matters to be discussed and debated in executive session and the Act's mandate that adequate minutes of ALL meetings be available to the public." (Id. at 493, Emphasis in original). Rather, the Court held that "the exemption is designed to enable the public body to determine the appropriate action to be taken, not to withhold from the public either the public body's determination or the reasons on which its determination was based." So, on the current record, it is impossible for me to tell whether or not redaction of the entire substance of the "June of 2010" executive session is justified. Request: Another copy of the "June of 2010" executive session minutes. This time, I would like them either unredacted or more narrowly redacted so that the maximum amount of information is revealed in accordance with the South Jersey Publishing Company decision cited above. For any elements of the minutes that you believe need to remain redacted, please recognize that when denying or redacting a record, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) requires a custodian to inform the requestor of the “specific basis” for each suppressed element. Beyond stating the “specific basis” for each suppressed element, the custodian is required to “produce specific reliable evidence sufficient to meet a statutorily recognized basis for confidentiality.” Courier News v. Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office, 358 N.J. Super. 373, 382-83 (App. Div. 2003). Further, he or she must explain each suppression in a manner that “will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.” Paff v. New Jersey Department of Labor, Board of Review, 379 N.J. Super. 346, 354-55 (2005) (quoting R. 4:10-2(e)). --end text of request
 

Sparta pays $225,000 to settle suit alleging Uranium-tainted drinking water

On September 2008, the Township of Sparta (Sussex County) agreed to pay a total of $225,000 to ten local residents ($22,500) who sued the Township and its Water Utility claiming that their drinking water contained levels of Uranium in excess of EPA regulations. In their suit, Suzanne Cohen, Alyson Cohen, Jeffrey Cohen, Sharon Strickland, Ken Strickland, Barrette Strickland, Sally Finegan, Christina Finegan, Stephen Finegan and Gerald Finegan claimed that Township and Water Utility officials were negligent and failed to warn them of the hazard and "acted with conscious disregard of [their] safety with malice and oppression for which punitive and exemplary damages should be imposed." The case is captioned Cohen et al v. Township of Sparta, et al, Docket No. SSX-L-361-05 and the residents' attorney was Shari M. Blecher of Princeton. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of the Plaintiffs' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $225,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Sparta or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Sparta or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Plaintiffs $225,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

OPRA/OPMA Suit filed against Runnemede school board

 

Perfunctory, uninformative dismissal of Internal Affairs complaint

On May 19, 2011, the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project filed an Internal Affairs Complaint against State Trooper Scott Sanders. The complaint was based on a decision of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division in which a two judge panel found that Sanders conducted an improper, warrantless search of a motor vehicle. The court's decision caused suppression of "five dime bags of high grade marijuana, approximately a half ounce of cocaine, seven bricks of heroin, and five sealed blunts containing tobacco." Because of evidence the suppressed, the conviction and the six year prison sentence against the driver was reversed. Despite the fact that the search was deemed by an appellate court to have been illegal and resulted in a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment rights (not to mention the money--both public and private--wasted on the arrest, prosecution and defense), State Police Captain Jeffrey Gale, in a June 3, 2011 letter, perfunctorily informed the NJLP that his office had "determined that the trooper did not violate any of the New Jersey State Police Standard Operating Procedures, Rules or Regulations, or laws of the State of New Jersey." The NJLP's complaint, the Appellate Division's decision and Captain Gale's dismissal letter are on line here. Page 11-52 of the New Jersey Attorney General's "Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures" Manual (http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcj/agguide/internalaffairs2000v1_2.pdf) states that "citizen confidence in the integrity of the law enforcement agency increases through the establishment of meaningful and effective complaint procedures. This confidence engenders community support for the law enforcement agency." Yet, it is understandably hard for the public to have any confidence in the integrity of this particular investigation and dismissal. Are we to believe that the State Police have no rules against State Troopers conducting unconstitutional searches? Or, are we to believe that such rules do exists but that Trooper Sanders, despite the Appellate Division's ruling, did not violate them? The same page of the Manual also states that "the internal affairs process shall also be used to identify and correct unclear or inappropriate agency procedures. In addition it will highlight organizational conditions that may contribute to any misconduct, such as poor recruitment and selection procedures or inadequate training and supervision of officers." Indeed, the NJLP's letter of complaint specifically asked the State Police to "determine if there were training or policy failures within your agency." If Captain Gale did make this determination, he certainly did not share it with us. Based on this case, the public has no evidence upon which to conclude that the Division of State Police has a meaningful and effective internal affairs procedure. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project paff@pobox.com June 14, 2011
 

Jilted Officer got $75K and attoney seeks $400K more

jbileci@twp.washington.nj.us OPRA request Dear Ms. Bileci: Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: On February 16, 2011, Washington Township (Gloucester County), through its attorney, A. Michael Barker, offered Ernest M. D'Orazio, III $75,000 in exchange for D'Orazio dismissing his federal lawsuit against the Township and various police officials. Further research revealed that D'Orazio accepted the $75,000 but that it was stipulated that his attorney could still request that the Court order Washington to pay the legal fees and costs--in addition to the $75,000--that D'Orazio incurred during his lawsuit and the police disciplinary matter that precipitated the lawsuit (i.e. briefly--please see the filed court documents for more detail--D'Orazio was a Special Officer who was internally charged by police with revealing an upcoming drug bust to a target of the drug bust. In 2007, a judge who heard the disciplinary cases didn't sustain the charge and recommended that D'Orazio get his back wages, etc. On March 11, 2009, the Washington Township Council rejected the judge's recommendation, thus leading to D'Orazio's civil suit.) I have recently reviewed D'Orazio's attorney's fee claim and learned that D'Orazio's lawyer--Jacqueline M. Vigilante of Mullica Hill--is seeking an order requiring Washington Township taxpayers (or their insurer) to pay her $398,621 in fees and costs for having represented D'Orazio. The hearing on the attorney fee issue should be held soon. Note: Relevant documents regarding this case are on-line at: Records Requested: 1. Resolution or other written decision by the Township Council that authorized the offer of $75,000 to D'Orazio. 2. The resolution that authorized all Township Council nonpublic (executive or closed) meetings held on or after January 26, 2011. 3. The minutes, redacted as narrowly as possible, for all Township Council nonpublic (executive or closed) meetings held on or after January 26, 2011. 4. Minutes of all Township Council meetings, public or nonpublic, held on March 11, 2009. Thank you. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project.
 

No incident reports filed in police accidental shooting

I received a letter dated June 15, 2011 from Lauren R. Staiger, Esq., attorney for Lacey Township. Ms. Staiger wrote in response to my records request for "all reports, including supplemental reports, of" a June 2, 2011 incident in which Lacey Police Officer Gerald Noda's firearm discharged in the police squad room injuring fellow Officer Julie Barcalow. The letter is on-line here: According to Ms. Staiger, Lacey Police Chief William A. Nalley informed her "that he does not currently have any records responsive to [my] request, not even an incident report." He noted however, that "the internal investigation will generate a report" in about a week. It is doubtful that I or anyone else from the public will be allowed to see the upcoming report since it is likely to be exempt from disclosure. If no report presently exists, I cannot fault Lacey Township for not disclosing it. Yet, I find it odd that no written report has yet been generated regarding this incident. I took it as a given that a police officer's weapon discharging and injuring another officer at police headquarters would have caused an immediate, written report to be filed. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Department of Corrections pays $415,000 to settle discrimination suit

On April 21, 2011, the State of New Jersey Department of Corrections agreed to pay $415,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former female instructor who worked at the Corrections Officer Training Academy in Sea Girt, New Jersey. In her suit, Gina Marie DiPasquale, who served as a Senior Corrections Officer since 1996, said that after she began working as an instructor at the Sea Girt Academy in 2001, she "was subjected to harassment, retaliation and other discriminatory conduct on account of her sex and was forced to endure a work environment hostile to her and others." Specifically, she said that she complained in February 2002 about "sexually offensive cadences" used in training including one that included the phrase "don't let your ding dong dangle in the dirt." In her complaint, DiPasquale alleged that her complaint fell on deaf ears and that she "renewed" those complaints when Craig Conway was hired as the new director of the the Academy in 2002. In a December 18, 2009 Appellate Division decision, Conway was described as "an openly gay man" who "allegedly created an inner-circle of good-looking, young male officers, including captains, lieutenants and sergeants who supervised plaintiff [and that Conway] allegedly gave preferential treatment and more favorable assignments to these men." She said that she was discriminated after she complained, and that she was not allowed to instruct classes for which she was qualified. She said that Conway and others in management referred to her as "psycho-bitch" and other derogatory terms. DiPasquale claimed that the campaign of harassment forced her to take a temporary disability leave in early 2003. While she was on leave, she was notified that upon her return, she would be reassigned to work in the prison in Trenton and not teach at the Academy. She claimed that the harassment escalated and became so severe that she was forced to resign. The case is captioned DiPasquale v. State of New Jersey, Docket No. MER-L-228-05 and DiPasquale's attorney was Patricia A. Barasch of Moorestown. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of DiPasquale's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $415,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Department of Corrections or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Department of Corrections or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay DiPasquale $415,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Two Police Employees have suits pending against Berkeley Township

At the following link there is a 42-page PDF file that contains: a) August 21, 2009 Administrative Law decision regarding Berkeley Police Lieutenant Robert Andrews and Police Dispatcher Denise Capizzi. b) January 18, 2011 lawsuit filed by Lieutenant Andrews against Berkeley Township Administrator Leonard W. Roeber, Police Chief John C. Weinlein and Police Officer James Britton. c) August 19, 2009 amended lawsuit filed by Dispatcher Capizzi against Chief Weinlein, Police Officer Timothy McNichols and the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office. SUMMARY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DECISION Departmental charges were brought against both Capizzi and Andrews after Sergeant Britton, in response to questioning by Chief Weinlein, said that while he was not certain that oral sex was taking place, when he returned from road duty and walked into the police radio room, he saw Capizzi's head in Andrew's lap while they were both on duty. The questioning that caused Britton to reveal this event occurred in 2005 although the event itself allegedly occurred on June 30, 2002. In a written certification Britton provided concerning the incident, Andrews wasn't named. Rather Britton referred to him only as "the other sergeant on duty." (Britton was the "road sergeant" on duty while Andrews was the "desk sergeant.") Yet, under cross examination, Britton was confronted with documentation that showed that he was at headquarters during the period he testified he was on road duty. Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge Patricia J. Kerins found Andrews and Capizzi did not engage in a sexual act while on duty in the radio room. Judge Kerins found that Britton was not a credible witness and noted that although Britton, while standing in the radio room, supposedly had a side view of Capizzi kneeling in front of Andrews, who was seated, with her head in his lap, he was unable to tell what, if any, sexual act was taking place. Further research shows that at its December 2, 2009 meeting, the New Jersey Civil Services Commission agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that the charge against Andrews should be dismissed (see http://www.state.nj.us/csc/about/meetings/minutes/120209m.html) On February 11, 2011, Andrews applied to the Civil Services Commission to require Berkeley Township to pay the fees that he incurred defending against the disciplinary charge. (see http://www.state.nj.us/csc/about/meetings/schedule/pdf/020211a.pdf ) As a result of that application the Commission awarded Andrews his attorney fees in the amount of $19,430. (see http://www.nj.gov/csc/about/meetings/minutes/020211m.html ) SUMMARY OF ANDREWS' LAWSUIT AGAINST BERKELEY In his lawsuit, filed on January 18, 2011, Lieutenant Andrews alleged that the investigation that led to the sexual misconduct charge was not complete and and was not compliant with the New Jersey Attorney General's Internal Affairs Guidelines. He alleged that the charges being brought were just part of a pattern of harassment and retaliation by Chief Weinlein and others. He asserted claims under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (Whistleblower Act), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. He is represented in the suit by Charles J. Uliano of West Long Branch who also represented him in the administrative proceedings. SUMMARY OF CAPIZZI'S LAWSUIT AGAINST BERKELEY Capizzi, in her lawsuit, stated that she was hired as a dispatcher in 2002. After she separated from her husband in 2003, she said she began a consensual relationship with Officer Timothy McNichols who she alleges was married. Capizzi said that during the relationship, McNichols would meet with her while she was off duty but while he was on duty. In February 2004, Capizzi said that she became pregnant with McNichols' child. Although she resisted, McNichols allegedly pressured her to have an abortion. She said that she finally relented to the pressure and allowed McNichols to take her to Pleasant Women's Pavilion where she received an injection of Methotrexate to induce an abortion. However, she said that prior to taking the drug, she took large doses of folic acid which he understood would counteract Methotrexate. After consulting with her own doctor, she determined that the abortion did not induce and that her pregnancy remained viable. A few weeks later, however, she said that she fell down 13 concrete steps while at work on a cold and rainy night. This caused her to suffer a miscarriage. Shortly thereafter, her alleged relationship with McNichols came to an end. Thereafter, she claimed that she was counseled and given an official warning about her relationship with McNichols and that in order to gain information about the relationship, the confidence of counseling sessions that she had been attending must have been breached. She was interviewed by the Ocean County Prosecutor's office about the relationship and Chief Weinlein ordered her, without reason, to undergo a psychological evaluation. She claims that McNichols was never counseled, warned or ordered to be evaluated for his role in the relationship. Her lawsuit alleged that in April or May of 2004, McNichols told the police administration that Capizzi had an abortion and that was what caused the termination of her pregnancy. Weinlein, upon receipt of this information, allegedly decided to pursue criminal charges against her based on his belief that Capizzi's claim that a work related fall caused her to miscarriage was fraudulent. In early June 2004, she said that her working conditions became hostile and abusive. She alleges that on June 7, 2004, she was ordered to meet Chief Weinlein at 3:30 p.m. on July 11, 2004. When she reported to the meeting, she said that she was arrested and led out of the building in handcuffs in front of her follow employees. She was indicted for insurance fraud on September 28, 2004. She claimed, however, that no evidence regarding the incident that was favorable to her was presented to the Grand Jury. She claims that the prosecutor's office dismissed the charges after learning of the successful efforts that she made to counteract the effects of the Methotrexate. She alleged that Weinlein, when the fraud charges were beginning to unravel, convinced the Prosecutor's office to bring Official Misconduct charges against her for altering a police record. Capizzi explained that while she was pregnant, she fainted at a convenience store and police were called. For some unknown reason, the officer completing the report indicated that she was intoxicated. When she saw the error, she said that her supervisor gave her permission to correct it. After she was indicted for Official Misconduct, the Prosecutor's Office, in February 2005, determined that the charge should be dismissed. Yet, she said, Weinlein and others encouraged that a disorderly persons charge be filed against her. Such a charge was filed and Capizzi claims that in June 2005, she was found not guilty. Her lawsuit claims that she has not been paid the attorney fees that she incurred to defend against the charges. Even after the criminal charges were resolved in her favor, she remained suspended and claimed that Weinlein and others in the administration filed additional departmental charges against her to keep her on suspended status. Ultimately, she claimed that she was notified not to return to work even though she had been restored to paid status. Capizzi's complaint list several reasons why she should recover money from the Township including the "tort of outrage," malicious prosecution and civil rights violations. She is being represented in her lawsuit by Robyn B. Gigl of Livingston. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Often, these lawsuits are never revealed to the public or written about in the newspapers. I post them on public forums because I believe that civil lawsuits may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Elizabeth pays $500,000 to settle employee discrimination suit

On May 9, 2011, the Elizabeth Board of Education (Union County) agreed to pay $500,000 to an electrician who sued the Board and Superintendent Pablo Munoz for allegedly firing him because of his age, Italian ancestry, perceived disability or because he filed a workers compensation claim. In his suit, Frank LaFace, who was 60 when the lawsuit was filed, said that he was hired by the Board in 1983 and was placed on administrative leave on June 30, 2006 while he was seeking a workers compensation claim. He claims that he was then discharged even though he had seniority and "an excellent work history." The Board agreed to pay the $500,000 as follows: a) an initial check of $240,000, $110,000 of which is for LaFace's attorney's fees, $65,000 for his pain and suffering and $65,000 for economic damages. b) one year later, another check for $130,000, $65,000 for LaFace's pain and suffering and $65,000 for economic damages. c) one year after that, another $130,000 check, similar split between pain & suffering and economic damages. The case is captioned LaFace v. Elizabeth Board of Education, Docket No. UNN-L-3662-7 and LaFace's attorney was Phillip B. Linder of Edison. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of LaFace's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $500,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the school board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the school board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay LaFace $500,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Elizabeth Board pays $205,000 to settle employee age discrimination suit

On January 26, 2011, the Elizabeth Board of Education (Union County) agreed to pay $205,000 to worker in its technology department who sued the Board for allegedly firing him because of his age. In his suit, Carmen Fortunato of Belleville, claims that he showed up to work on June 26, 2006, he discovered that he had been locked out of the Board's computer system. He subsequently learned that he had been terminated "as a consequence of performance, attendance, credentials and/or budgetary reasons." He claimed that those reasons were pretextual and that the real reason for firing him was his age. The case is captioned Fortunato v. Elizabeth Board of Education, Docket No. UNN-L-2500-07 and Fortunato's attorney was Thomas R. Basta of Warren. Case documents are on-line here. None of Fortunato's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $205,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the school board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the school board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Fortunato $205,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

 

New Host Script Test

 

 

Re-test Issue Creation

 

3rd Issue Entry Test

This should now be correct
 

Bayonne pays $95,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On May 25, 2011, the City of Bayonne (Hudson County) agreed to pay $95,000 to two local men who sued members of the Bayonne Police Department for allegedly beating them and arresting them without probable cause. In their suit, Michael Condo and Craig S. DeRocco said that they were assaulted by police as they left Fratelli\'s Bar on Broadway, Bayonne on March 18, 2007. Specifically, Condo said that Bayonne Police Detective David Macre beat, kicked and threw him to the ground while cursing at him. DeRocco claimed that Officer Dominick Lillo tackled him and punched him \"numerous times in the face and head.\" DeRocco also claimed that Lillo kicked DeRocco\'s sister when she asked him to stop beating her brother. The men also accused Detectives William Peterson and Timothy Carey as well as Sergeant Timothy McAuliffe of \"assaulting other individuals\" who were in the area. Both men claimed that they were taken to Bayonne Hospital\'s Emergency room while handcuffed and then taken back to the police department where they were \"booked, searched and detained.\" Both men said that they were charged with aggravated assault and resisting arrest but that all charges were administdatively dismissed by the Hudson County Prosecutor on December 3, 2007. The case is captioned Condo and DeRocco v. City of Bayonne, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-01215 and the men were represented by Ida Cambria of New Brunswick. Case documents are on-line here. None of the men\'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $95,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Bayonne or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Bayonne or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the men $95,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants\' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Source of crime information in your town

I recently became aware of a form called a \"UCR-370\" that local police departments are required to file monthly with the New Jersey State Police. As an example, I have uploaded the Ventnor City (Atlantic County) Police Department\'s UCR-370 from April 2011 here. The form reports the number of people who the police have charged during the month for various categories of offenses. For example, the form at the above link shows that during April 2011 Ventnor Police charged a twenty-two year old White male with possession of \"marijuana, hashish, etc.\" Based on this, I submitted the following, supplemental OPRA to the Ventnor police: *** Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Records Requested: Your April 2011 UCR-370 reports that a 22 year old male was charged with possession or use of marijuana or hashish. I\'d like a copy of the complaint (CDR-1 or CDR-2 or other form of complaint) issued against that defendant. *** My thought is that knowing the names of CDS defendants might be a useful recruitment tool for the NJLP. Also, I think that regular review of UCR-370 forms could help citizens learn about instances of violent crime in their towns that might not have been reported in the local newspapers. While similar (but not as detailed) information is eventually available through the Attorney General\'s Office (see See pages 109-171. http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2009/pdf/2009_uniform_crime_report_b.pdf ), the UCR-370 forms are required to be filed by local police departments within seven days after the end of the month. The UCR-370 is not the only required filing. A complete list of Uniform Crime Reporting forms is on-line at http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/forms.html#ucr Interestingly, the State Police considers the UCR-370 and related forms confidential and not available to the public. (N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d) states that “The uniform crime report form shall be used by the Uniform Crime Reporting Unit of the Division of State Police for purposes of compliance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-1 et seq. and such working documents shall be maintained as confidential by the Division of State Police and are not public records.”) Despite this provision, the municipalities that I have requested UCR-370 forms from have all complied. Also, since the reports contain only numerical data, I suspect that if challenged, the confidentiality provision would be overruled. If anyone wishes to request a UCR-370 from any municipal police department in the state, all they need to do is sent an e-mail to the municipal clerk in the following form: *** Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at [address[. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: I\'m interested in seeing some of the reports that the Ventnor Police Department submitted to the Uniform Crime Reporting Unit of the Division of State Police for purposes of compliance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.1 et seq. Records Requested: The N.J.-UCR 370 (\"Age, Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin of Persons Arrested (18 years of age and over)\") form submitted by the Police Department covering the month of [month and year]. *** If anyone experiences a denial based on N.J.A.C. 13:57-1.3(d), please let me know. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Ventor complaint against marijuana smoker

 

FDS Complaint against Jersey City

 

No appointment needed to make OPRA request

In a July 12, 2011 letter, Government Records Council (GRC) Executive Director Catherine Starghill advised a South Jersey school district that it could not require records requestors to schedule an appointment before stopping by to make an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request unless the district\'s enrollment does not exceed 500 pupils. Starghill\'s letter was in response to a complaint from local activist John Schmidt who complained that he had stopped by the Gloucester Township (Camden County) school district\'s offices on June 1, 2011 to make an OPRA request but was told that he needed to first schedule an appointment. In his letter, Schmidt pointed out that N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e) provides citizens with \"immediate access . . . to budgets, bills, vouchers, contracts\" and other records and that the district\'s policy of requiring people to first schedule an appointment unduly burdens that statutory right. Starghill\'s and Schmidt\'s correspondence is on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Serving as an appointed municipal official

A good way for Libertarians to embark on getting involved in local government is to serve as a member of an appointed board. In order to find out what boards have vacancies, submit the following OPRA request to your municipal clerk: -------- OPRA request I would like the following government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. 1. The municipality\'s up-to-date directory of local authorities, boards and commissions, as required by N.J.S.A. 40A:9-9.2 2. The municipality\'s \"Citizen Leadership Form\" as required by the same statute. -------- I submitted such a request to Penns Grove Borough in Salem County and the responsive documents are on-line at As you can see, the following vacancies currently exist in Penns Grove: two positions as Planning Board Alternate; one position on the Redevelopment Agency; two vacancies on the Recreation Board and one position on the Shade Tree Commission. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Merchantville pays $11,000 to settle suit alleging illegal MV stop

On May 11, 2011, the Borough of Merchantville (Camden County) agreed to pay $11,000 to a Pennsauken man who sued members of the Merchantville Police Department for allegedly stopping his vehicle and arresting him for Driving While Intoxicated without probable cause. In his suit, Alan Donia said that on September 23, 2007, he was stopped in Pennsaulken by Merchantville Police Sergeant Jeffrey Brocious, Sergeant Michael Reilly and Officer Matthew Rull and arrested for drunk driving, refusing to submit to a breath test and careless driving. After being convicted in municipal court, Donia claimed that Superior Court Judge William J. Cook reversed his conviction, finding that \"there was no probable cause for the police to stop Alan Donia\'s vehicle and arrest him.\" The case is captioned Donia v. Merchantville, Superior Court Docket No. CAM-L-2623-09 and Donia\'s attorney was Kimberly Stuart Kluchnick of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. None of Donia\'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $11,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Merchantville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Merchantville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Donia $11,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants\' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

RE: Merchantville Dismisses Police Internal Affairs Complaint

July 19, 2011 Hon. Frank M. North, Mayor and members of the Merchantville Borough Council 1 West Maple Avenue Merchantville, NJ 08109 via e-mail to dbrouse@merchantvillenj.gov RE: Merchantville Dismisses Police Internal Affairs Complaint Dear Mayor North and Council members: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project. On May 24, 2011, the Project filed an Internal Affairs Complaint against Merchantville Police Sergeant Jeffrey Brocious, Sergeant Michael Reilly and Officer Matthew Rulli. The basis for the complaint was a May 29, 2008 order by Superior Court Judge William J. Cook holding that the three officers stopped a vehicle owned by Pennsauken resident William Donia and arrested him despite there being any probable cause for the stop. In his May 28, 2008 ruling, Judge Cook reversed the January 10, 2008 holdings of Merchantville Municipal Court Judge Oren R. Thomas, III that convicted Donia of drunk driving, refusing to submit to a breath test and careless driving. In his decision, Judge Cook found that \"there was no probable cause for the police to stop Alan Donia\'s vehicle and arrest him, nor was there any other lawful basis for the motor vehicle stop under the community caretaking function, or was there any other lawful basis.\" Judge Cook further found that since the stop and arrest took place in Pennsauken, \"the Merchantville Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction\" to hear the matter. After Cook\'s decision, Donia sued the Borough of Merchantville and on May 11, 2011 the Borough paid him $11,000 to settle his his suit. (For suit documents, see my blog entry at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2011/07/merchantville-pays-11000-to-settle-suit.html ) Despite Judge Cook\'s ruling, Detective Sergeant Stephen Morrone of the Merchantville Police Department\'s Internal Affairs Unit dismissed our Internal Affairs complaint against the arresting officers. Morrone gave no reasons for the dismissal except to state that \"a review of all information available to [him] would indicate that the named police officers followed the appropriate departmental policies and procedures.\" Our complaint, Judge Cook\'s decision, the police department\'s response and other documents are on-line here: Sergeant Morrone\'s response is bewildering. Is the public to understand that it is permissible, under the Merchantville Police Department\'s regulations, for its police officers to stop and arrest motorists without probable cause in a neighboring town? Are these officers to suffer no consequences even though their actions resulted in the Borough paying $11,000 to the motorist who was improperly stopped and arrested? I look forward to learning the Mayor\'s and Council\'s position on this matter. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com
 

Bloomfield FDS Complaints

My complaint against 30 Bloomfield officials is on-line here: My complaint against Clerk Louis M. Palagano for not maintaining a proper roster and the state\'s response to that complaint are on-line here: John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com
 

Egg Harbor Township pays $32,500 to settle police false arrest/intimidation suit

On November 17, 2008, the Township of Egg Harbor (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $32,500 to a man who sued members of the Egg Harbor Township Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. According to a June 8, 2008 federal court opinion, Pierre Reid, Sr. said that he was falsely arrested by Patrolmen Scott Nell, Michael Steinman, Christopher Mozitis, Anthony Venuto, William Reed and Jeffrey Lancaster and Lieutenant Larry Szapor on September 13, 2003. The arrest arose out of domestic violence charges brought against Reid by his former girlfriend Michelle Nieves. The second count of Reid\'s lawsuit alleges that Szapor, Steinman, Mozitis, Venuto, Reed and Lancaster hurled \"racial slurs and profanity\" at him and \"maced him uncontrollably\" in the face and genitals while again arresting him two days later on September 15, 2003. The crux of Reid\'s complaints is that Patrolman Scott Nell was allegedly in a romantic relationship with Michelle Nieves and that Nell and Nieves conspired to falsely assert domestic violence charges against Reid. According to a footnote in the court decision, \"Nell and Nieves became romantically involved and were married in December of 2004.\" Also named as plaintiffs in the suit were Pierre Reid, Jr., Kristen Amber Reed and Victor Nelson. Also named as defendants were Michelle Nieves, Patrolman Michael Bordonaro and the Township of Egg Harbor. The case is captioned Reid v. Nell, et al, Federal Case No. 1:05-cv-04885-RMB-JS and Reid\'s attorney was Ericka A. Appenzeller of Atlantic City. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public\'s right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Reid\'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $32,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Reid $32,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants\' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Egg Harbor Township police revises their Internet reporting form

On May 23, 2011, I posted an article entitled \"Libertarians ask Egg Harbor Township to revise its police internal affairs form\" which criticized the Egg Harbor Township (Atlantic County) Police Department\'s internal affairs reporting system. At issue was an on-line form that citizens were invited to use to report misconduct by township police officers. The reporting form improperly requested the complainant\'s date of birth, social security number and other sensitive information. I asserted that the intrusive information requests, along with a photograph of a police SWAT team breaking down a residence\'s door appearing at the top of the complaint form, might \"dissuade many members of the public from bringing internal affairs complaints to the police administration\'s attention.\" In a July 21, 2011 letter, Police Chief Michael J. Morris thanked the NJLP Police Accountability for expressing its concerns and stated that the police department, based on our suggestions, had modified its complaint form. The revised form, which is on-line at https://www.ehtpd.com/forms/complain.cfm removes the intimidating photo and most of the intrusive questions. It also explicitly advises citizens that complaint forms will be accepted and processed \"even if fields are blank and/or the form is not complete.\" Accordingly, even anonymous complaints can now be submitted on-line. Chief Morris\' letter is on-line at The Project\'s May 23, 2011 complaint letter and a screen-shot of the old reporting form are on-line here: http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011142Og//EggHarborPoliceForm.pdf John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project
 

Egg Harbor pays $650,000 to settle police officer\'s whistle blower suit

On May 28, 2009, the Township of Egg Harbor (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $650,000 to a Township police officer who sued the Egg Harbor Police Department for retaliating against him after he reported suspected cheating on a sergeant promotional exam. In his suit, Christopher Mozitis said after he took the sergeant promotional exam in 2005, he was \"shocked\" to learn that five other officers who \"were definitely not the best and the brightest\" had achieved the top five test scores. He further claimed that he had hear rumors that some of the top scorers had boasted \"that they had been given access to a surreptitiously made audiotape recording of the sergeant\'s promotional exam oral test portions by the Key Schools.\" Mozitis said that he after reported his suspicions to Captain John Pope and Chief John Coyle a \"half-hearted\" investigation was done. However, Mozitis alleged, Chief Coyle promoted one of the top scorers to sergeant prior to the investigation\'s completion. Mozitis also alleged that after the test scores were known, Chief Coyle and other supervisors evaluated the candidates and \"then manipulated the ultimate promotional list rankings based upon non-objective factors.\" In sum, Mozitis claimed, \"favoritism was allowed to trump merit.\" Mozitis claimed that his complaints about the testing process resulted in \"a grotesquely hostile and retaliatory work environment.\" He claimed, for example, that police union shop steward Ray Theriault threatened to \"kick his ass\" when Mozitis confronted Theriault for failing to pursue his grievance. Also named in the suit was Egg Harbor Police Captain Matthew Coyle who is Chief Coyle\'s brother. The case is captioned Mozitis v. Coyle, Docket No. ATL-L-1936-06 and Mozitis\'s attorney was Clifford Van Syoc of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause which, curiously, states that it is not a \"confidentiality agreement\" but limits the parties\' statements about the settlement to \"The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.\" Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public\'s right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Mozitis\'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $650,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Mozitis $650,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants\' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I\'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party\'s blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Burlco Prosecutor: Evesham official \"unwittingly\" violated Sunshine Act

In an August 4, 2011 letter to the attorney for the Eveham Township Council, Burlington County Prosecutor Robert D. Bernardi said that \"Evesham Township officials did unwittingly run afoul of the prohibitions contained in the Open Public Meetings Act\" by discussing public business by way of e-mail communications. Prosecutor Bernardi, however, declined to impose fines against the officials because that it was a not a \"knowing\" violation and that \"educating public officials who may have mistakenly violated the provisions of the statute is far more effective than the imposition of nominal fines.\" The prosecutor\'s letter, which is on-line here, was sent in response to a complaint filed by the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bergen Judge orders officials to stop using personal e-mail accounts

In an August 4, 2011 decision, Bergen County Superior Assignment Court Judge Peter E. Doyne considered, among other issues, the question of public officials using private e-mails to discuss public business. Judge Doyne ultimately concluded that using personal e-mail accounts for public business \"appears highly questionable\" and \"order[ed] counsel for [the municipality] to circulate a memorandum among all pertinent Borough employees directing they use only their public e-mail accounts, rather than private accounts, when conducting town business.\" This is the first such holding of which I\'m aware and it may be useful in convincing other government officials to sent official e-mail communications solely through their governmental e-mail accounts. Judge Doyne\'s decision is on-line here. Many thanks to Kevin M. O\'Brien, who filed and prosecuted this lawsuit without the aid of an attorney. John Paff
 

Plea Bargains in Municipal. Court

On August 6, 2011, the New Jersey Libertarian Party contacted Senator Christopher Bateman seeking enactment of a statutory offense designed to be the one to which municipal courts plea-bargain other statutory offenses. The letter to Senator Bateman is on-line here: Such a statute, in our view, would be preferable to the current, unlawful practice, used in many courts, of downgrading statutory offenses to municipal ordinance violations, a practice that has been ruled improper by the state Attorney General\'s office in 1998. See the Attorney General\'s memo here: There are two basic problems with the current practice. First, since ordinance violations are not listed on the criminal history records maintained by the State, there is no way for a judge to know whether a defendant standing before the court with a purportedly clean record is really a first offender or has had statutory charges downgraded to ordinance violations one or more times in the past. Unrecorded plea bargains to municipal ordinances undermine the criminal justice system\'s practice of showing leniency toward first offenders while meting out more severe penalties to repeat offenders. Second, not everyone gets their statutory offenses plea bargained to an unrecorded ordinance violation. Some defendants either plead guilty or are found guilty of the statutory offense. In one of the cases I examined, a Manville defendant was charged with possession of a small amount of marijuana which was pled down to a municipal ordinance violation and resulted in a $350 fine and $33 costs. (Summons No. 1811-S-2011-000090). From a Libertarian\'s perspective, drug prohibition laws shouldn\'t exist, so, I suppose that this is a good outcome. But, it\'s not right if other defendants--perhaps ones who do not have the \"right\" defense lawyer or who are in a disfavored political party or social class--plead guilty or are found guilty of the statutory offenses and subjected to the severe, life-changing statutory penalties. People who commit \"real\" crimes (i.e. those with an identifiable victim, such as assault, forgery, etc.) should be subject to progressively severe criminal penalties according to the number of times they re-offend. And, people who commit victimless crimes (i.e. drug, prostitution, gambling and other offenses where \"society\" is the purported victim) shouldn\'t be prosecuted at all, but as long as some are being prosecuted, it shouldn\'t be permitted for others to escape the harsh penalties based on factors that should be irrelevant to prosecutors and judges. (Also, perhaps if the sons and daughters of politicians and other members of the political and law enforcement classes were subjected to the same life-changing penalties that the rest of us are, the laws against these victimless crimes would promptly be amended.) Nobody wants to see first offenders who make a mistake saddled with a criminal record. We envision that the statutory offense suggested in our letter to Senator Bateman would allow these one-time offenders to enjoy an automatic expungement of the conviction after a period in which no repeat violations occur. Perhaps a record of the conviction might be shielded from prospective employers or schools during those five years in order to aid in the defendant\'s rehabilitation. These are matters for the legislature to work out. But, the current practice of downgrading to preempted municipal ordinance violations totally lacks any design or accountability, disserves the criminal justice process and allows for plea bargains that can either be granted or withheld at a prosecutor\'s or judge\'s whim. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project
 

Bloomfield Settles OPRA case

There is some importance of keeping track--as much as we can--of OPRA and OPMA litigation. The idea is to keep abreast of trial level decisions that the public might not otherwise been aware of. I\'ve tracked down one such case that I didn\'t previously know of, and even though it contains nothing of great importance, I thought I\'d make the Board aware of it. The paperwork is on-line at the following link: Essentially, it\'s a case against Bloomfield in which a local resident, Karen Blanda, sued Bloomfield Township in Essex County because they a) charged her $25 for an audio recording of a public meeting and b) gave her a tape that played at double speed making it impossible for her to listen to it. After Plaintiff\'s motion for summary judgment, which was limited, curiously, to striking Bloomfield\'s asserted affirmative defenses of laches, estoppel and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Judge Claude M. Coleman held that \"even if tapes were inaudible of Plaintiff\'s machine, Plaintiff was granted access to listen to the tapes and an opportunity to record the tapes at a speed and in a manner suitable for Plaintiff\'s recorder. The actual cost of duplicating the tape is a dispute of a material fact and not appropriate for summary judgment at this time.\" The matter was settled on April 29, 2011 but Bloomfield claims to have no settlement agreement on file that memorializes the terms of settlement. Bloomfield did give me a voucher showing that Plaintiff\'s lawyer, Friedman & Doherty, LLC, received $1,544.95 in costs and fees from the Township. John Paff
 

Ethics Charges against West Wildwood attorney

WEST WILDWOOD — Former borough solicitor Ronald Stagliano has had ethics charges brought against him by the Supreme Court of New Jersey District Ethics Committee for allegedly benefiting from the sale of properties on North Drive.
 

Did Northfield PD give break to a fellow officer who was driving drunk?

August 15, 2011 New Jersey Attorney General\'s Office Office of Citizens\' Services P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625-0080 RE: Northfield Police Department (Atlantic County) Dear Sir or Madam: We believe that during the early morning hours of February 17, 2011, the Northfield Police Department may have encountered an off-duty police officer from Egg Harbor Township who was intoxicated and passed out behind the wheel of his private vehicle while stopped at a traffic light. We further believe that the Northfield Police did not administer a field sobriety test or otherwise investigate to determine whether the off-duty officer was driving while under the influence. Rather, Northfield Police apparently gave their fellow officer preferential treatment by having him driven home by an Egg Harbor Township police sergeant. In order to understand the matter better, please download the following records: August 15, 2011 Letter from Egg Harbor Police Chief in response to my August 8, 2011 letter. Northfield Police Department\'s \"Detail Call for Service Report\" from February 17, 2011. Audio of radio transmissions and telephone call related to the February 17, 2011 incident. The audio recording and Service Report suggest that Northfield Police observed Egg Harbor Township Officer Jeffrey Lancaster asleep behind his wheel while his vehicle was stopped at an intersection and remained there while the traffic light went through several sequences. They also suggest that Lancaster was \"AOB\" (i.e. had alcohol on his breath) and may have been \"four-fifty\" (in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, New Jersey\'s drunk driving statute). Yet, instead of investigating this incident as a drunk driving violation, Northfield Police called Egg Harbor Township Police and Sergeant Michael T. Hughes went to the scene to drive Lancaster home. Egg Harbor Township Police Chief Michael J. Morris\' letter confirms, however, that an internal affairs investigation of the incident resulted in Lancaster pleading guilty to several infractions of departmental rules and regulations. While we have been denied access to many of the records related to this matter, it appears to us that Lancaster, who was off-duty and driving his own vehicle at the time of his encounter with Northfield Police, was disciplined as a result of that encounter--probably for driving while intoxicated. Also, had Lancaster been sleeping but not intoxicated, he could have driven himself home. If our suspicions are correct, then it appears that the Northfield Police Department acted inappropriately by not investigating their encounter with Lancaster as a drunk driving matter and treating him as they undoubted would have had treated an ordinary citizen. We find such preferential treatment repugnant and hope that your office feels the same way. We ask that you please investigate this matter and advise us of the results of your investigation. Very truly yours, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project
 

Model Res

 

Galloway Township Supplemental OPRA request

CHackney@gallowaytwp-nj.gov Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: In an earlier request, I asked for minutes of the July 18, 2011 Township Council closed session. I asked for these minutes after readings two Patch articles (\"Galloway Township Appoints New Clerk\" on August 23, 2011 and \"Lisa Tilton Resigns as Township Clerk as Part of Deal Reached Monday Night\" on July 19, 2011). A copy of my request and the Township\'s response is on-line at From reading those article, I learned that outstanding disciplinary charges against Tilton would be dropped in exchange for her resigning effective October 3, 2011. In addition to paying Tilton $3,800 for her attorney fees, the agreement \"called for all charges pending against her to be dismissed with prejudice and expunged in exchange for her resignation.\" She will also receive a \"neutral reference . . . when contacted by potential employers, including to state she resigned in good standing.\" This deal was hammered out during a seven hour executive session from which Mayor Hartman recused himself part of the way through. According to the resolution that authorized the July 18, 2011 closed meeting, there were two issues to be discussed privately: a) \"Township Clerk\" and b) Chief Financial Officer.\" According to the resolution, the discussion related to the Clerk would only be publicly revealed as follows: \"If employee is terminated, redacted minutes may be available in 60 days. If employee is not terminated, only pursuant to Court Order.\" For the private discussion related to the CFO, the discussion, as recorded in the minutes, would be release \"only pursuant to Court Order.\" The July 19, 2011 Patch article indicates that both Tilton and Township Manager Steve Bonanni received Rice notices. And, Deputy Mayor Don Purdy is quoted as saying that the issues involving Tilton and Bonanni \"were handled simultaneously because the issues were intertwined. “One had to do with the other,” Purdy said. “We had to talk about Steve because Lisa brought him into it.” Yet, the July 18, 2011 closed session resolution doesn\'t mention any issue involving Bonanni that needed to be privately discussed, so it is confusing as to how his issues, whatever they are, were legitimately discussed in closed session. From what I\'ve read so far, it appears that there was some major controversy that was settled, with taxpayer money, of course, that the Township is now seeking to keep secret. I would like for you to remember that the taxpayers--the ones who are footing the bill for all this drama--have a right to know the real story as to what\'s going on so that they can determine whether the Mayor and Council acted wisely and appropriately in making this deal with Tilton. These taxpayers vote, and they need to have information on what really happened so that they are fully informed when they cast their votes. My intent is to get the records that reveal what really happened and post them on the Internet so that the voting public can review them. If you review the South Jersey Publishing case that is cited in your resolution, you might come to the conclusion--as I have--that at the very least, redacted versions of the July 18, 2011 closed meeting should be disclosed. Your decision to completely suppress the minutes until October 3, 2011 \"with approval from the Solicitor and Council\" appears to be out of step with the South Jersey Publishing ruling. Be advised that if you continue to withhold the information I seek, I will likely litigate this matter. Records Requested: 1. Minutes of the July 18, 2011 closed Council meeting, redacted as narrowly as possible, if at all. 2. Rice notice sent to Tilton 3. Rice notice sent to Bonanni 4. Tilton\'s written response to Rice Notice, if any. 5. Bonanni\'s written response to Rice Notice, if any. 6. Settlement agreement with Tilton. 7. Disciplinary charges against Tilton, and her or her lawyer\'s written responses to those charges, redacted as narrowly as possible, if at all. Thank you!
 

State v. Paulsboro Police: Judge to decide whether cases move forward

On May 5, 2011, Eltereake Mears of Billings Avenue, Paulsboro was arrested by Paulsboro Police. Shortly thereafter, Mears\' two brother, Shavon Mears and Artavious Mears went to the police department to inquire about his status. An altercation allegedly occurred that spilled out onto the street. The melee resulted in the Mears brothers filing five citizen complaints, alleging assault and harassment, against Paulboro Police Chief Francis J. Grogan, Detective Sergeant Vernon Marino and Investigator Gary Kille. According to the July 6, 2011 edition of the Gloucester County times, Chief Grogan is going to retire in September 2011. The complaints, which were filed on July 15, 2011, along with the corresponding \"Complaint Information Forms\" and \"Certifications in Support of Probable Cause\" are on-line here: The detailed charges made in the complaints are set forth at the bottom of this post. Citizen complaints, such as the ones filed by the Mears brothers, cannot move forward unless and until \"probable cause\" is found to exist by either the Court Administrator or a Municipal Court Judge. According to my August 24, 2011 conversation with Gloucester County Municipal Division Manager Carole A. Cummings, the probable cause determination will be made by Westville Municipal Court Judge Thomas M. North. According to Cummings, Judge North will make the decision because it might present a conflict of interest for Paulsboro Municipal Court Judge William Golden to decide. Although the complaints were filed more than a month ago, there has been no probably cause determination yet, and Cummings was not able to provide a date by which the determination will be made. If probable cause is found, the matters will proceed to trial. If not, they will be dismissed and, according to Cummings, the Mears brothers will lack standing to appeal the dismissals. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project ---Details of charges The complaints allege that: 1. Eltereake Mears was pushing his five month old son in a stroller on May 5, 2011 in the area of Adams and Spruce Streets in Paulsboro when two police officers--Detective Sergeant Vernon Marino, Investigator Gary Kille--jumped out of their car to arrest Eltereake\'s friend, Daquan Belcher. The complaint alleges that Marino \"crashed into [the] baby\'s stroller knocking it sideways on two wheels\" with the baby inside. Eltereake claims that after he told Marino that \"he almost knocked [my] son out the stroller,\" some words were exchanged and Eltereake walked away. According to Eltereake, Marino jumped out his car \"a short time later\" and \"falsely arrested\" Eltereake. State v. Marino, Complaint No. 0814-S-2011-000396 (charging simple assault and harassment.) 2. Eltereake Mears claims that Kille, while arresting him, pushed him against a fence as he was holding his five month old\'s stroller and \"walked [him] to the trunk of the car hit [him] with the back of [Kille\'s] forearm slamming [his] face into the truck of the car.\" State v. Kille, Complaint No. 0814-S-2011-000395 (charging simple assault and harassment.) 3. Artavious Mears claims that when he and his brother, Shavon, went to the police station to check on Eltereake, the \"police were uncooperative and confrontational.\" He alleges that \"argument ensured\" as the brothers \"were walking away from the police.\" He says that Kille followed him outside, \"took [him] to the ground, bent [his] arm behind [his] back and arrested [him].\" State v. Kille, Complaint No. 0814-S-2011-000391 (charging simple assault and harassment.) 4 and 5. Shavon Mears claims that when he and his brother, Artavious, went to the police station to check on Eltereake, the \"police were uncooperative and confrontational.\" He alleges that \"argument ensured\" as the brothers \"were walking away\" that Marino and Chief Grogan followed them out. Marino allegedly \"ran towards [him] fast and attempted to throw [him] to the ground [and that] \"Grogan tackled [him] from behind and, as they fell to the ground, either Grogan or Marino \"punched [him] in the back of [his] head.\" State v. Marino, Complaint No. 0814-S-2011-000390 (charging simple assault and harassment) and State v. Grogan, Complaint No. 0814-S-2011-000389 (charging simple assault and harassment.) -30-
 

OPRA decision in Hudson County

One of the things that I try to do is identify and call activists\' attention to court cases that construe and apply the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the Open Public Meetings Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Sometimes, these case are filed and adjudicated without anyone noticing. One such case is Comprelli v. Town of Harrison, Docket No. HUD-L-1179-10. The complaint, two court orders and two written opinions by Superior Court Judge Bernadette N. DeCastro are on-line here: Here\'s a thumbnail sketch of the case. Plaintiff owns commuter parking lot in Harrison (Hudson County), New Jersey and asserts that city officials are harassing him by visiting his parking lots daily and counting the number of cars parked there. He submitted records requests to see, among other things, whether his competitors were enduring similar daily inspections. The Town denies his requests for not being on an official OPRA form and for being overly broad. Plaintiff, through his attorney, completes the Town\'s OPRA form and repeatedly amends and clarifies the request to make it specific as possible. Ultimately, the Town fails or refuses to grant access to the vast majority of the requested records and maintains that the request is overly broad and that pending litigation between the parties permits the records to be withheld. In her May 4, 2010 opinion, Judge DeCastro determined \"plaintiffs have sufficiently amended their requests in a manner which would not require [Harrison] to guess the information that plaintiff is requesting.\" She also found that to the extent that the Town denied access to public meeting minutes, it violated OPMA. Finally, she found that \"the Town has not articulated any concern form confidentiality of the requested records, and as such, there is no basis to withhold these records from plaintiff under the common law.\" Plaintiff asked for the court to impose OPRA\'s civil penalty against the Town\'s custodian. Judge DeCastro, citing the unpublished Appellate Division opinion in Hirsch v. City of Hoboken, determined that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to impose civil penalties. In her August 26, 2010 opinion, Judge DeCastro found: a) that hourly rates of $450, which was increased to $520 effective January 1, 2010 by lead attorney Paul H. Schafhauser of Herrick, Feinstein LLP were \"reasonable and customary;\" b) the Town was required to pay for legal work done prior to the request being submitted on the Town\'s OPRA request form; c) plaintiff was granted attorney fees of $28,951.36 for work done between March 26, 2010 and July 31, 2010 and d) that plaintiffs is entitled to additional fees for work done after July 31, 2010. In a January 4, 2011 Order, Judge DeCastro ordered the Town to pay an additional amount of fees and costs of $14,687.00. According to the Harrison Town Clerk, the fee award has been appealed and that the trial court has, on July 7, 2011, stayed payment of the fees pending appeal. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

NJLP seeks repeal of Paulsboro Loitering Ordinance

The New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project has taken aim at the Loitering and Peace and Good Order codes in Paulsboro Borough, Gloucester County. In an August 26, 2011 letter to John Burzichelli, Project Chairman I pointed out that the Borough\'s ordinances are preempted by state law and are thus invalid. That letter is on-line here: Paulsboro\'s code is nearly identical to the loitering codes in other municipalities that have already been declared invalid. (See, e.g. Butler Borough, Morris County, at http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/LButler.pdf) John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project
 

Somerset Freeholders revise closed session process

If your local government officials aren\'t doing what the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) requires, one way to get their attention is to threaten to sue them. That\'s what I did on August 11, 2011 when I discovered that the Somerset County Freeholders were discussing matters in closed session that they should have been discussing in public and were keeping closed meeting minutes that lacked enough detail for the public to understand what was discussed. So that the Freeholders realized that I wasn\'t making idle threats, I drafted a civil lawsuit and e-mailed it to the Board advising them that unless I heard from them or their attorney by Friday, August 26, 2011 (i.e. three days after the Freeholder Board\'s August 23, 2011 meeting), I would file my lawsuit \"without further notice.\" On August 26, 2011, at 4:37 p.m., I received a letter from Somerset County Counsel William T. Cooper, III providing me with a list of five changes that the Freeholders pledged to make to bring them within OPMA compliance. Mr. Cooper\'s letter, along with my draft lawsuit, is on-line here. This is a good outcome because I was able to get compliance without having to burden the taxpayers (and myself) with the cost of litigation. And, although it sounds difficult and may seem a bit intimidating, it\'s not really very hard to file a lawsuit without an attorney. I\'ve done it several times and have found that, in most all cases, the courts haven\'t been hostile to a non-lawyered citizen and have actually been quite accommodating and helpful. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Attorney General acknowledges receipt of NJLP rulemaking petition

As reported on May 16, 2011, the New Jersey Libertarian Party submitted a \"Petition for Rulemaking\" formally requesting the New Jersey Attorney General to adopt some rules \"that genuinely and substantially address the problem of police showing favoritism to fellow officers.\" The request was made in the wake of media reports regarding police officers\' habitual failure to enforce drunk driving laws against State Trooper Sheila McKaig. After apparently misplacing our first petition, I re-sent the petition to the Attorney General on July 11, 2011. After not hearing from the Attorney General\'s office for over a month, I submitted a records request for a copy of the petition, to determine whether the Attorney General received it. Today, I received a response to my records request indicating that the Attorney General\'s office did receive our petition and that notice of it will be published in the September 19, 2011 New Jersey Register. The notice to be published is on-line here. Within a few months, the Attorney General will determine whether or not to grant our petition and will publish its decision in the New Jersey Register. The Register is on-line at http://www.lexisnexis.com/njoal/
 

Whoops! Atlantic County Links not available!

When I sent out my last posting regarding the Atlantic County OPRA case, I didn\'t realize that the links were password protected. (I\'m still getting used to the new system.) Judge Higbee\'s decision is on-line here. Court Rule 1:36-3 is on-line here. Sorry for the trouble. John Paff
 

Union County MusicFest

If you want to see New Jersey local government at its \"finest,\" check out the Union County Prosecutor\'s investigation report on Union County\'s 2010 \"MusicFest.\" The report, without exhibits, is on-line here: The report finds multiple instances of county employees and vendors handling cash without any supervision or accountability. Also notable, is the County\'s failure to notice that $24,281.68 was improperly kept by a vendor instead of being returned to the county\'s treasury. Despite all the problems found, the prosecutor\'s office ultimately found that \"there is insufficient evidence which warrants the filing of criminal charges in this matter.\" John Paff
 

Greenwich Township Tort Claim Notice

On August 25, 2011, the News of Cumberland County published an article entitled \"Greenwich Twp. representatives and fire department named in tort claims notice.\" As a public service, the Libertarian Party has secured a copy of the actual Tort Claim Notice and have placed it on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Gloucester Prosecutor issues guidelines on public officials\' e-mail usage

On September 13, 2011, Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean F. Dalton sent a memorandum to every municipality in the county \"strongly urging\" them to \"adopt an e-mail policy\" for local government officials \"in order to uphold the high levels of transparency contemplated by the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA).\" The memorandum was issued in response to a February 19, 2011 complaint against the Borough of Pitman that Prosecutor Dalton received from the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project. The Project had complained that a majority of the Pitman Borough Council had \"voted\" via e-mail to pay a utility bill. Dalton found that \"there is sufficient evidence to believe a violation of the OPMA took place\" but felt that it was not \"in the best interest of the public\" for fines to be levied against the Pitman Council members who participated in the improper e-mail. However, Dalton issues some guidelines, including not having an effective majority of a governing body included in a single e-mail and not conducting \"rolling\" e-mail communications (i.e. a series of e-mails on official business that eventually involve a majority of the body). Dalton\'s letter, memorandum and background material are on-line here. This is the second instance this year where a county prosecutor has responded to the Open Government Advocacy Project\'s complaints regarding e-mail use by public officials. In an August 4, 2011 letter, Burlington County Prosecutor Robert D. Bernardi made findings similar to Dalton\'s regarding use of e-mail by Evesham Township Council members. That letter is on-line here: http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011216TS//b10804BurlcoProsEvesham.pdf John Paff
 

Morristown: Appellate Division to hear argument Wednesday on police suspension case.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in the case of John Paff v. Borough of Chatham, Docket No. A-2350-10. The argument is scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. at the Morris County Courthouse, Court Room 12, Morristown. Background: In early 2010, newspapers reported that Chatham Borough Police Sergeant Roy George allegedly left a backpack containing a loaded, .45-caliber handgun on a Westfield sidewalk after a night of drinking. The papers also reported that Sergeant George had been demoted and suspended as a result of this incident. After learning of the matter, I submitted a records request for a record that disclosed the length of George\'s suspension. The Borough of Chatham denied access to that record “based on the confidentiality for personnel records.” In June 2010, Richard Gutman, Esq. of Montclair filed suit against Chatham on my behalf under the common law right of access. In essense, the suit claimed that the public\'s right to know the duration of George\'s suspension was superior to George\'s or the Borough\'s interest in keeping that information confidential. On December 3, 2010, Morris County Assignment Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis upheld the Borough\'s refusal to dislose the length of George\'s suspension and dismissed my complaint. Judge Bozonelis held that “the release of the information would have a chilling effect on the otherwise private personnel evaluation and analysis of public employees.” The judge expressed concern that knowing the length of George\'s suspension might allow the public to derive information about his prior, confidential disciplinary history. The press and public is welcome to attend Wednesday\'s argument. The case filings in the trial court are on-line at http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2010272oD//PaffvChatham.pdf. The appellate briefs filed by both sides are on-line here.
 

Fire District 1 Sexual harassment case settled

Earlier this month, a settlement agreement was reached between Debi Nelson and Robert Scheer, First District No. 1 and other defendants. It is on-line here: Basically, Nelson received a payment of $150,000 and Robert Scheer agreed to a) resign as a Millstone Valley auxiliary member, not seek membership in a District No. 1 fire company, not to run for Commissioner ever again and not to attend District and fire company events where Nelson will be present.
 

Do two OPRA requests constitute harassment?

At the May 10, 2011 Runnemede (Camden County) Board of Education executive session, Board Attorney Philip Stern said that he would contact me and another citizen \"requesting that [we] cease and desist [filing OPRA requests] under possible charges of harassment.\" The minutes of the closed meeting, which I learned about just today, are available on the Board\'s site as well as here. According to the minutes, I and two other citizens were filing OPRA requests \"in an effort to find some information to support [a] suspicion . . . that some fraud or unethical events occurred.\" Board attorney Phillip Stern opined that \"the volume and nature [of the OPRA requests] has been expanding and interferes with the ability to administer the district.\" I confess that I am guilty as charged. I filed two OPRA requests with the Board--on April 7, 2011 and May 7, 2011--in an attempt to find out why the Board entered into a settlement agreement with its former business administrator and gave her a seven-month paid leave of absence at her annual salary of $99,465. The Board\'s responses to my two OPRA requests resulted in my June 3, 2011 lawsuit against the Board. http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/2011163Uv/PaffvRunnemede.pdf For unknown reasons, Stern never followed through on his promise to send me a \"cease and desist\" letter.
 

Do two OPRA requests constitute harassment?

At the May 10, 2011 Runnemede (Camden County) Board of Education executive session, Board Attorney Philip Stern said that he would contact me and another citizen \"requesting that [we] cease and desist [filing OPRA requests] under possible charges of harassment.\" The minutes of the closed meeting, which I learned about just today, are available on the Board\'s site as well as here: According to the minutes, I and two other citizens were filing OPRA requests \"in an effort to find some information to support [a] suspicion . . . that some fraud or unethical events occurred.\" Board attorney Phillip Stern opined that \"the volume and nature [of the OPRA requests] has been expanding and interferes with the ability to administer the district.\" I confess that I am guilty as charged. I filed two OPRA requests with the Board--on April 7, 2011 and May 7, 2011--in an attempt to find out why the Board entered into a settlement agreement with its former business administrator and gave her a seven-month paid leave of absence at her annual salary of $99,465. The Board\'s responses to my two OPRA requests resulted in my June 3, 2011 lawsuit against the Board: That lawsuit is on-line here: For unknown reasons, Stern never followed through on his promise to send me a \"cease and desist\" letter.
 

Runnemede school board apologizes for gaffe

According to an \"Important Notice\" on its website, the Runnemede (Camden County) Board of Education \"inadvertently published on its website\" an unredacted version of its May 10, 2011 executive session minutes. The minutes, which have since been removed from the Board\'s website, were the subject of my September 29, 2011 post entitled \"Do two OPRA requests constitute harassment?\" http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2011/09/do-two-opra-requests-constitute.html The minutes are available on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011272YU//110510em.pdf The text of the \"Important Notice\" is set forth below and is available at the Board\'s site http://www.runnemedeschools.org/Home as well as here. ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2011, AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 A.M., THE RUNNEMEDE BOROUGH BOARD OF EDUCATION (“BOARD”) INADVERTENTLY PUBLISHED ON ITS WEBSITE UNREDACTED BOARD EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES FROM ITS MEETING OF MAY 10, 2011. THE PUBLICATION OF THE MAY 10, 2011, MINUTES ON THE BOARD WEBSITE WAS A MISTAKE. IN RESPONSE, AS SOON AS THE BOARD BECAME AWARE OF THIS INADVERTENT ERROR, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2011 WERE TAKEN OFF THE BOARD WEBSITE. THE BOARD WISHES THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THE FOLLOWING: 1. AT NO TIME DID THE BOARD WAIVE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHEN IT INADVERTENTLY PUBLISHED THE MINUTES MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE IDENTITY OF INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES WERE INAPPROPRIATELY PUBLISHED BY THE POSTING OF THE MINUTES, THE BOARD APOLOGIZES AND EMPHASIZES THAT IT HAD NO INTENTION OF RELEASING THE IDENTITIES OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITES [sic]. 3. THE BOARD HAS TAKEN ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THAT THIS INADVERTENCE DOES NOT OCCUR AGAIN.
 

Files in Paff v. Gibbsboro

 

OPMA case filed in Gloucester County

On October 6, 2011, an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) case was filed in Gloucester County Superior Court. Cheryl Potter, a local resident, brought the suit against each member of the Elk Township Committee. Potter is being represented by John W. Trimble, Jr., Esq. of Trimble & Armano of Turnersville. In her verified complaint, Potter alleges that the Township Committee discussed topics during its April 19, 2010, May 18, 2010 and April 12. 2011 closed session that ought to have been discussed in public. Potter\'s suit seeks \"an injunction prohibiting Defendants from any future violations of the OPMA by discussing budget matters in closed session.\" She also seeks the court\'s in camera review of all minutes, transcripts and audio or video recordings of Township Committee closed sessions held during 2010 and 2011. The verified complaint in the case, Potter v. Pantaleo, Docket No. GLO-L-1739-11, is on-line here. An order to show cause hearing should be scheduled soon.
 

State v. Bish

 

Should convicted cop be allowed to retire?

At the following link is my letter to the State Pension Board asking whether a police officer who was convicted of aggravated assault for shooting his stepson in the leg is permitted to retire \"in good standing\" from the police department and receive a pension. The letter is here: What\'s interesting, I think, is that the Ocean County Prosecutor\'s office, who handled the cop\'s prosecution, failed to ensure that an order was entered by the criminal court that required the cop to \"forfeit\" his job. After I brought this failure to the prosecutor\'s attention, they filed a motion with the court and obtained a forfeiture order. Prior to the motion, however, the town and the cop agreed that the cop could retire in \"good standing.\" But, the forfeiture order was made retroactive to a date prior to the retirement agreement being signed. My question is whether the agreement is now null and void because the officer had no job to resign from at the time he signed the agreement. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project
 

Dunellen Parking Authority -- lack of 2008 records

Please accept this as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: At the link below is an August 30, 2010 letter from the Dunellen Parking Authority\'s auditor, which I just received a copy of today. Relevant is the following paragraph which is on the first page of that letter: \"Because of the inadequacy of accounting system and records for the year ended December 31, 2008, we are unable to form an opinion regarding the amounts at which accounts receivable, accounts payable and deferred parking permit revenues are recorded/not recorded on the balance sheet or accompanying financial statements. The respective amounts are unknown.\" This passage strikes me as being significant because it says, in essence, that the Parking Authority, which reported $631,305 in net assets and had $124,798 in cash and equivalents on hand as of December 31, 2009, didn\'t keep proper financial records during 2008. N.J.A.C. § 5:31-7.7 provides that whenever \"an illegal act, shortage or irregularity\" is detected \"the Division shall be notified at once by means of a special confidential report.\" This \"confidential report\" is apparently intended to be filed by the auditor. While I don\'t have any evidence that anything \"illegal\" occurred, the failure of the Authority to keep proper financial records during 2008 seems to at least be an \"irregularity\" that should have been reported by the auditor to the Division. I realize that the Division will probably take the position that the \"confidential report\" is not discloseable under the Open Public Records Act. But, even it it is exempt under OPRA, the common law gives citizens a right to records where the public interest in disclosure exceeds the government\'s interest in confidentiality. It seems to me that knowing whether this \"irregularity\" was reported to the Division, and the Division\'s response to it is of vital public interest. Without this information, the public might lose confidence in the Division\'s and auditor\'s willingness to report and act upon financial irregularities involving public money. Records Requested: 1. Any report the Division received regarding the Dunellen Parking Authority\'s apparent lack of financial records during 2008. 2. Any \"supplements or preliminary reports\" filed in this matter, as required by N.J.A.C. § 5:31-7.7(b)(2) 3. All records related to the disposition of this matter.
 

OPRA response: \"The prosecutor said we couldn\'t release it\"

Have you ever made an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for local police records only to be told, \"We asked the county prosecutor about your request and he or she said that we must deny it.\"? If the prosecutor really did say that, then he or she violated a 2006 consent order entered in the case of Deborah Jacobs v. Peter C. Harvey, et al, Docket No. L-3119-04. I learned about this consent order after Walter Luers and I filed a recent lawsuit in Camden County. One of the defendants, the Borough of Gibbsboro, claimed that they couldn\'t release a police record because the county prosecutor told them not to. After we sued both Gibbsboro and the Camden County Prosecutor, the prosecutor informed us of the consent order. Paragraph 1 of that consent order, which is available on-line here, states that in \"applying the standards set forth in OPRA and any other applicable law, each municipality shall exercise its own discretion in determining whether to release documents sought through OPRA.\" According to the Camden Prosecutor\'s brief, which is also available at the link, ever since the consent order was entered, they have \"expressly refrained from providing direction or legal advice to municipalities on OPRA issues, other than to suggest how the Prosecutor\'s Office might respond if a request was made to its OPRA Coordinator.\" So, if a local police department tells you that it can\'t release records because of advice given by the prosecutor, send the police department\'s custodian a copy of the consent order and tell him or her to seek advice from the municipal lawyer.
 

Tuesday: Ethics hearing against lawyer charged with altering document

On Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 9:30 a.m., an ethics panel will hear charges against a Middlesex County attorney accused of altering a contract in order to avoid paying for architectural services. The hearing, which is open to the public and press, will be held on the 2nd Floor of the Middlesex County Courthouse in a conference room next to Civil Assignment Office. The 32-count complaint, filed by the District VIII Ethics Committee alleges that Karim K. Arzadi, who maintains office in both Perth Amboy and New Brunswick, violated several Rules of Professional Conduct in his dealings with North Brunswick architect Jeffrey W. Kusmick. According to the complaint, Arzadi agreed to pay Kusmick $34,500 to prepare architectural drawings and gave Kusmick a $7,500 deposit. When Kusmick sued Arzadi for the $27,000 contract balance, Arzadi allegedly created a second, \"fraudulent\" contract that said that his agreement with Kusmick was for a total of $7,500. According to the ethics complaint, Arzadi claimed that the $7,500 contract was genuine and that he had paid Kusmick in full with the $7,500 deposit. Arzadi, through attorneys Justin P. Walder of Roseland and Joseph J. Benedict of New Brunswick, filed a response to the ethics complaint denying the allegations. The ethics complaint and Arzadi\'s answer is on-line here.
 

Summit Council said to have violated OPMA

A memo from the Summit City attorney opining that the Summit Council violated the OPMA by discussing an upcoming vote via e-mail is on-line here.
 

Records Request to Wrightstown

Background: The documents referred to in this request are contained within an eight page PDF file which is on-line here: Those records, which were received in response to my recent records request show: a) that Wrightstown Mayor Thomas Harper, in Section II:D his 2011 Financial Disclosure Statement, reported that he has a business interest in M & T, Inc. In Section II:A of the same report, he indicates that M & T, Inc. uses \"Tom\'s Service Center\" as a trade name. The voucher also a signature that apparently reads \"Thomas E. Harper\" and indicates that he is the \"owner\" of \"Tom\'s Service Center.\" b) that the Borough of Wrightstown purchases fuel and vehicle repairs from \"Tom\'s Service Center.\" c) that for diesel fuel purchased through \"Tom\'s Service Center,\" Wrightstown is paying per gallon between $3.549 (see 09/01/11 invoice) and $3.819 (see 09/19/11). These records show that the Borough\'s mayor owns, or at least has a business interest in, a vendor from which the Borough purchases fuel and vehicle repair services. They also show that the Borough is paying significantly higher prices for its diesel fuel than those set forth on the Treasury Department\'s \"New Jersey Contract Fuel and Gas Prices\" list which is on-line at http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/treasury/purchase/fuel/fuelsearch.pl?fueltype=hfd For example, that list shows the September 19, 2011 price per gallon for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel to be $3.087 as opposed to the $3.819 rate the Borough paid on the same date. Of course, the state contract prices reflect costs without state and federal tax and the prices charged by \"Tom\'s Service Center\" presumably are the pump prices that include the tax. But even if this is true, an additional question is raised as to why the Borough is paying state and federal taxes on its fuel. My experience with other government entities shows that they typically use a service, such as Wright Express\" whose invoices automatically subtract out the vast majority of the taxes from which municipal agencies are exempt. I\'m interested in knowing how much money the Borough pays \"Tom\'s Service Center\" on an annual basis, whether these purchases conform to proper bidding practices, whether the mayor\'s financial interest in \"Tom\'s Service Center\" constitutes a conflict of interest and the identify of the Borough\'s auditor. Records Requested: 1. A computer run from the Borough\'s financial software showing the amount of money paid to \"Tom\'s Service Center\" from January 1, 2010 through to current date. 2. All contracts between the Borough and \"Tom\'s Service Center\" or \"M & T, Inc.\" that cover the period from January 1, 2010 through to current date. 3. All resolutions authorizing the purchase of goods and services from \"Tom\'s Service Center\" or \"M & T, Inc.\" from January 1, 2010 through to current date. 4. All solicitations seeking bids or quotes from other vendors of fuel and motor vehicle repair services. 5. The cover letter, report and list of recommendations contained the Borough\'s most recently prepared audit report.
 

Wrightstown - supplement

To: wrightstownclerk@comcast.net Subject: OPRA Request - clarification Dear Ms. Gorman: I just wanted to write to clarify my November 2, 2011 records request in light of information that you have recently provided. Specifically, you have provided the documents responsive to paragraphs 1 (computer run of Tom\'s Service Center payments) and 5 (audit report) and I have uploaded the fifteen relevant pages as a PDF to [link] Still outstanding are the following paragraphs of my request: 2. All contracts between the Borough and \"Tom\'s Service Center\" or \"M & T, Inc.\" that cover the period from January 1, 2010 through to current date. 3. All resolutions authorizing the purchase of goods and services from \"Tom\'s Service Center\" or \"M & T, Inc.\" from January 1, 2010 through to current date. 4. All solicitations seeking bids or quotes from other vendors of fuel and motor vehicle repair services. I\'ve tallied up the amounts paid to Tom\'s Service Center during 2010. I have determined those amounts to be $7,278.78 for fuel and $4,520.67 for vehicle repairs, maintenance, parts and supplies for a total of $11,799.45. According to page 59 of the audit, the bid threshold for Wrightstown increased from $21,000 to $26,000 effective July 1, 2010. Since the amount spent, in the aggregate, for both fuel and vehicle repairs, etc. exceeded 15% of the bid threshold (15% of the higher figure is $3,900), N.J.S.A. 40A:11-6.1 required the Borough to \"solicit[] at least two competitive quotations, if practicable [and] award [the contract] to a vendor whose response is most advantageous, price and other factors considered.\" The Borough is also required to \"retain the record of the quotation solicitation and shall include a copy of the record with the voucher used to pay the vendor.\" Accordingly, I\'d like to clarify that the records sought under paragraph 4 of my request should include the \"two competitive quotations\" solicited by the Borough for vehicle repair and fuel. Paragraphs 2 and 3, I believe, are not in need of clarification. Thank you. John Paff
 

Garwood

 

Garwood

 

Probable cause found for assault cases against Paulsboro police

On September 18, 2011, the Hon. Thomas M. North of the Westville/National Park (Gloucester County) Joint Municipal Court found that there was probable cause to charge Paulsboro Police Chief Frank Grogan, Detective Sergeant Vernon Marino and Investigator Gary Kille with simple assault. Judge North also found, however, that there was not probable cause to charge the three officers with harassment. The charges, which were filed by Shavon Mears, Artavious Mears and Eltereake Mears, arose out of a May 5, 2011 encounter between the Mears trio and police. The details of those charges and the probable cause findings are on-line here: Now that probable cause has been found, the matters will be scheduled for trial, probably before a court other than the Paulsboro Municipal Court due to a possible conflict of interest. No date has yet been set for trial. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Councilman Carl J. Washington, Jr.

On Septeber 9, 2011 (post 2697), \"guidedbythelight\" alleged that \"[Council member Carl Washington, Jr. spent 10 days in the Gloucester County Jail.\" In response (post 2697.1), \"PessOptimist\" asked for \"details\" because \"nobody seems to know anything about it.\" I don\'t think it\'s fair for anonymous people to make unsupported, negative claims regarding elected officials. Since I have some experience in requesting records, I decided to investigate \"guidedbythelight\'s\" claim to see if it was factual. The documents relevant to my investigation are on-line here: Exhibit page 1 is Washington\'s October 20, 201l statement filed with the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC). It evidences that Washington\'s address is 40 Madole Place, Penns Grove, New Jersey. Exhibit page 2 is summons/complaint no. 1708-PG-079701 issued against \"Carl J. Washington, Jr., of 40 Madole Place, Penns Grove. It reveals that Washington, whose date of birth is March 15, 1973, was charged with driving with a suspended license (N.J.S.A. 39:3-40) on May 18, 2011. According to the reverse of the summons/complaint, Washington pled \"not guilty\" but was found guilty at an August 9, 2011 hearing and was fined $1,006 plus $33 costs and received a 30 day additional period of driver license suspension. Importantly, the bottom of the reverse of the summons indicates \"10 days\" and a related text entry appears regarding \"SLAP.\" I telephone Penns Grove Municipal Court Administrator Sharon O. Bye on November 4, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. and she told me that Washington was sentenced to spend ten days in jail but that the judge would allow him to serve his sentence through the Salem County Sheriff\'s SLAP \"Sheriff\'s Labor Assistance Program\" if he was eligible. Ms. Bye also informed me that Washington has appealed the case to Superior Court, Law Division and that that appeal is pending. Exhibit page 3 is a record I received in response to my OPRA request to Gloucester County seeking information on whether or not Washington was jailed. The record indicates that a Carl Washington, born on March 15, 1973 (the same date that is on Exhibit page 2), was committed several times between November 12, 1997 and April 23, 2004. I have an OPRA request pending for further information regarding these committments. My records requests regarding this matter are still ongoing and I will post more as documents become available. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Assault complaints against Paulsboro police referred to prosecutor\'s office

The Paulsboro Municipal Court has forwarded the assault cases against three Borough police officials to the Gloucester County Prosecutor instead of setting them down for further court proceedings. In a November 4, 2011 letter the New Jersey Supreme Court\'s Criminal Practice Committee, I question this procedure. That letter is on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Cherry Hill board pays $35,000 to settle student\'s sex assault case

On May 16, 2011, the federal court approved an agreement under which the Cherry Hill Board of Education (Camden County) would pay $35,000 to a then fourteen year-old school student at Rosa International Middle School sued a teacher\'s aide for allegedly sexually assaulting her. In her suit, the Plaintiff, identified by her initials, claimed that teacher\'s aide Jeffrey Powell with \"physically and sexually assault[ing]\" her. She also claimed that school officials acted \"with negligence, recklessness and indifference\" to Powell\'s alleged sexual misconduct. The case is captioned K.R. v. Jeffrey Powell, et al, Docket No. CAM-L-4005-10 and K.R.\'s attorney was Louis G. Hasner of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. Also at this link is an Appellate Division decision concerning Powell\'s appeal of related criminal charges. Also, $35,000 settled the matter only against the school board. A private settlement may have been reached between Powell and the plaintiff. None of K.R.\'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Cherry Hill board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Cherry Hill board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay K.R. $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants\' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I\'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party\'s blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Paff v. Egg Harbor Twp

 

OPMA Lawsuit against Camden City school board

A new lawsuit was filed yesterday in Camden County Superior Court that seeks answers to the following questions: 1. How promptly must a public body publicly disclose the nonexempt portions of its nonpublic (i.e. \"closed or executive\") meeting minutes? 2. Can a public body validly claim that it must first \"approve\" its nonpublic meeting minutes prior to publicly disclosing even redacted versions of them? 3. Must a public body pass a separate, free-standing resolution in order to authorize a nonpublic session (as required by N.J.S.A. 10:4-13) or is it sufficient for it to pass a motion, which is recorded in the regular meeting minutes? 4. In its N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 motions or resolutions, how specifically must a public body describe the topics it plans to discuss during its nonpublic meetings? 5. In its N.J.S.A. 10:4-13 motions or resolutions, how precisely must a public body state the time when and the circumstances under which the discussion conducted in nonpublic session can be disclosed to the public? The lawsuit is the joint effort of Camden resident Jose Delgado and me. We\'re seeking a court order that will bring some clarity to these questions. We plan on bringing the suit\'s result to the attention of every public body in Camden County. This, we hope, will help establish a legal standard that all those bodies will follow. The civil lawsuit is on-line here and our brief is here.
 

Commercial Township Legal Bills Online

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project which works to make government agencies--especially local and county government agencies--more transparent and accountable to the public. One way to find out what your municipal government is doing is to submit an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the municipal attorney\'s legal services invoices. I submitted such a request to Township Clerk Hannah E. Nichols and received the responsive documents today. As a public service, I\'ve uploaded the invoices to the Internet at the following link: At the link is the Township\'s legal services contract with Thomas E. Seeley\'s law office and that office\'s billings for services performed between January 1, 2011 and September 29, 2011. The documents show that Mr. Seeley has billed the Township for $54,688.58 for services and related costs during that period. He makes $150 per hour and charges the Township 30c for each photocopy his office makes and $1 for each page his office faxes. (Note: Separate from the $54,688.50 and not included in the file on-line is a $10,000 invoice dated October 21, 2011 for the firm\'s tax foreclosure work.) The bills also identify litigation that the Township is involved in. For example, a June 30, 2011 entry references a lawsuit captioned Brad Wolfe v. Township of Commercial. And, another June 30, 2011 entry refers to \"copies of Complaint against Cogdill and Allen for burglary of Commercial Township Convenience Center.\" Interested citizens could learn more about these lawsuits by submitting an OPRA request to Clerk Nichols. OPRA requests can be submitted by e-mail to hnichols@commercialtwp.com Just put \"OPRA request\" in the subject line and put \"Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access\" as the first line in the e-mail\'s body. Then, provide a list of the records that you would like copies of. For example, you could ask for \"the Complaint against Cogdill and Allen for burglary of Commercial Township Convenience Center\" that is referenced in a 06/30/11 entry in the Seeley Law firm\'s legal services invoice.\" We hope that readers find this information helpful. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project www.njlp.org paff@pobox.com November 15, 2011
 

Karim Arzadi

 

NJLP Complaint Against Wrightstown Mayor

 

Egg Harbor exonerates cop who conducted warrantless search

On May 23, 2011, the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project filed an Internal Affairs complaint against an Egg Harbor Township (Atlantic County) police officer who conducted a warrantless search of a motor vehicle. The complaint was filed after two-judge Appellate Division panel found that Officer Michael Bordanaro\'s search of a vehicle, which resulted in him finding a loaded .9 mm handgun, was illegal because there were no \"exigent circumstances\" excusing him from first getting a search warrant. In his November 14, 2011 response to the complaint, Police Chief Michael J. Morris determined that Officer Bordanaro\'s \"actions were . . . in compliance with departmental policy and law.\" He noted that there is \"no magic formula\" that would enable an officer to know for sure whether a given search requires a warrant, but that each case needs to be \"determined on a case-by-case basis.\" He also stated that the Appellate Division\'s ruling is being considered by the New Jersey Supreme Court and that \"once an opinion is available [the Police Department] will conduct a review in order to ascertain if there is a need to re-open the investigation, change policy or provide additional training.\" The complaint, Appellate Division decision and Chief Morris\' response are on-line here: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Police Accountability Project paff@pobox.com November 19, 2011
 

Paff v. Runnemede school board: Motion hearing December 16th

Readers may recall that attorney Walter M. Luers and I filed a lawsuit in June against the Runnemede (Camden County) Board of Education in an attempt to learn exactly why the board gave former Business Administrator Kelly Brazelton a leave of absence from September 23, 2010 through April 15, 2011 while paying her a $99,465 annual salary. According to media reports at the time, the arrangement was made in order to stave off a lawsuit that Brazelton had apparently threatened to file. Brazelton has since been hired as assistant business administrator in the Deptford (Gloucester County) School District. The lawsuit is on-line at http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/2011163Uv/PaffvRunnemede.pdf The school board\'s and Brazelton\'s answer to the suit is on-line at Walter and I recently moved for summary judgment on the first count of our lawsuit. Summary judgment can be entered by a court when there are no serious factual disputes and that all that is needed is for a judge to apply the law to the undisputed facts of the case. The motion will be heard in Camden County Superior Court on Friday, December 16, 2011. Specifically, we are asking the court to order the board to provide a \"privilege log\" which explains and justifies each redaction it made to the minutes of its nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) meetings held during the period when Brazelton\'s leave of absence was being considered. Unfortunately, the board redacted its minutes but gave only vague reasons for those redactions. We are also asking the court to order the board to file unredacted versions of its nonpublic meeting minutes with the court so that a judge can look at them privately (i.e. conduct an in camera review) to determine whether the redactions are proper. Our motion, certification and brief are on-line here. Members of public are welcome to attend the December 16, 2011 hearing on our motion. It will be held at the Camden County Courthouse, probably at 9 a.m before Assignment Judge Francis J. Orlando, Jr. Those who are interested in attending should check the court\'s website at http://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web1/ACMSPA/ a day or so before the hearing to ensure that it hasn\'t been postponed or cancelled. Refer to Paff v. Runnemede Board of Education, Camden County, Docket No. L-2865-11. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com November 19, 2011
 

Second LFB complaint against Wrightstown Mayor and Wife

 

OPRA suit filed against State Firemen\'s Association

On November 22, 2011, Montclair attorney Richard Gutman filed an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) lawsuit on my behalf against the New Jersey State Firemen\'s Association (NJSFA). The civil complaint, as well as an order to show cause and brief in Paff v. New Jersey State Firemen\'s Association, Docket No. UNN-L-4371-11, are on-line here. Although it received over $24 million in tax dollars during 2010 and distributed over $11 million of that amount to its 538 local firemen\'s relief associations, most members of the public know little or nothing about the NJSFA. The NJSFA receives a percentage of taxes New Jersey levies against out-of-state insurance companies. With that money, it provides for the care of indigent, injured and deceased firefighters. The NJSFA and its local relief associations serve over 76,000 career and volunteer firefighters. On September 26, 2011, I filed an OPRA request with the NJSFA. Among other records, I asked for documents revealing how much, if any, past members of the NJSFA\'s Executive Committee were receiving in pension benefits. In its response to my OPRA request, the NJSFA stated that it \"has never considered itself bound by the [Open Public Records] Act.\" Accordingly, my request for the pension records was denied. Mr. Gutman and I disagree with the NJSFA\'s position and believe that it is an OPRA \"public agency\" because it was created by the New Jersey Legislature or by municipal fire departments back in the 1800\'s. Either way, we believe that it\'s a \"public agency\" under OPRA because, as stated in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, it was \"created by the Legislative Branch\" or it was \"created by a . . . combination of political subdivisions [of the State].\" The matter has been set down for a hearing on January 6, 2012 at 9 a.m. before Union County Superior Court Judge Regina Caulfield at 2 Broad Street, Elizabeth. The hearing is open to the public, but interested citizens should call the court at 908-659-4810 the day before the hearing to make sure that it hasn\'t been postponed. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Does (former) Commercial Mayor Garrison have a temper?

According to records I received today from the Commercial Township (Cumberland County) Municipal Court, former Township Mayor George Garrison was charged twice within a eight-month period for simple assault or harassment by two local women. The first incident occurred on October 1, 2010 when Garrison was still Mayor. Port Norris resident Pamela Bevill charged Garrison with harassment after an encounter with him at her residence. Bevill claims that Garrison knocked on her door after seeing his opponent\'s campaign sign in her front yard. According to Bevill, Garrison became upset when she told him that she wouldn\'t vote for him and began to shut the door. Garrison allegedly yanked the door back open and told Bevill that his wife was Bevill\'s son\'s teacher at school. The matter was transferred to Pitman Municipal Court in Gloucester County. On November 29, 2010, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the harassment charge provided that Garrison have no further contact with Bevill. The second incident occurred on May 25, 2011, after Garrison had lost the election the previous November. Port Norris resident Cathy Ore, who says that she is legally blind, claimed that she went to Garrison\'s property at 1752 North Avenue, Port Norris to attend a meeting to which she was invited. Garrison allegedly screamed at Ore and demanded that she get off his property. While the driver of the car she was riding in attempted to depart, Garrison allegedly screamed \"Thank you for all the harassment\" while simultaneously grabbing her car door. Garrison then allegedly slammed the door on her. I am informed that this matter was heard in Salem City Municipal Court on November 29, 2011 and that the charge was dismissed. These are not Garrison\'s first brushes with the law. According to the Press of Atlantic City, Garrison and local resident Ben Moore filed charges against each other after a fight on election night 2007 (November 6) at the Port Norris Fire Hall. I can find no published news articles regarding the outcome of those complaints. The records of the two incidents mentioned are on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Lawrence Township Legal Bills Online

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project which works to make government agencies--especially local and county government agencies--more transparent and accountable to the public. One way to find out what your municipal government is doing is to submit an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the municipal attorney\'s legal services invoices. I submitted such a request to Lawrence Township Clerk Ruth Dawson and received the responsive documents today. As a public service, I\'ve uploaded the invoices to the Internet at the following link: At the link is the Township\'s legal services contract with Thomas E. Seeley\'s law office and that office\'s billings for services performed between September 15, 2010 and October 6, 2011. The documents show that Mr. Seeley has billed the Township for $23,644.04 for services and related costs during that period. He makes $150 per hour and charges the Township 30c for each photocopy his office makes and $1 for each page his office faxes. (Note: Separate from the $23,644.04 and not included in the file on-line are invoices for the firm\'s tax foreclosure work.) Interested citizens could learn more about the matters Mr. Seeley worked on (e.g. the \"Developmental and District Regulation Ordinance(s)\" that Mr. Seeley spent sixteen hours working ($2,400) on July 28, 2011) may submit an OPRA request to Clerk Nichols. OPRA requests can be submitted by e-mail to Clerk Dawson at ruthdawson@comcast.net Just put \"OPRA request\" in the subject line and put \"Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access\" as the first line in the e-mail\'s body. Then, provide a list of the records that you would like copies of. We hope that readers find this information helpful. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Projectpaff@pobox.com November 29, 2011
 

Did the Seeley law firm bill Commercial and Lawrence too much?

On November 29, 2011, I wrote to the Mayors and Committee members of both Commercial and Lawrence Townships (Cumberland County) to inquire about the the Seeley law firm--which represents both townships--charging the townships $2,175 for 14.5 hours spent attending two court hearings on March 30, 2011. My letter is here: Clearly, there may be, and probably is, a logical explanation for these billings, but I believe that questioning it is reasonable. Anyone who shares my concern regarding this bill should e-mail the Commercial Township Mayor and Committee at hnichols@commercialtwp.com and/or the Lawrence Township Mayor and Committee at ruthdawson@comcast.net John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project November 29, 2011 paff@pobox.com
 

JE

 

Livingston Police Overtime

In response to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, the Township of Livingston (Essex County) provided me with the payroll sheets for its police officers for the two week pay periods beginning on August 4, 2011 through November 9, 2011. I have uploaded those payroll sheets here: What struck me is the amount of overtime some of these officers are making. For example, the sheets show that Andrew S. Glassman, in addition to his $105,000 annual salary, also pulled in $5,294.82 in overtime for the two-week pay period ending August 17, 2011. Similarly, he made $5,372.69 in overtime for the period ending August 31, 2011, $6,229.20 for the period ending September 14, 2011 as well as other overtime amounts for the remainder of the pay periods in my sample. In addition to overtime, some officers made an addition amount--ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars--per pay period for a category titled \"Earns P Other Ex Time.\" I thought that this information may be of interest to Livingston taxpayers. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Dunellen Parking Authority -- lack of 2008 records - update

 

Perth Amboy Redevelopment Agency Minutes

 

Trial set for Laurel Lake fire department sex harassment case

Trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 23, 2012 in the civil case of Wooton v. Commercial Township Board of Fire Commissioners, Docket No. CUM-L-1211-08. This case was filed by Rebecca Wooton, who says that while serving as an EMT/Firefighter for the Laurel Lake Fire Company, she was subjected to \"pervasive acts of sexual harassment by\" other firefighters \"including but not limited to the co-defendant Lou Turner.\" Specifically, Wooton alleges that Turner touched her \"on her buttock and breast and otherwise assaulted\" her. The lawsuit and related documents are on-line here. Her complaint also names former Laurel Lake Fire Chief Timothy Clement and claims that Clement \"aided and abetted the acts of sexual harassment . . . and/or failed to abate, remedy or otherwise\" resolve the conduct of which Wooton complained. Clement has since retired to Spearsville, Louisiana where he serves as mayor. The trial, which has been schedule and postponed several times, is presently slated to begin on January 23, 2012 before Cumberland County Superior Court Judge Richard G. Geiger. Wooton\'s attorney is Richard M. Pescatore of Vineland. Note: A civil complaint is only an accusation. No evidence has yet been offered as to whether Turner, Clement or any other person involved with the Laurel Lake Fire Company did anything wrong. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Question for school ethics Commission

 

Old Bridge Zoning Officer Sued for Slander

On December 23, 2011, David A. Cataldi, whose recently deceased mother Rose Cataldi owned a home at 61 Lakeview Road in Laurence Harbor, sued Old Bridge Township Zoning Officer Michael Serdinsky for defamation. The suit, Cataldi v. Old Bridge et al, Docket No. MID-L-8922-11, is on-line here: Cataldi claims that the property at 61 Lakeview Road was worth $249,000 but was sold for $112,000 because Serdinsky falsely told prospective buyers \"that David A. Cataldi had caused illegal fill to be dumped on the [property] without authorization from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).\" ABOUT ME AND WHY I\'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. I believe that there lawsuits may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Woman claims Perth Amboy cops arrested her for taping them

On November 30, 2011, a Perth Amboy woman sued the City of Perth Amboy and two of its police officers for allegedly assaulting and falsely arresting after she videotapedthem. In her suit, Theodora Williams of Neville Street claims that on November 23, 2009 she was videotaping Officers David Formenza and Isaias Vasquez (city payroll records have the officers\' names spelled David Formeza and Isaias Vazquez) who were arresting and assaulting her son in front of her house. She further claims that in an attempt to seize her video camera, the two officers, along with others, \"hit her with a stick, grabbed her, pushed her and/or threw her to the ground.\" She says that she was taken to the police station, refused medical treatment, jailed overnight and charged with \"tampering with evidence.\" She further asserts that the charge was later dismissed. Williams\' suit claims that immediately preceding her arrest, Formeza and Vazquez were following her son, Larry Hardeman, who had videotaped the officers at a Walgreens. According to Williams, the officers were retaliating against her and her son because Williams and Hardeman had previously settled a lawsuit against the police department and because Hardeman had filed an internal affairs complaint against two officers. The lawsuit, Williams v. City of Perth Amboy, et al, Docket No. MID-L-8371-11, in on-line here: Williams is being represented by Ida Cambria, Esq. of Perth Amboy. ABOUT ME AND WHY I\'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party\'s Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. I believe that there lawsuits may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

O\'Boyle v. Galloway

 

Mountain Lakes OPRA request

cwhitaker@mtnlakes.org Please accept this fax as our request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, we would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: In August 2011, the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) requested resolutions and minutes from the Borough Council\'s nonpublic (executive or closed) meetings held on the following dates: December 11, 2006; December 10, 2007; January 28, 2008; February 11, 2008; March 10, 2008; December 8, 2008; February 23, 2009; March 22, 2010 and July 26, 2010. Those resolutions and minutes are, for your ready reference, on-line at I have no problem with the resolutions, but I take issue with both the scope of the redactions and the continued need for the redactions. For example, the December 11, 2006 executive minutes contain a discussion beginning at 9:49 p.m. and ending at 11:05 p.m. regarding \"Municipal Prosecutor Brian Mason and his handling of recent legal issues.\" But even if the Open Public Meetings Act allowed that discussion to be held behind closed doors, the Act doesn\'t mandate that the minutes of the executive sessions to be completely suppressed forever. At this point, over five years have elapsed since the closed discussion took place. Here, the Council discussed--for well over an hour--the prosecutor\'s \"handling of recent legal issues.\" The public, in my view, has a right to know which legal issues were of interest to the council, how was the prosecutor perceived to have handled or mishandled those issues, etc. Also, the response to NJFOG\'s address doesn\'t give any reason for the redactions. I believe that N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) requires the Borough to furnish some non-conclusory reason for why the redacted material still needs to be redacted. Would you please discuss this request with the Borough Attorney? I\'m considering litigating this matter, but before doing so, I would like it if the Borough Attorney looked at my reqeust and considered whether the Borough could avoid litigation by giving me unredacted or at least more narrowly redacted versions of the minutes. Records Requested: Unredacted or more narrowly redacted versions of the Borough Council\'s nonpublic (executive or closed) meetings held on the following dates: December 11, 2006; December 10, 2007; January 28, 2008; February 11, 2008; March 10, 2008; December 8, 2008; February 23, 2009; March 22, 2010 and July 26, 2010.
 

Runnemede

 

 

2010

Voorhees Township settles with police lieutenant for $930,000

On December 2, 2009, Jeffrey Nardello, a former lieutenant with the Voorhees Township (Camden County) Police Department, accepted $930,000 as full settlement of his Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) claim (also known as a "whistle blower" claim) against Voorhees Police Chief Keith Hummel, Deputy Chief John Prettyman and Lieutenant Louis Bordi. $520,000 of that amount goes to Nardello and the remaining $410,000 goes to Nardello's lawyer. Nardello's civil lawsuit, originally filed in 2001, alleges that in 1999 he was assigned to investigate an internal affairs complaint against an officer that Chief Hummel was "gunning" for. Deputy Chief Prettyman allegedly told Nardello that Hummel expected him to work hard to find incriminating evidence against the officer. When Nardello reportedly told Prettyman that he would treat the officer fairly, he claims that his work environment became hostile and retaliatory. Many more of Nardello's claims are detailed in two Appellate Division decisions issued April 4, 2005 and July 8, 2009. Copies of both decisions are available at the link below. The theme of Nardello's claims is that Hummel demanded all his subordinates to do exactly as he ordered, whether it was right or wrong, and retaliated against any who questioned him. On at least two occasions, Nardello reportedly contacted the Camden County Prosecutor's Office regarding Hummel's decisions which allegedly caused Hummel to consider him a troublemaker and retaliate against him. A Camden County Superior Court Judge dismissed Nardello's lawsuit on October 10, 2003. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal and the matter proceeded to trial. After a 32-day trial, which began on March 8, 2006, a jury awarded Nardello $500,000. Yet, on August 18, 2006, Superior Court Judge Mary E. Colalillo set aside the verdict after finding it "manifestly unjust." Nardello filed another appeal and on July 8, 2009, the Appellate Division reinstated the $500,000 verdict. The court also reversed Colalillo's decision to dismiss Hummel from the lawsuit and directed that a new trial be held to determine whether Hummel was individually liable to Nardello. The case is captioned Nardello v. Township of Voorhees, et al, Case No. CAM-L-5639-01. Nardello's lawyer was Clifford Van Syoc of Cherry Hill. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring the parties to keep the "facts, amounts and terms" of the settlement confidential.Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. Even though Nardello convince the jury that at least some of his claims were true, the settlement agreement expressly states that the $930,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Township of any of the officers or employees.
 

Voorhees Township settles with police dispatcher for $40,000

On November 25, 2008, Geraldine Rock, a former records clerk and dispatcher with the Voorhees Township (Camden County) Police Department, accepted $40,000 as full settlement of her discrimination and wrongful retaliation suit against the Voorhees Police Department and Police Lieutenant Louis Bordi. $18,432.50 of the $40,000 went to Rock while the remaining $21,567.50 went to her lawyer. Rock's civil lawsuit, filed on January 23, 2008, alleges that she tripped and fell at work, injuring her foot, and that her injury caused her physician to restrict her "from prolonged walking or standing." Yet, she alleges, police officials would not let her use a unisex restroom that was close to her desk, but instead made her walk to a women's restroom that was much further away. She was also required, despite her doctor's note, "to stand up to help patrons at the window upwards to twenty times per day." After she complained about the Department's refusal to accommodate her injury, Bordi and others allegedly "began a swift and harsh systematic pattern of harassment and retaliation." This allegedly included taking away of overtime hours, filing disciplinary charges against her for having moved her computer monintor so that she could dust under it and making her bring water from home instead of using the office's watercooler. As part of the settlement, the Township agreed to remove several documents from Rock's personnel file and agreed not to mention anything negative to any of Rock's prospective employers. The case is captioned Rock v. Township of Voorhees, et al, Case No. 08-cv-1385. Rock's lawyer was Alan H. Schorr of Cherry Hill. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. None of Rock's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $40,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Bordi or any other official. All that is known for sure is that Voorhees Township, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Rock and her lawyer $40,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Voorhees' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and Voorhees wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Sometimes I run across settlements that may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. For more information on the Libertarian Party, visit here. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Atlantic City settles with Absecon woman for $30,000

On November 20, 2009, Tina Marshello of Absecon, accepted $30,000 as full settlement of her civil rights lawsuit against the City of Atlantic City, its police department and Police Detective Joseph M. Rauch Marshello's civil lawsuit, filed on August 15, 2007, alleges that she and her friends were at the Nikki Beach nightclub at about midnight on August 21, 2005 when they attempted to walk back into the Resorts Hotel and Casino carrying a plastic water bottle. Marshello contends that the water bottle was needed by one of her friends, who was eight months pregnant and needed to remain hydrated. A security guard allegedly called out to the group that the water bottle was not allowed, but Marshello, "assuming [the guard] was not talking to them" continued to walk. According to the complaint, the guard whistled for Detective Rauch, who responded by "barreling towards" Marshello and "attempting to tackle her to the ground while wrestling a plastic water bottle from her grip." Rauch also reportedly dumped the contents of Marshello's purse into a planter, arrested her for Disorderly Conduct, put the handcuffs on her too tightly and locked her up at the Atlantic City Police Station. Marshello also alleges that the criminal complaints Rauch filed against her were later dismissed. The case is captioned Marshello v. Atlantic City, et al, Case No. 07-cv-3888. Marshello's lawyer was Richard F. Klineburger, III of Haddonfield. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line None of Marshello's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $30,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Rauch or any other official. All that is known for sure is that Atlantic City, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Marshello and her lawyer $30,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Atlantic City' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and Atlantic City wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Atlantic City and Absecon settle with three false arrest claimants for $45,000

In May 2009, three men--Joseph Spears, Vincent McWilliams and Rodney Thomas--each accepted $15,000 as full settlement of their civil rights lawsuit against the City of Atlantic City, the City of Absecon, their police departments, Atlantic City Police Officers Daniel Corcoran, Mark Pincus and Stephen Rando and Absecon Police Officers Kevin Craig and Raymond Adams. In their lawsuit, filed on May 16, 2008, the three men allege that on June 10, 2006, Pincus, based on information received from Corcoran and Rando, radioed a police dispatcher that the three men were suspected of having committed a crime even though the none of the officers had attempted match the men's descriptions to those of the actual suspects. According to the complaint, this radio transmission would cause the men to "be arrested utilizing swat unit techniques or a high profile motor vehicle stop." The men allege that they were later stopped and arrested and that excessive force was used against them. The case is captioned Spears et al v. Corcoran et al, Case No. ATL-L-1428-08. The three men's lawyer was Alan M. Landis of Pleasantville. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line None of the men's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $45,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the officers. All that is known for sure is that Atlantic City, Absecon and perhaps their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay $45,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and Atlantic City and Absecon wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Deceased arrestee's estate receives $100,000 settlement

In July 2009, the estate of an East Orange woman received a total of $100,000 to settle a lawsuit charging that she was falsely arrested and subsequently died while in custody. Of the $100,000, $2,000 was paid by Essex County, $10,000 was paid by the City of East Orange and the remaining $88,000 was paid by Correctional Health Services, Inc., a private contractor providing prison health services to the Essex County Correctional Facility. According to the lawsuit, filed in state court on August 8, 2008 and later transferred to federal court, the deceased, Barbara Cheryl Patrick, was arrested while visiting her deceased mother's East Orange residence on August 8, 2007. According to the suit, Patrick was her mother's sole child and heir and she was at her mother's residence to attend to affairs related to the estate. During her visit, East Orange Police Officer S. L. Thigpen (probably Sanford Thigpen) allegedly arrested her for burglary and theft despite Patrick having told Thigpen that she was lawfully in the residence. Her bail was reportedly set at $25,000 and on August 9, 2007, she was transferred to the Essex County Correctional Facility. On August 12, 2007, while still in custody, she reportedly died. An autopsy report allegedly indicated that Patrick "suffered from injuries consisting of three broken ribs." The lawsuit further alleges that Patrick did not have broken ribs prior to her arrest and that "it is unclear whether those injuries were sustained while in the custody of" East Orange Police or the Essex County Correctional Facility. Also named in the suit were East Orange Police Sergeant A. Y. Sanchez (probably Alejandro Sanchez), East Orange Police Sergeant Darryl Wright and East Orange Police Detective John Olivera. The case is captioned Chekirra D. Mitchell a/k/a Chekirra Patrick et al v. City of East Orange, et al Case No. 08-cv-05079-JLL. The plaintiff's lawyer was Cynthia H. Hardaway, Esq. of Newark. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line at None of Mitchell's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $100,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the City or County Officials or the private contractor. All that is known for sure is that these defendants, and perhaps their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Mitchell and her lawyer $100,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Deceased inmate's estate receives $76,000 settlement

On July 23, 2009, the estate of a deceased Essex County Correctional Facility inmate received $76,000 to settle a lawsuit charging that County officials and Correctional Health Services, Inc., a private contractor providing prison health services, failed to properly monitor and remedy the inmate's medical condition. According to the lawsuit, filed in federal court in 2008, the deceased, Santos Javier Cajigas, was lodged in the Essex Facility on April 3, 2006 and died on April 16, 2006. The lawsuit alleges that Cajigas "became increasingly ill during his incarceration" but that the defendants failed to deliver the medical attention he required. The case is captioned Ines Cajigas v. County of Essex, et al Case No. 08-cv-05834. The plaintiff's lawyer was Anthony L. Coviello, Esq. of Bloomfield. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring the parties to keep the facts, amounts and terms of the settlement confidential. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Cajigas' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $76,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the County Officials or the private contractor. All that is known for sure is that defendants, and perhaps their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Cajigas and her lawyer $76,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Supreme Court holds that settlement agreement must be disclosed

On January 25, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a 2009 Appellate Division decision holding that OPRA requires Monmouth County to disclose a settlement agreement arising out of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a county employee. The Court ruled: "A governmental entity cannot enter into a voluntary agreement at the end of a public lawsuit to keep a settlement confidential, and then claim a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the amount of that settlement." I was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and was ably represented by Walter M. Luers, Esq. of Oxford.
 

Lawnside pays $17,500 to settle political free speech case

On December 7, 2009, a Cherry Hill couple accepted $17,500 from the Borough of Lawnside (Camden County) to settle their claim that the Borough and its Construction Code Official, Mengste Thomas El, violated their right to free speech. In June 2006, according to the lawsuit, Ronald and Alice Wood placed a political banner on their business property on Emlen Avenue in Lawnside. The banner, which was critical of Mayor Mark Bryant and the Borough Council, stated "Lawnside Needs New Leadership--20 Years Is Enough." According to the suit, the Construction Code Official threatened them with prosecution unless they removed the banner within five days. Given the threat, the Woods removed the banner. The lawsuit alleged that this First Amendment violation is consistent with an "established custom and practice of the Borough of Lawnside, which custom and practice had the objective of stifling political opposition to the existing public officials." The case is captioned Wood v. Borough of Lawnside et al, Case No. 08-cv-02941. The plaintiff's lawyer was F. Michael Daily, Jr., Esq. of Westmont. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. None of the Woods' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $17,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Lawnside or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants, and perhaps their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Woods and their lawyer $17,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

River Vale pays $20,000 to settle "frivolous" lawsuit.

On January 25, 2010, River Vale Township (Bergen County) authorized its insurer to pay $20,000 to resident Jeffrey Matfus who had sued the Township claiming that River Vale officials "engaged in continuous, relentless and malicious campaigns of retaliation" against him. Named in the suit were Mayor Joseph Blundo, Township Attorney Holly Schepisi, Councilwoman Denise Sieg, Councilman Dwight de Stefan, Councilman Mark Bromberg, former Police Chief Aaron Back, Lt. Robert Ryan, former Superintendent of Schools David Verducci, Board of Education Business Administrator Kelly Ippolitoa and Board of Education President Lorraine Waldes. In a January 28, 2010 news article Township Attorney Holly Schepisi was quoted as saying that the settlement "is no admission of any guilt whatsoever" and that "The only reason we're doing this is that it's financially responsible to do so." She is quoted as having said that the amount paid was a "nuisance value payment," which is "generally regarded as a payment to end frivolous litigation." Yet, she declined disclose the amount of the settlement. I learned that the settlement was $20,000 by filing an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request with River Vale. The settlement agreement is on-line. None of Matfus' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $20,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by River Vale or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Matfus $20,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Newark pays $60,000 to settle police beating death case

On June 4, 2009, Walter Lee of Sherman Avenue, Newark accepted $60,000 from the City of Newark (Essex County) to settle a claim that Newark police had beaten his son, Warren Lee, to death on October 12 2006. According to the lawsuit filed in Federal District Court on December 12, 2007, the deceased man was sitting in a parked car when he was approached by Newark Police Lieutenant Neil Minovich and Sergeant Anthony Costa. The suit claims that the two officers, who believed there to be illegal drugs in the car, "became extremely violent, viciously breathing and punching Warren Lee despite no provocation on the part of Warren Lee." According to the suit, even though Lee starting gasping for air, the two officers would not stop beating him or call for medical assistance. When witnesses tried to come to Lee's aid, Minovich and Costa reportedly told them "he's faking." According to the suit, Lee lost consciousness and was later pronounced dead. The suit alleges that an autopsy of Lee's body disclosed that he had choked to death due to an obstruction in his airway and that there were "abrasions, contusions and swelling in various areas of Warren Lee's body which were suffered at the hands of Minovich and Costa during the arrest." The complaint also alleges "upon information and belief that Minovich and Costa have been the subject of complaints of excessive force, corruption and/or racial bias against African American individuals." The case is captioned Lee v. City of Newark et al, Case No. 07-cv-4909. The plaintiff's lawyer was Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. of Newark. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line None of Lee's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $60,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Newark or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants, and perhaps their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Lee and his lawyer $60,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Appellate Division resolves OPRA's copy cost issue

In a decision released on February 11, 2010, the Appellate Division held that the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) does not allow record custodians to charge more than their actual copying costs. Recognizing that OPRA's language on the issue of copy costs was confusing, the court ruled that custodians must start charging their "actual costs" effective July 1, 2010 and that a) if the costs, as determined by the custodian, are not more than OPRA's 75c/50c/25c per page schedule, the burden will be on the requestor to prove that the costs are too high and b) if the determined costs are more than the 75c/50c/25c schedule, the burden will be on the government agency to prove that the costs assessed reflect its actual costs. The court stated that its decision was the best it could do in harmonizing OPRA's confusing and contradictory language. It invited the legislature to amend the statute prior to July 1st if it actually intended a different result. The decision is on-line.
 

Clementon pays $850,000 to settle police brutality claim.

On October 27, 2009 Clementon Borough (Camden County) agreed to pay $850,000 to a man who had sued several Borough police officers who he claimed beat him during an August 25, 2006 traffic stop. According to court filings, Clementon Police Sergeants Charles Grover and Randall Freiling along with Officers Gordon Schaeffer, Christopher Mackey and Alfred Higginbotham participated in a traffic stop involving Plaintiff Dennis Wiggins' van. Wiggins claimed that after the officers were rude to him and yelled profanities at him, that he became fearful and called 911 to request that a supervisor respond to the scene. No supervisors were reportedly available. Thereafter, Wiggins claimed that he was issued a careless driving ticket and told he could leave the scene. But, Wiggins alleges, after he drove about thirty feet, Sergeant Grover opened the door of the van and exclaimed that Wiggins had run over his foot. After ordering Wiggins out of the van, the officers allegedly handcuffed him, dragged him at least ten feet by the handcuffs and stomped on his while he was on the ground. The officers, however, claimed that Wiggins had intentionally dragged Sergeant Grover over two hundred fifty feet with his lower body trapped under Wiggins' vehicle. Wiggins was arrested and held for nearly twenty-four hours under $100,000 bail. According to the Court's opinion, Wiggins was tried on August 1, 2007 and "was completely exonerated" and the trial judge reportedly "expressed his belief that Mr. Wiggins' arrest was premised on race discrimination and that Defendant Officers had lied during trial." Wiggins and his wife, Ericka Wiggins, filed suit on October 19, 2007 claiming a violation of constitutional rights, assault and battery, false imprisonment and other torts. The matter is captioned Wiggins v.Clementon Police Department, Civil No. 07-0533 (RBK). An August 4, 2008 court opinion and the the settlement agreement are on-line None of Wiggins' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $850,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Clementon or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Wiggins $850,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on-line because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to www.njlp.org. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Questions regarding $600,000 West Deptford police abuse settlement

I have taken an interest in Nekiesha Williams' excessive force lawsuit against the West Deptford Township Police Department that resulted in her receiving a $600,000 settlement in June 2008. Specifically, I am interested in learning what motivated someone to insert a "probable cause stipulation" into a consent order after it had been signed. I am putting this essay on this blog in hopes that someone can provide relevant information. Background: On June 12, 2008, Ms. Williams signed a confidential settlement agreement with the Township of West Deptford (in Gloucester County, New Jersey) in which she agreed to accept $600,000 as full settlement for the claims she brought in her lawsuit against the Township's police department (Williams v. Township of West Deptford, New Jersey Federal District Court, Civil Case No. 05-1805) The settlement agreement is available by clicking here. A July 15, 2008 Gloucester County Times article that reported on the settlement is available by clicking here. In her lawsuit, Ms. Williams claimed that in an August 6, 2003 encounter, West Deptford Police Officers Patrick Goggin, Michael Pfeiffer and Sean McKenna used excessive force that resulted in her being thrown to the ground and breaking her femur. The police officers' account of the incident was significantly different. A November 9, 2003 Courier Post article the describes the August 6, 2003 incident is available by clicking here. On March 15, 2005, Williams, who being prosecuted for assaulting and interfering with the police officers during the August 6, 2003 incident, was admitted into a diversion program called the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) "without trial or admission of any issue of law or fact regarding the charges" she was facing. The March 15, 2005 consent order that authorized Williams' admission to the PTI program is available by clicking here. At the time of the consent order's entry Williams was represented by defense attorney Troy A. Archie of Camden and the prosecutor was Michael S. Curwin of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office. The consent order contains the following handwritten comment" "Defendant stipulates that there was probable cause for her arrest in this case. T. A. A." The "T.A.A." are the initial of Williams' defense attorney Troy A. Archie. In Williams civil lawsuit, the police officers argued that they could not be liable for the injuries that she sustained during her arrest because Williams had stipulated on March 15, 2005 that probable cause existed for her arrest. See pages 11 through 13 of Judge Robert B. Kugler's April 22, 2008 written decision, which is available by clicking here. Judge Kugler found, however, that the alleged probable cause stipulation was not fatal to her lawsuit. A question remains, however, over exactly how and why the probable cause stipulation was inserted into the consent order. According to a December 4, 2007 affidavit by Williams (available by clicking here), the handwritten stipulation was not on the consent form she signed and Mr. Archie never told her about the insertion. Troy A. Archie, in his December 4, 2007 certification (available by clicking here), states that Assistant Prosecutor Michael Curwin asked him to sign off on the stipulation after Ms. Williams had signed the consent form. He also states that he agreed to the stipulation without discussing it with his client and without receiving her permission. Questions: Something appears to be amiss here. The only conceivable purpose for anyone to insert the probable cause stipulation into the consent judgment was to protect West Deptford Township from civil liability. If the statements in Mr. Archie's certification are true, it was Assistant Prosecutor Curwin's idea to insert the stipulation. But aren't county prosecutors supposed to make decisions in criminal cases without regard to a Township's position in civil litigation? On July 26, 2008, I put this exact question to Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean F. Dalton. In his August 25, 2008 response, Dalton apparently did not investigate the matter. Rather, he reviewed the documents that I sent him and concluded that there was no evidence that Mr. Curwin did anything unethical. The correspondence between me and Prosecutor Dalton are available by clicking here. I also don't understand why Mr. Archie, who must have known that the probable cause stipulation might have sabotaged his client's civil case, agreed to sign off on it without discussing the matter or gaining his client's permission. If anyone has any answers or suggestions, please send them to me. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey paff@pobox.com
 

$15,837.50 OPRA attorney fee against West Deptford upheld

In an unpublished decision released today, February 18, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed an award of approximately $16,000 in attorney fees and costs to my attorney, Richard Gutman of Montclair, by Gloucester County Superior Court Assignment Judge Georgia M. Curio after we prevailed in an Open Public Records act (OPRA) suit against West Deptford Township. The decision, as well as the briefs filed by both sides, are on-line here. At issue before Judge Curio was whether the Internal Affairs Summary Report Forms filed by the West Deptford Police Department and the Police Department's Use of Force Reports arising out of an August 6, 2003 incident were public records under OPRA. (Note: The August 6, 2003 incident involved Nekeisha Williams, of West Deptford, who claimed that West Deptford Police Officers Patrick Goggin, Michael Pfeiffer and Sean McKenna used excessive force that resulted in her being thrown to the ground causing her to break her femur. The police officers' account of the incident was significantly different. Williams sued the West Deptford Police in federal court and ultimately settled her case for $600,000.) West Deptford had claimed that the requested records were exempt from disclosure because Williams and the Township, within the federal court case, consented to a Discovery Confidential Order that prevented the parties to the federal suit from disclosing purportedly confidential records produced in discovery. On December 2, 2008, Judge Curio rejected the Township's defense and ordered release of the requested records. In a subsequent order, she awarded me and Mr. Gutman court costs and attorney fees. Even though the Township did not appeal from the December 2, 2008 order, the Appellate Division reviewed the underlying question of whether the Discovery Confidentiality Order trumped a citizen's OPRA request. The court held that the Confidentiality Order "was entered for the benefit of the Township, and its purpose was to prohibit other parties and their attorneys in the federal case from disclosing records produced in discovery, or from using those records for purposes outside the federal litigation." The court found that the Discovery Confidentiality Order "did not pertain to the Township's other uses of its own record [and] did not prohibit the Township's disclosure of government records under OPRA." The court went on to say that "the Township could not exempt itself from the requirements of OPRA, or other State law, by entering into a consent order to maintain confidentiality of discovery materials it provides to litigants in a lawsuit." John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Trooper disciplinary hearings closed to public

On February 25, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled that seven New Jersey State Troopers accused of sexual offenses shall "remain unidentified" and that their disciplinary hearings shall "proceed as a closed proceeding." The Troopers have been suspended without pay since October 2009 after a young woman came to an emergency room on December 7, 2007 "for treatment following a night of sexual activity with several men." While the woman acknowledged that some of the sex was consensual, "she equivocated whether all of it was consensual." After an investigation, the county prosecutor determined not to present the matter to a grand jury but referred the matter to the State Police for consideration of disciplinary charges. The State Police filed charged against the seven Troopers in October 2009. After contesting the charges, the Troopers sought an order to have their disciplinary hearings closed to the public. The Administrative Law Judge denied the request and the Superintendent of the State Police affirmed the denial. The Troopers appealed the denial to the Appellate Division. After stating that courts have a "traditional abhorrence of secret trials" and that "public trials are considered essential to maintaining public confidence in our administrative and judicial systems," the court ultimately found in favor of closed hearings. If the sex had been consensual, reasoned the court, then there would be no basis for the charges. And, the court's review of documents obtained through discovery caused it to state that "much of the information provided by the alleged victim about the location and circumstances of the events was roundly discredited." So, in essence, the Court held that the since the charges were based on a discredited witness, revealing the identities of the troopers and the details of the evening may cause harm to them and "their familial relationships [that] may be incalculable and forever impaired." The Appellate Division's written opinion is on-line John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Perth Amboy introduced Professional Accountability Ordinance

 

School board ordered to pay record requestor's attorney fees

On February 23, 2010, the Government Records Council (GRC) ordered the Barrington Borough (Camden County) Board of Education to pay my attorney fees after finding that the Board improperly denied me access to public records. The GRC referred the case to the Office of Administrative Law for a determination of the amount of the attorney fee award. On December 30, 2008, after learning that several female students had settled their sexual harassment lawsuit against the Barrington school district and one of its male teachers, I requested copies of the settlement agreements. On January 21, 2009, after my initial request went unanswered, I telephoned the District's business administrator and on the same day faxed her another copy of my request. After having not received any response, I left the business administrator a detailed voice-mail on February 4, 2009. On February 23, 2009, still having received no response, my attorney, Walter M. Luers of Oxford, filed an Denial of Access Complaint with the GRC. In response to my complaint, the business administrator explained that she had delegated my request to the Interim Superintendent who had in turn delegated it to the school board's lawyer. The business administrator said that when she received my complaint she "realized that [the attorney] did not respond to the OPRA request as I had anticipated." She then undertook further investigation and learned that the school board's insurance carrier had the requested settlement agreements on file. On April 1, 2009, the business administrator provided me with the settlement agreements disclosing that the school district paid $200,000 to settle the girl's claims. (More information about the underlying sexual harassment lawsuit is on my blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2009/04/students-settle-2005-barrington-sexual.html ) The GRC decided that the custodian's handling of my request constituted a "deemed denial" because she did not properly respond to it within seven business days of its receipt. On the issue of attorney fees, the GRC held that since my complaint brought "about a change in the Custodian's conduct" that I was the prevailing party and am entitled to my attorney fees. The GRC's decision, together with the complaint and other filings, are on-line. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Use of an agency's official OPRA request form

Even though Renna v. Union County was decided on May 21, 2009, I still get letters from record custodians around the state "requesting" that I use their agency's official OPRA form instead of the form that I generate on my word processor. While it probably is not the best use of my time, I decided today to thoroughly explain to the Jersey City Clerk's office exactly why I won't complete its official form. For those who are interested, my request form and Jersey City's request form is at the following link and my explanation to the City Clerk's office is set forth below. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey ------- March 2, 2010 Sean J. Gallagher, Deputy City Clerk City of Jersey City - via e-mail Dear Ms. Gallagher Thank you very much for your very prompt acknowledgement of my OPRA request. I note that you sent me Jersey City's official request form and asked that I use it in the future. I decline to do so because the Appellate Division, on page 22 of its decision in Tina Renna v. County of Union (see link below), held that we "conclude that the form should be used, but no request for information should be rejected if such form is not used." http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/wordperfect/appellate/A0821-07.DOC There are also other reasons why I prefer to use my own form. 1. Environmental and cost concerns. I generate my form electronically by use of my word processor's mail merge function. I "print" my requests forms as PDF files. If the custodian published his or her e-mail address on the agency's web site, I submit the PDF file by e-mail. If, such as in the case of Jersey City, the custodian does not publish his or her e-mail address on the web site, I transmit the PDF form through my fax software. In either case, I'm able to transmit the form to the custodian electronically without every having to print a piece of paper. This saves paper and toner. Also, on the issue of cost and the environment, please note that my OPRA request form is one page long, while Jersey City's form--with its Part A and B--is four pages long. 2. Forms that are non-compliant, cumbersome and confusing. Jersey City's OPRA form, like most agencies' forms, doesn't appear to be very well thought out. For example, you will note that there is no place on the form for a requestor to put his or her fax number or e-mail address. Also, there is no place for the requestor to indicate whether he or she prefers to view the records in your office or whether he or she prefers to receive copies. Finally, if the requestor wants copies of the requested records, there is no place on your form for the manner of transmission (i.e. regular mail, fax or e-mail) to be expressed. Also, it is confusing whether or not the requestor is supposed to sign the third page of the form. By signing the form before submitting it, the requestor certifies to three things. First, the requestor certifies that he or she "acknowledges receipt of a copy of this form with the date on which the information is expected to be available and the estimated cost." Second, the requestor certifies that he or she has "not been convicted of any indictable offense." Third, the requestor swears that he or she is "not seeking government records containing personal information pertaining to a victim or victim's family." Without even getting into the merits of the second and third certification (i.e. perhaps people who have been convicted of an indictable offenses should not be dissuaded from asking for meeting minutes, budgets and other records that do not contain a victim's name), there is simply no way that anyone could legitimately certify, at the time of submitting a request form, that he or she had already received a copy of the form and been informed of "the date on which the information is expected to be available and the estimated cost." So, when exactly is a requestor supposed to sign page 3 of the form? The only way I can make sense of it is that the requestor is supposed to submit the form without signature and wait for you to return the form with page 2 completed, which will inform the requestor of the date when the record will be ready and their estimated costs. Presumably, the requestor is them supposed to sign the form and return it to you. Do you agree that this is an unduly complicated process? Finally, Jersey City's form does not comply with a decision of the Government Records Council. Page 3 of Jersey City's form states that "the term ‘government record’ . . . does not include . . .employee personnel files.” Yet, this form language was struck down by the Council in O’Shea v. West Milford, Complaint No. 2007-237. In O’Shea, the Council found that the form’s blanket statement that all “personnel files” were exempt, without informing the requestor that some “personnel file” were nonexempt, was “misinformation” that could "deter [some requestors] from submitting an OPRA request for certain personnel records." Although the Council made its ruling on May 28, 2008, Jersey City's form--nearly two years later--still contains the same "misinformation." So, in sum, I decline to complete Jersey City's OPRA request form. Very truly yours, John Paff
 

Appellate Division rules against OPRA requestor

On March 5, 2010, the Appellate Division ruled that the New Jersey Attorney General's unpublished, written opinions transmitted to state agencies are attorney-client privileged communications and thus exempt from disclosure under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). Agencies rely upon these opinions, known as Administrative Agency Advice (AAA) letters, as interpretations of the statutes and regulations that the agencies apply and enforce. I am the plaintiff and appellant in the case, represented by Richard Gutman of Montclair. The Appellate Division also ruled that the trial court erred by ordering the Attorney General's office to provide me with a list of AAA letters showing the date of the AAA, its docket number, the agency requesting it and the attorney who prepared it. Consequently, the trial court's award of Mr. Gutman's attorney fees was reversed since I was no longer the "prevailing party" in the suit. The AAA letters are, in essence, a body of law that state agencies use to enforce statutes and regulations against citizens. We argued that the AAA letters were not made in professional confidence or in the course of an attorney-client relationship. We also argued that citizens, under the common law right of access, need to know the interpretations of laws that are being enforced against them. We argued that there was a distinction between a government lawyer representing a client in litigation and that same lawyer formulating law that will be applied to others. In support of this argument, we cited two federal appeals court decisions. Yet, the Appellate Division elected to "part company" with the federal appeals court and held instead that "so long as the attorney is providing legal advice in some form, the privilege will apply." The Appellate Division's opinion is on-line. The briefs that were filed in the trial court are on-line at http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/SecretLaw.pdf and the 162-page file that contains the exhibits before the trial court are on-line at http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/SecretLawExh.pdf John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Swedesboro and Woolwich pay $475,000 to settle police brutality claim

On January 12, 2010, Swedesboro Borough and Woolwich Township (both in Gloucester County) agreed to pay $475,000 to a Swedesboro woman who had sued Borough and Township police officers for allegedly falsely arresting her and using excessive force against her on January 19, 2002. In her complaint, Plaintiff Lisa Silver claimed that she was "an occupant of an establishment situated on Kings Highway" in Swedesboro when Woolwich Police Officer Vincent Minnitti and Swedesboro Police Officer Stanley Kemp, who were investigating a report of a public disturbance, asked her and her husband Roy Silver to leave the area. According to the complaint, a verbal altercation ensued between Lisa Silver and the officers that resulted in her arrest for "hindering apprehension and disorderly conduct among other charges." She alleges that Minnitti, in effecting the arrest, "grabbed her by the neck and threw her to the ground" to handcuff her and "twisted [her] arms behind her back [with] such force . . . that she required shoulder surgery." She claims that she was later "cleared of all charges" in the Swedesboro Municipal Court. The Silvers filed suit on January 15, 2004 and claimed violations of constitutional rights, assault and battery and other torts. The matter is captioned Silver v. Woolwich Township, et al, Civil No. 1:04-cv-00141-JS. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line Lisa Silver's attorney was Benson Goldberger, Esq. of Philadelphia and Roy Silver was represented by Alan E. Denenberg of Philadelphia. None of the Silvers' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $475,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Swedesboro, Woolwich or any of their officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Silvers $475,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

New OPRA/OPMA lawsuit filed

On Friday, April 9, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. Judge William Nugent will conduct an Order to Show Cause hearing in Paff v. Oceanside Charter School, Docket No. L-854-10. The hearing, which is open to the public, will be held at the Atlantic County Civil Courthouse, 1201 Bacharach Blvd, Atlantic City. I am being represented by Richard M. Gutman, Esq. of Montclair. At issue is whether a public school’s denial of access to executive (closed) meeting minutes describing the reasons that a corrupt school official was later fired violates the Open Public Meetings Act, (OPMA), the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and/or the common law right of access to public records. The Order to Show Cause, Verified Complaint and Brief is on-line. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Mantua pays $10,000 to settle police harassment claim

On August 5, 2009, Mantua Township (Gloucester County) agreed to pay $10,000 to a Broomall, Pennsylvania man who had sued the Township, Township Police Chief Graham B. Land and Police Officer Jason Davis and alleged that Davis and other unnamed officers repeatedly pulled him over for no reason and otherwise harassed and taunted him. In his complaint, Plaintiff Mohammed Ahmad Kobeissi, who identifies himself as "an Arab-American citizen and part of a protected minority group," claims that Davis' and the other unnamed officers' pattern of harassment started with a September 6, 2006 traffic stop and search of his car. He claimed that the stop, which occurred at 2:48 a.m., was without probable cause and that it was done "solely for the purpose of taunting, harassing and/or threatening" him "due to his race and/or nationality." He further claims that Davis and the unnamed officers "repeatedly pulled [his] vehicle over for no reason," made him take field sobriety tests and issued him a careless driving ticket even though he was not driving carelessly. When Kobeissi appeared in court to fight the careless driving ticket, he alleges that the officers "threatened, taunted and harassed him" and that their actions forced him to leave the courthouse without having his case heard. When he complained to Chief Graham, Kobeissi claims that his complaints were summarily dismissed or not addressed. The matter is captioned Kobeissi v. Mantua Township, et al, Civil No. 1:08-cv-02730-JEI-AMD. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. Kobeissi was represented by Matthew B. Weisberg of Morton, Pennsylvania. None of Kobeissi's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Mantua or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Kobeissi $10,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Margate pays $125,000 to woman settle sexual harassment suit

On October 6, 2009, the City of Margate (Atlantic County), its insurer and former Margate Police Sergeant William J. Bowen agreed to pay a total of $125,000 to a Mays Landing woman who claimed that Sergeant Bowen sexually harassed her. Of the $125,000, $115,000 was paid by Margate and its insurers and $10,000 was paid by Bowen. In her complaint, Plaintiff Jennifer M. Vandegrift claimed that Bowen, during a June 7, 2005 traffic stop, asked her for her phone number, "asked her out on a date and asked her to remove and give him her undergarments." Vandegrift, who admits having been visibly intoxicated at the time, claims that she "felt coerced" to give Bowen her telephone number "but evaded his request for her undergarments saying that she wasn't wearing any." After Bowen let her go, she was later arrested by Ocean City police for driving while intoxicated. Vandegrift further claims that a year later, she received a telephone call from a person who identified himself as "Joe" who told her that he had gotten her telephone number that evening. She reportedly suspected that Bowen was "Joe" because he was the only person she had given her number to that evening. The complaint alleges that "Bowen was later identified as the caller" and that he made raw and graphic sexual comments to her. Vandegrift claims that the encounters caused her to seek "treatment for emotional problems" and that after she complained to the Cape May County Prosecutor's office, "administrative charges" were filed against Bowen. The charges reportedly resulted in a settlement agreement under which Bowen resigned and agreed not to seek reinstatement with the Margate Police Department. The matter is captioned Vandegrift v.Bowen, et al, Civil No. 1:07-cv-02623. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line Vandegrift was represented by Thomas M. Barron of Moorestown. None of Vandegrift's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $125,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Margate, Bowen or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Vandegrift $125,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Elizabeth pays $7,500 to settle false arrest and police brutality claim

On October 30, 2006, the City of Elizabeth (Union County) agreed to pay $7,500 to an Elizabeth man who had sued the City claiming that Elizabeth police officer interrogated him without reasonable suspicion, assaulted him and falsely arrested him. In his complaint, Plaintiff Jean Belizaire claimed patrol officers Michael Gregory and Victor Arena stopped him while he was walking down a city sidewalk on January 9, 2004. Belizaire claimed that both officer were in plain clothes and did not identify themselves as police officers. When the officers began interrogating him, Belizaire claimed, he "expressed confusion at such questions from strangers" and refused to answer. At this point, Belizaire alleged, Officer Gregory approached him in a hostile manner and called him a "big mouth" and Officer Arena demanded his identification. After asking the officers to identify themselves, Belizaire claimed they refused and Officer Gregory told him to "shut up and to do as he was told." Suspecting that there were police officers, Belizaire claimed that he then grudgingly showed them his identification. The officers then reportedly called into the headquarters to see if there were outstanding warrants against Belizaire. When he started challenging the officers' authority, Belizaire alleges that Officer Gregory lost his temper and screamed "We are only asking you a f------ question. What is your f------ problem." According to the lawsuit, Officer Gregory then "wrestled Plaintiff to the ground" while Arena put his knee in Belizaire's back and Gregory "stood his foot on the left side of Plaintiff's face." He claimed to have been treated for injuries arising from this encounter on January 10, 2004 at the Trinity Hospital. Belizaire alleged that the there were no warrants against him but that he was charged with police interference, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct but later released on bond. He claimed that all the charges were dismissed by the prosecutor after Belizaire had made over ten appearances in the Elizabeth Municipal Court. Finally, Belizaire alleged that he complained about the officers' conduct to Lieutenant John Bastardo and Sergeant Stephen Negrey but was never contacted by the police internal affairs unit regarding his complaint. The matter is captioned Belizaire v. City of Elizabeth et al, Civil No. 2:06-cv-00099. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. Belizaire was represented by Julio C. Gomez of Fanwood. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring the parties to keep the amount and terms of the settlement confidential. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Belizaire's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elizabeth or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Belizaire $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Elizabeth pays $10,000 to settle police brutality claim

On November 6, 2006, the City of Elizabeth (Union County) agreed to pay $10,000 to a Bronx, New York man who had sued the City claiming that Elizabeth police officers beat him and let him go without arresting him. In his complaint, Plaintiff Jose Luna claimed that on August 21, 2005, he was a passenger in a car driven by his boss who fled when police attempted to pull the car over. After the car overheated, the driver allegedly fled on foot while Luna remained seated in the passenger seat. Luna claimed that Elizabeth Police Office Raul DeLaPrida opened the passenger door, "dragged [Luna] out and threw him on the ground" even though Luna did not resist. DeLaPrida and other unnamed officers then reportedly handcuffed Luna, kicked him in the head and "grabbed him by the hair and dragged him along the side of the roadway." Thereafter, Luna claimed, he explained to the officers that he had never been involved with the law and was a veteran of the United States Navy. After confirming that he was indeed a Navy veteran, one of the officers reportedly "did punch [Luna] in the stomach and sarcastically thanked him for serving his country." Luna claims that police elected not to arrest him but took him to the hospital where he was treated for the injuries he received from the police. The matter is captioned Luna v. City of Elizabeth et al, Civil No. 2:06-cv-00500. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line Luna was represented by Robert B. Woodruff of Morristown. None of Luna's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elizabeth or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Luna $10,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Elizabeth pays $5,000 to settle police brutality claim

On January 8, 2009, the City of Elizabeth (Union County) agreed to pay $5,000 to an Elizabeth man who had sued the City claiming that Elizabeth police officers used excessive force against him. In his complaint, Plaintiff Maurice McCullers claimed that patrol officers Vazquez and Beltran, while arresting him on April 8, 2006, unnecessarily threw him on the ground causing him to be injured. (There are no first names for the officers listed in the lawsuit.) The matter is captioned McCullers v. City of Elizabeth et al, Civil No. 08-cv-02929. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line McCullers was represented by Robert J. Cardpnsky of Elizabeth. None of McCullers's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $5,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elizabeth or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the McCullers $5,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Elizabeth pays $25,000 to settle police brutality claim

In February 2006, the City of Elizabeth (Union County) agreed to pay $25,000 to an African-American Elizabeth man who had sued the City claiming that Elizabeth police officers assaulted him. In his complaint, Plaintiff Tyshoon Orr claimed that Elizabeth Police Officers Hector Cifuentes and Yohara Kiniery forced him into their patrol car, against his will, on May 13, 2003 while he was standing on a street corner. He claimed that Cifuentes and Kiniery drove him to a secluded area in Warnaco Park in Roselle and "forced [him] to strip down to his jeans and t-shirt." Then, the officers allegedly assaulted Orr and left him in the park "without his shoes, jacket or shirt." He claims to have suffered injuries to his cheek and ribs. On November 13, 2003, Orr claims that the same two officers arrested him on drug charges but that he was acquitted of those charges. The matter is captioned Orr v. City of Elizabeth et al, Civil No. 05-cv-02485. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line Orr was represented by Cynthia H. Hardaway of Newark. None of Orr's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $25,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elizabeth or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Orr $25,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Elizabeth pays $81,000 to settle man's claim that he was beaten by police

On February 8, 2009, the City of Elizabeth (Union County) agreed to pay $81,000 to an African-American Linden man who had sued the City claiming that Elizabeth police officers threw him on his jail cell floor while he was handcuffed resulting in multiple broken ribs and a punctured lung. No officers were identified by name in the lawsuit. In his complaint, Plaintiff Hushel Scott claimed that the incident occurred on June 21, 2005 after his arrest for violating a restraining order. He claimed that he had been cooperative during his encounter with police and that after being thrown to the ground he "laid in pain trying to gasp for air." He claimed that despite his complaints of injury, he was refused medical treatment until the next day. The matter is captioned Scott v. City of Elizabeth et al, Civil No. 2:06-cv-02964. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line Scott was represented by Eric S. Pennington of Newark. None of Scott's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $81,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elizabeth or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Scott $81,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happene
 

Paterson pays $30,000 to settle false arrest claim

On November 2, 2009, the City of Paterson (Passaic County) agreed to pay $30,000 to a Bergen County man whose lawsuit claimed that Paterson police officers stopped his car "without reasonable suspicion" and "in part because of his race," illegally searched it and falsely arrested him "in an effort to cover-up their wrongdoing." In his complaint, Plaintiff Gerald D Graddy named Detective Sergeant Daniel Rooney, Detective Ivette Otero and Detective Latrenta Grayson as the officers who improperly stopped his car on January 4, 2008. He also claimed that the Paterson Police Department has "a custom or practice of tolerating widespread civil rights abuses by its police officers against African Americans" and that the department's Internal Affairs Unit "either ignores complaints or fails to take any corrective action other than taking the complaint." The matter is captioned Graddy v. City of Paterson et al, Civil No. 2:08-cv-03888. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line Graddy was represented by Louis A. Zayas of Newark. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring the parties to keep the amount and terms of the settlement confidential. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Graddy's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $30,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Paterson or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Graddy $30,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Rabbinical student accepts $50K settlement from Jackson and Lakewood cops

On December 7, 2009, Jackson and Lakewood Townships (both in Ocean County) each agreed to pay $25,000 to a then 18-year old Rabbinical student who claimed that SWAT teams improperly entered his dormitory room and held him at gunpoint during the early morning hours of May 9, 2007. The Ocean County Sheriff's Office, which was also allegedly involved in the raid, reportedly paid nothing toward the settlement. The student, Yeuda Palok, an Israeli citizen, claims that he was sleeping in his dormitory room at the Hor Hatalmud Rabbinical College in Lakewood when SWAT units from the Lakewood and Jackson Police Departments and the Ocean County Sheriffs Office entered the dormitory at 3:30 a.m. Palok alleges that the police, dressed in full riot gear and armed with automatic weapons, "systematically herded" Palok and other students into the hallway and ordered them to stand facing the wall with their hands behind their heads. According to the complaint, the police were investigating "a prank telephone call to the Lakewood police station" and were screaming obscenities at the students demanding that those responsible for placing the call "identify themselves and confess to the crime." Palok claims that the police took him into a separate room and interrogated him out of the presence of the other students. Thereafter, he reportedly was taken back into the hallway and made to stand for nearly an hour facing the wall while the police "mocked, ridiculed and humiliated" him. According to the complaint, "further investigation revealed that the prank telephone call had not come from the college but did, in fact, emanate from a another location in the same neighborhood." Palok claims that he had not, as of the date of his civil lawsuit, been charged with a crime. The matter is captioned Palok v. Jackson Township et al Civil No. 3:08-cv-02047. The lawsuit and settlement agreements are on-line. Palok's attorney was Robert F. Varady of Union. Both settlement agreements contains provisions requiring the parties to keep the amount and terms of the settlement confidential. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Palok's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $50,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Jackson, Lakewood Ocean County or any of their officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Palok $50,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Red Bank pays $290,000 to settle case of alleged police brutality

On October 27, 2009, Red Bank Borough (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $290,000 to a Middletown man who claimed that he was abused by police after the Borough's July 3, 2006 "Fireworks on the Navisink" celebration. The man, Jonathan Wilson, said that the event was peaceful until certain individuals caused trouble that resulted in the police arresting more than a dozen persons. Wilson claims that Borough police officers "became verbally and physically abusive, not only to those individuals involved in the fracas, but also to innocent bystanders such as" Wilson. Wilson claims that he although he obeyed the officers commands to disperse, "several individuals in [his] vicinity directed mildly disparaging comments to toward the officers." Wilson further alleges that after he and a friend had walked several blocks away from the area from which they were dispersed, Red Bank Patrolman Stephen Adams approached in a black, unmarked car, charged Wilson, and "violently forced [his] hands behind his back and threw him, face-first, to the ground" causing face and head lacerations "as well as severe dental injuries." He claims to have been taken to police headquarters where he was "pushed, shoved and cursed by numerous other police officers" and was refused medical treatment even though he asked for it. After receiving medical treatment, Wilson claims to have gone back to the police station to file a complaint against Adams. He alleges that the officers at the station told him that they would "kick his ass" and jail him if he insisted on filing a complaint. The matter is captioned Wilson v. Borough of Red Bank et al Civil No. 3:07-cv-00953. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. Wilson's attorney was Robert F. Varady of Union. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring Wilson to keep the amount and terms of the settlement confidential. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Wilson's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $290,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Red Bank or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Red Bank and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Wilson $290,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Penns Grove pays $16,000 to settle case of alleged racial discrimination

On February 1, 2010, Penns Grove Borough (Salem County) agreed to pay $16,000 to its Public Works Supervisor who claimed that he was harassed and discriminated against by a member of the Borough Council. The man, Vass Wiggins, who is Caucasian, complained that Councilwoman Carol Mincey, a black female assigned to oversee the Public Works Department, harassed him "on account of [Wiggins'] race and political affiliation." Specifically, Wiggins, in his January 2008 complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleged that Mincey has harassed him since 2004 and, despite him filing a harassment complaint against her that resulted in her transfer to another department, "she continued to harass [Wiggins] via telephone calls" and attempted to "undermine and question [his] authority with [his] subordinate employees." He further alleged to the EEOC that Mincey attempted to remove him from Public Works Supervisor because he lost his driver license, even though his position doesn't require him to possess a driver license. After the EEOC was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes," it dismissed Wiggins' complaint on November 18, 2008. Shortly thereafter, Wiggins, through Attorney F. Michael Daily, Jr. of Westmont, sued Mincey and the Borough in federal court. (Wiggins v. Mincey, et al, Case No. 1:08-cv-06192). In the complaint, Wiggins made essentially the same allegations but added that Mincey "intentionally and maliciously" disclosed to his subordinates confidential information that Wiggins had applied to the Borough for a leave of absence so that he could obtain treatment for his alcoholism. In support of his allegation that Mincey's actions were motivated by race, Wiggins claimed in his suit that Mincey refers to herself as the "Head N----- in Charge." The EEOC complaint, the lawsuit and settlement paperwork are on-line at None of Wiggins's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Penns Grove or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Penns Grove and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Wiggins $16,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Public officials' use of personal e-mail addresses

One problem that I frequently encounter is public officials' use of personal e-mail addresses (such as JohnDoe@Yahoo.com) instead of official e-mail addresses (such as JohnDoe@CityOfVineland.org) for official correspondence. Since e-mails that are send and received by private e-mail servers are not typically retained by government agencies, production of those e-mails in response to future OPRA requests may be difficult if not impossible to fulfill, especially if the officials who sent or received them have since passed away, moved out of town, etc. In order to identify and correct this problem, I typically submit an OPRA request to an agency for a few random e-mails. For example, I might ask a municipality for "the first six e-mails regarding municipal business that were sent or received by Councilman John Doe after January 10, 2010 at 7 a.m." When I receive the responsive e-mails, I can see if the municipal officials who sent or received them used their personal or official e-mail addresses. When I find that officials are communicating official business by way of personal e-mail addresses, I send them a letter inviting them to adopt a policy requiring the use of official e-mail addresses. Often I am successful in this effort, as evidenced by my recent correspondence with the Lopatcong Board of Education (Warren County) which is on-line at Sometimes, however, my efforts are not successful, as in the case of Haddon Heights Borough (Camden County) where Mayor Scott Alexander, who uses a personal Comcast.net e-mail address, informed me that "as a matter of practice, I do not store sent emails." Even though Mayor Scott's practice most likely violates New Jersey's records retention laws and regulations, there is no straightforward way to have those laws and regulations enforced. My OPRA request to Haddon Heights and the Borough's response is on-line at John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Penns Grove pays $10,500 to settle fire chief's legal expense claim

On March 9, 2010, Penns Grove Borough (Salem County) agreed to pay $10,500 to a Penns Grove fire chief to cover his legal bills for defending against criminal charges brought against him by Borough Police arising out of a May 26, 2008 fire call. According to a news article in the May 5, 2008 Today's Sunbeam ("Fire chief faces assault charge" by Heather Simione) Liberty Fire Company No. 1 Chief Joseph A. Grasso responded to a fire alarm at senior citizen housing complex and got into a confrontation with Penns Grove Police Corporal Joseph Schultz regarding the manner in which Grasso was interacting with "a confused and upset 91-year-old resident of the facility." According to the news article, the police said that Grasso "became agitated and began yelling at the elderly woman" when she did not respond to his order to move. According to the article, after Schultz told Grasso to stop directing abrasive language toward members of the public, "Grasso allegedly ordered Schultz to go outside and direct traffic and began shouting expletives, according to police." Schultz said that Grasso struck him with a closed fist. Grasso was later arrested and charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. After the Salem County Grand Jury declined to indict Grasso on the charges, the Woolwich Township Municipal Court reportedly found not guilty of all remaining charges in January 2009. Grasso, who had paid $7,500 out-of-pocket for his defense against the criminal charges, sought reimbursement from the Borough. The Borough reportedly refused to reimburse Grasso for his legal fees. Grasso alleges that he made repeated attempts to recover the $7,500 and eventually had his lawyer, Samuel Bullock of Pitman, speak to Penns Grove Solicitor Adam I. Telsey about the matter. According to court filings, Penns Grove offered to reimburse Grasso only $1,500 of the $7,500 in legal fees. Grasso then retained another law firm, Chance & McCann of Bridgeton, who demanded that the Borough pay Grasso not only the original $7,500 in fees, but also an additional $3,000 for Grasso's legal expenses incurred in collecting the $7,500. The Borough allegedly responded to the firm's $10,500 demand by offering to pay only $7,500. On December 7, 2009, Grasso filed suit against the Borough demanding "monetary damages in the amount of $10,500." On March 9, 2010, the parties entered into a a settlement agreement calling for Penns Grove to pay Grasso $10,500--the full amount claimed. The suit is captioned Grasso v Penns Grove, Superior Court Docket No. SLM-L-439-09. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line at None of Grasso's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Penns Grove or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Penns Grove and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Grasso $10,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

NJLP requests that Penns Grove adopt settlement disclosure ordinance

 

Parsippany-Troy Hills pays $1,300,000 to settle police dispatcher negligence suit

On December 22, 2009, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township (Morris County) agreed to pay $1,300,000 to a couple who sued the Township because a police dispatcher allegedly failed to give a 911 caller proper instructions on how to treat his unconscious, non-breathing wife. According to court filings, Parsippany resident Arturo Valles called 911 on June 6, 2005 after he found his wife, Sylvia Valles, on the bedroom floor in an unresponsive state. The 911 call was reportedly answered by Lieutenant Edward Jasiecki. Due to the length of time that it took emergency service responders to determine that a piece of meat was lodged in her throat, Ms. Valles suffered a prolonged period of oxygen deprivation which seriously disabled her. Plaintiff's expert witness had testified that Lieutenant Jasiecki, upon learning that Ms. Valles was unconscious, ought to have consulted a guidecard entitled “Choking Adult Instructions." That guidecard, according to the expert, would have caused Jasiecki to direct Mr. Valles to administer thrusts to his wife's abdomen and then lift her chin, open her mouth and sweep out the piece of meat. Since these instruction weren't given, the court ruled that a jury could find that Jasiecki's failure to give proper instructions may have caused Ms. Valles' injuries. The matter is captioned Valles v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, et al, Civil No. 2:07-cv-01539. The Court opinion and settlement agreement are on-line at The Valles' attorney was Clifford J. Weininger of Denville. None of the Valles allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $1,300,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Parsippany-Troy Hills or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that defendants and their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Valles $1,300,000 than take the matter to trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Springfield pays $22,500 to settle cop's hostile work environment suit

On March 23, 2010, Springfield Township (Union County) agreed to pay $22,500 to a Township police sergeant who sued Chief William Chisholm and other Township officials for allegedly creating "an extremely terrible/unbearable hostile work environment." In his suit, Springfield Police Sergeant James W. Fine claimed that Chief Chisholm called him a "goofball and immature" and accused him "of using illegal steroids." The complaint also alleges that Chief Chisholm, in June 2007, "whipped his hand (back-hand style) towards [Fine's] neck." The case is captioned Fine v. Springfield, Docket No. UNN-L-902-08 and Fine's attorney was Patrick P. Toscano, Jr. of Caldwell. Case documents are on-line None of Fine's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $22,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Springfield or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Springfield's insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Fine $22,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Letter to Mantua Township Committee

On March 26, 2010, I wrote to the Mantua Township (Gloucester County) Committee regarding their July 20, 2009 closed or executive session.
 

OPRA case to be heard in Union County on April 16th

An Open Public Records Act (OPRA) case that was filed on March 16, 2010 will be heard on Friday, April 16, 2010, 9 a.m., by Hon. Kathryn A. Brock at the Union County Courthouse, 2 Broad St, Elizabeth, New Jersey. At issue is my request for a surveillance tape that reportedly shows former Garwood Police Officer Gennaro J. Mirabella entering the locked office of Garwood's Chief Financial Officer and opening her desk drawers. Garwood Borough denied access to the tape claiming it "is a criminal investigatory record . . . for which disclosure may jeopardize security measures and surveillance techniques which, if disclosed, would create a risk to the safety of persons, property, electronic data or software or both.” Richard Gutman, Esq. of Montclair is representing me in this case. The lawsuit papers are on-line at and the public and media are invited to observe the April 16th hearing. Those who wish to observe should call the court at 908-659-4774 the day prior to hearing to confirm that it hasn't been postponed. Refer to Paff v. Borough of Garwood, Docket No. UNN-L-1089-10. The incident underlying my request is politically charged because Officer Mirabella, who is the brother of Union County Freeholder Alexander Mirabella, was not convicted of any charges arising out of the incident in the CFO's office or another incident where he was caught on video shoving paper into laundromat dollar bill changers in an apparent attempt to jam them. Rather, the disorderly persons offenses brought against Mirabella were dismissed and Mirabella entered into a deal with Garwood Borough in which he would be allowed to resign in good standing. For more information on this matter and a video of Mirabella in the laundromat go to http://www.njlp.org/news/partynews/opengovernment/868-freeholders-brother-not-prosecuted John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Hoboken pays $7,500 to settle police abuse suit

On March 9, 2010, the City of Hoboken (Hudson County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Hoboken who sued the Hoboken Police Department for allegedly verbally and physically abusing him. In his suit, Jaime Figueroa said that he visited the police station for some information on September 27, 2005, Sergeant Michael Costello, Sergeant Dennis Figueroa were present. Figueroa objected after one of the officers allegedly "talked down" to him, resulting in the officer allegedly telling him to "get the F--- out of here." Figueroa claims to have gone to City Hall to complain about the incident but was told to go back to the police station. When he returned to the police station, Sergeant Figueroa allegedly threatened to assault him. He claims that Sergeant Costello grabbed him, drug him to the door and "proceeded to throw [him] down three steps in front of the police department." Figueroa further claims that no charged were filed against him as a result of the September 27, 2005 visit and that the encounter aggravated his pre-existing neck and back injuries. The case is captioned Figueroa v. Hoboken, Federal Case No. 2:07-cv-04579 and Figueroa's attorney was Steven V. Schuster of Hackensack. Case documents are on-line at None of Figueroa's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Hoboken or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Hoboken or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Figueroa $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Hoboken pays $7,500 to settle police abuse suit

On March 9, 2010, the City of Hoboken (Hudson County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Hoboken who sued the Hoboken Police Department for allegedly verbally and physically abusing him. In his suit, Jaime Figueroa said that he visited the police station for some information on September 27, 2005, Sergeant Michael Costello, Sergeant Dennis Figueroa were present. Figueroa objected after one of the officers allegedly "talked down" to him, resulting in the officer allegedly telling him to "get the F--- out of here." Figueroa claims to have gone to City Hall to complain about the incident but was told to go back to the police station. When he returned to the police station, Sergeant Figueroa allegedly threatened to assault him. He claims that Sergeant Costello grabbed him, drug him to the door and "proceeded to throw [him] down three steps in front of the police department." Figueroa further claims that no charged were filed against him as a result of the September 27, 2005 visit and that the encounter aggravated his pre-existing neck and back injuries. The case is captioned Figueroa v. Hoboken, Federal Case No. 2:07-cv-04579 and Figueroa's attorney was Steven V. Schuster of Hackensack. Case documents are on-line at None of Figueroa's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Hoboken or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Hoboken or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Figueroa $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Hoboken pays $125,000 to settle false arrest claim

On March 9, 2010, the City of Hoboken (Hudson County) agreed to pay $125,000 to a Guttenberg man who sued members of the Hoboken Police Department for an alleged false arrest and violation of his constitutional rights. In his suit, Gregg Martin claimed that that Hoboken Police Officers Detective William Vera, Detective Michael DePalma and Detective Sergeant John Rodriguez falsely arrested him at his Guttenberg home on September 18, 2006. According to a December 4, 2008 trial court opinion, the Hoboken officers were investigating a scam being perpetrated by a moving company. When provided with a photograph of the suspect, the Hoboken officers were told by a Guttenberg officer that the photo was of a Guttenberg resident. When the Hoboken Officers went to Martin's apartment and spoke with him, Martin, after a while, reportedly decided to end the conversation and began closing his door. Detective Vera allegedly put his foot in the door, preventing it from closing. The officers then arrested and handcuffed Martin. The officers reportedly asserted that Martin had obstructed the law by trying to close the door and for refusing to speak with them. Hudson County Superior Court Judge Mary K. Costello, however, held that what started as a non-intrusive "field inquiry" changed into a violation of Martin's constitutional rights when the officer put his foot in the door. Costello wrote that Martin's "refusal to speak with the officers and his attempt to close the door did not convert any suspicion that they may have had into probable cause. As such, their actions were impermissible." Costello granted Martin a summary judgment on the issue of the officers' liability and the City appeal led. Before the appeal was decided, however, Martin and the City of Hoboken settled the case for $125,000. The case is captioned Martin v. Vera, Docket No. HUD-L-1957-07 and Martin's attorney was Joel I. Rachmiel of Springfield. Case documents are on-line None of Martin's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement for $125,000 does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Hoboken or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Hoboken or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Martin $125,00 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Berkeley pays $110,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On January 13, 2010, the Township of Berkeley (Ocean County) agreed to pay $110,000 to a Bayville man who sued members of the Berkeley Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Michael Forte said that on March 7, 2007, his father, Pasquale Forte, received a call from Pasty Forte (Pasquale's son and Michael's brother) informing him that the police were at Patsy's Korman Road apartment. In response to the call, Pasquale and and Michael drove to Patsy's apartment. Michael Forte alleges that upon arrival he was confronted by several Berkeley officers and was "without provocation . . . severely beaten" and arrested by Officers Patrick Stesner, Tammy Shinton, John M. Fosbre and Anthony Sgro. He further alleges that his handcuffs were applied too tightly and that when he was taken to the police station his requests for medical treatment and to loosen his handcuffs were ignored. Forte said that he was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct and lodged in the Ocean County Jail and released on bail the following day. He also said that the police "authored investigation reports containing false information . . . in order to shield themselves from criminal and/or civil liability." According to the complaint, the "criminal proceedings brought against [Forte] terminated in his favor." Also named in the suit were Berkeley Police Chief John Weinlein and Sergeants James Blair, Curtis Drumhiller and Peter Kavitt. The case is captioned Forte v. Berkeley, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-04717 and Forte's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Forte's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $110,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Berkeley or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Berkeley or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Forte $110,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Identities disclosed for some of the other candidates for Burlington County Administrator post.

BACKGROUND: On March 14, 2010, the Courier Post published an editorial entitled "Burlco: Cut your losses, let Drayton go," which sharply criticized the Burlington County Freeholder Board's selection of Paul Drayton Jr. for the county administrator position. The editorial board called Drayton's selection a "highly partisan pick" and suggested that county taxpayers "must wonder about both [Drayton's] honesty and his ability to manage a budget of [about $200 million]." In "Drayton failed to disclose legal actions to freeholders," an article published two days earlier, Courier Post staff writer Carol Comegno reported that Drayton "was among 28 applicants for Burlington County's top administrative post" but that "county officials have denied a Courier-Post public-records request for a list of the other applicants." Comegno also reported that Freeholder-Director Bruce Garganio still supports Drayton, calling him :the best candidate for the job." It is, of course, hard to say whether Drayton was better or worse than the other candidates unless the other candidates' identities are known. Accordingly, on March 13, 2010, I submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the identities and/or resumes of those twenty-seven candidates. I realized when making this request that it would be tricky and difficult to fulfill. This is because Executive Order No. 26 prohibits the County from disclosing the resumes of unsuccessful candidates unless those candidates agree to the disclosure. Thus, Ralph Shrom, Burlington County's Records Custodian, needed to contact each of the unsuccessful applicants in order to request their consent to disclose. I am very appreciative of the time and energy that Mr. Shrom put into fulfilling my request. THE RESULTS Mr. Shrom confirmed that there were actually twenty-nine applicants for the Administrator's post, including Mr. Drayton. of those, the following ten (10) applicants submitted resumes, which are available on-line here. Nick Angiulo Joseph Brosko Anthony Cancro Suzanne Low Mary Ann Minarick Brian Seltzer Yogesh Shah Randolph Terronez Carmen LaVerghetta Tina Zaverzence Also, two applicants consented to release of their names but not their resumes. They are: Leonard Klepner Owen Sullivan Finally, seven (7) applicants asked that neither their resume nor name be disclosed and nine (9) did not respond to Mr. Shrom's request. Hopefully, this information will enable readers to better judge the reasonableness of the Freeholders' decision to choose Mr. Drayton. Sincerely, John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project http://www.njlp.org
 

Enterline v. Hillsborough

Documents related to a 1995 case in which a Libertarian Party member filed a complaint against the local school board for using taxpayer money to design and distribute a newsletter that encouraged voters to approve a bond referendum.
 

Berkeley Council requested to adopt lawsuit disclosure ordinance

On January 13, 2010, the insurer for Berkeley Township (Ocean County), paid $10,000 to a man who sued Berkeley police officers for allegedly beating him severely. I blogged the settlement at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2010/03/berkeley-pays-110000-to-settle-police.html I then began to wonder whether a) a reasonably alert Berkeley citizen, absent my blog entry, would have learned about the settlement and b) whether Berkeley had any mechanism in place to ensure that their elected Council members were informed of lawsuit settlements. Accordingly, I submitted an OPRA request to the Township seeking, among other things, the following four records. 1. Any resolution that authorized, informed or otherwise mentioned the $110,000 settlement agreement with Michael Forte. 2. If there are no records responsive to No. 1, then the pages from any public meeting at which the $110,000 settlement agreement with Michael Forte is referred to. 3. The pages from any nonpublic (executive session) meeting minutes where the $110,000 settlement agreement with Michael Forte was discussed. 4. Any correspondence from the insurer to the Township regarding the $110,000 settlement agreement with Michael Forte. On April 1, 2010, Township Clerk Beverly M. Carle, in her e-mailed response, stated: "I have received your OPRA request regarding Forte v. Berkeley. The settlement has never been discussed at a open public meeting or closed session. All settlements were handled through attorneys or insurance representatives." (The original OPRA request and the Township's response is on-line at ) According to the Township's response, it is reasonable to conclude that a member of the public, even if he or she dutifully attended every public Council meeting and read the minutes of every executive session, would not have been informed of this settlement, and presumably any other settlement that the Township's insurer entered into. It is also reasonable to suggest that there is no procedure in place to inform the members of the Township Council of lawsuit settlements. I believe that this problem is not limited to Berkeley Township but exists in many--perhaps most--municipalities, school boards and other public bodies throughout the state. Information on settlements and other dispositions of lawsuits is of public importance because it allows elected officials and citizens to judge the reasonableness of public officials' actions and to detect patterns of wrongful behavior by particular government officials and employees. For example, suppose a given police officer was sued three times for excessive force and the Township's insurer pays a settlement on each suit. Had the Township Council known about the first suit and settlement, it could have taken steps to more closely monitor the officer and perhaps avoid the incidents from which the second and third lawsuits arose. If, however, the public and elected officials were not informed of these three hypothetical lawsuits and settlements, it is much more likely that the police officer's conduct would escape any scrutiny. Accordingly, I have sent a letter to the Berkeley Township Council, which is on-line at , asking it to adopt an ordinance that will require lawsuit settlements to be reported on at the following public meeting. I recommend that interested readers learn whether or not their municipalities and school boards routinely report lawsuit dispositions to the public. If those bodies do not publicly report, I recommend that they be asked to pass the ordinance described in the previous paragraph. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Dennis Twp pays $50,000 to settle suit alleging that Code Officer caused vehicles to be destroyed

On December 7, 2009, the Township of Dennis (Cape May County) agreed to pay $50,000 to a man who sued the Township Code Enforcement Official as well as his neighbor and a local auto salvage yard for allegedly improperly taking two cars, a boat and a school bus off his property and for destroying the two cars. In his suit, Fletcher Mack, claims that that he is the attorney in fact for Jack Lee Colins, who is the owner of a property at 264 Stipson Island Road in Dennis Township. Mack first claims that Thomas V. Whelam--an adjoining property owner--made an anonymous offer to purchase the Stipson Island Road property in June 2006 and subsequently had his attorney send a letter to Dennis Code Enforcement Official Robert Milcarck complaining about the condition of the property. Then, in March 2007, Mack claimed that he noticed that Mr. Colins' 41 foot boat, and 1998 Saturn, as well as Mack's own 1979 Cadillac and a school bus were missing from the property and that the yard had been dug up by heavy equipment tires. He alleges that he met with a State Trooper at Ray's Auto Salvage, owned by Ray Bozarth, and observed that "the two cars had already been destroyed and crushed and that the bus was parked in the yard [but] the whereabouts of the boat was unknown." Bozarth allegedly told the Trooper that Code Enforcement Officer Milcarck had instructed him to enter on to the Stipson Island Road property and seize and remove the school bus, the cars and the boat. After learning this, Mack claims that he went to the Dennis Township municipal building and confronted Milcarck. He claims that Milcarck presented him with a notice, dated October 15, 2006, that apparently authorized the removal of the boat and vehicles from the property. Mack claims that he had never before seen that notice, that Milcarck couldn't produce evidence that it had been mailed to him and "that the ink on the document appeared and smelled fresh." Mack claimed damages of $50,000 for the value of the boat, bus and two cars and claimed that the defendants--Dennis Township, Code Officer Milcarck, neighbor Whelam and Ray Bozarth/Ray's Auto Salvage--were liable for these damages. The case is captioned Mack v. The Township of Dennis, et al, Federal Case No. 08-cv-00537 and Mack's attorney was David R. Castellani of Northfield. Case documents are on-line here. None of Mack's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $50,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Dennis Township or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Dennis or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Mack $50,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Burlington pays $3,500 to settle police false arrest suit

On January 2, 2010, the Township of Burlington (Burlington County) agreed to pay $3,500 to a Township man who sued members of the Burlington Police Department and WalMart for an alleged false arrest. In his suit, Robert E. Willitts said that on April 22, 2008, he was shopping at the WalMart at 2106 Mt.Holly Road in Burlington Township. He said that he was falsely arrested by store security guards Robert Lawrie and Matthew Wyatt and Burlington Township Police Officers Mark S. Corandan and Adam Worrell. He claims to have been handcuffed, placed in a squad car and taken to the police station where he was fingerprinted and photographed. The period of detention allegedly was four to five hours. Willitts alleges that all the charges against him were later dismissed. It is unknown whether WalMart and its security officers paid additional settlement sums to Willitts. The case is captioned Willitts v. Burlington Township, Federal Case No. 1:09-cv-05438 and Willitts's attorney was James Logan, Jr. of Mount Holly. Case documents are on-line here. None of Willitts's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $3,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Burlington or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Burlington or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Willitts $3,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Passaic County pays $150,000 to settle undersheriff's wrongful termination and defamation suit.

On January 4, 2008, the County of Passaic agreed to pay $150,000 to an undersheriff who had sued the County, Sheriff Jerry Speziale and others for wrongfully firing and defaming him. In his suit, Felix Garcia, a Latino American who had worked for Passaic County since 1972, alleged that a search warrant, issued pursuant to an Attorney General's investigation, was served upon him on March 20, 2002. The warrant reportedly sought some checks that Garcia had written to Sheriff's Office employees to perform work at his home in 1995. Garcia claims that although he was innocent of any wrongdoing, Speziale, through a subordinate, told him that he would be fired unless he agreed to take an unpaid leave of absence until the Attorney Gerneral's office confirmed that it would not prosecute Garcia. Garcia, claiming to be intimidated and coerced, agreed to the unpaid leave of absence. During his ten-month leave of absence, Garcia claims that he discovered that Speziale, who had become sheriff in January 2002, had taken retaliatory action against other sheriff's office employees who were Latino American or who had served under Speziale's precedessor. According to Garcia, this caused him to become involved in setting up a February 19, 2003 meeting where Speziale's alleged propensity to discriminate against Latino Americans could be discussed. But, Garcia alleges, when Speziale learned of the meeting and Garcia's involvement with it, he fired him and had an attorney, Harley D. Briete, write him a February 16, 2003 letter that allegedly "contained numerous false and malicious allegations against Garcia, including . . . that the AG's Office had made 'preliminary findings' that Garcia had violated the law." He further alleges that the letter "referenced confidential materials from Garcia's personnel file, inlcuing . . . a psychological evaluation." Garcia then accuses Speziale and Breite of distributing the February 16, 2003 letter to the media, wich resulted in the Herald News and The Record writing negative and embarrassing articles about him. Finally, Garcia claims that another Sheriff's Office official, Robert D'Arco, wrote to the Division of Pensions and Benefits asking whether it was appropriate for Garcia to forfeit his pension. Garcia alleges that D'Arco sent the letter, which was said to contain "numerous fase and malicious" statements, at Speziale's direction and also sent copies to "each and every member of the Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders." The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. The case is captioned Garcia v. County of Passaic, Federal Case No. 2:04-cv-00650 and Garcia's attorney was David W. Fassett of Chatham. Case documents are on-line here. None of Garcia's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $150,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Passaic or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Passaic or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Garcia $150,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Winslow Township pays $280,000 to settle police abuse suit filed by stroke victim

On January 27, 2010, the Township of Winslow (Camden County) agreed to pay $280,000 to a Sicklerville man who had sued the Township Police Department for assault, false arrest and violation of his constitutional rights. In his suit, George Snider alleges that he was driving his car on May 25, 2005, shortly after noon, when he suffered a cerebral stroke, which caused him to experience an extreme headache, paralysis of his left side, mental confusion and slurred speech. The stroke allegedly caused Snider to lose control of his car, jump a curb and strike a police car. The driver of the police car Snider struck, Officer Anthony D. Ortiz, reportedly questioned Snider as to whether he had been drinking. Snider allegedly responded that he had not been drinking but had a severe pain in his head. According to the lawsuit, Ortiz "forcibly removed [Snider] from his motor vehicle dragging him out from behind the wheel and throwing him onto the ground, face first, . . . in such a way that [Snider] was unable to shield himself from having his face and teeth strike the ground." This allegedly resulted in Snider having "several teeth forcibly dislodged from his jaw" as well as suffering a ripped rotator cuff. Ortiz and other officers then allegedly handcuffed Snider and kneed him in the back and pushed him against a vehicle such that its windshield wipers struck his face. They then allegedly threw him face down in the back of the police car. A short time later, Snider alleged that the Winslow Township EMS squad came to the scene and diagnosed him as having possibly suffered a stroke. He was transported to Virtua Hospital and was treated, but later discovered that his wallet and eyeglasses had been taken at the accident scene. Other Winslow officers named in the suit were Chief Anthony Bello, Lieutenant Robert Boisvert, Sergeant Robert Stimelski and officers Michael Gingrich, Robin Fanelle and Michael Parker. The case is captioned Snider v. Township of Winslow, Federal Case No. 1:07-cv-02428 and Snider's attorney was Albert J. Olizi, Jr. of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. None of Snider's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $280,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Winslow or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Winslow or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Snider $280,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Paramus pays $75,000 to settle sexual harassment suit

On November 21, 2008, the Borough of Paramus (Bergen County) agreed to pay $75,000 to a female Paramus police detective who sued the Borough and its police chief after the chief allegedly groped her at a December 2006 party. According to articles appearing in The Record ("Ex-chief's accuser is fearful, mom says," August 29, 2007 and Harassment probe: Why so long?" January 13, 2008), Detective Christine Ruggiero accused Paramus Police Chief Frederick J. Corrubia of the groping incident. The Record articles reported that Corrubia resigned days after the allegations became public in January 2007. The lawsuit is captioned Ruggiero v. Paramus, et al, Docket No. BER-L-1665-07 and Ruggiero's attorney was Stephen H. Kahn of Fort Lee. The settlement agreement is on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Ruggiero's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Paramus or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Paramus or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ruggiero $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Mount Olive pays $25,000 to settle malicious prosecution suit

On March 8, 2010, the Township of Mount Olive (Morris County) agreed to pay $25,000 to a man who sued members of the Mount Olive Police Department and the Township's mayor and prosecutor for maliciously prosecuting for harshly criticizing the police department for setting up a motor vehicle roadblock. In his suit, William P. Duncan, Jr. said that on August 4, 2002, his elderly aunt was taken to the hospital by ambulance after falling down some concrete stairs and breaking her hip. Duncan said he drove to the hospital in order to care for his aunt and to supply a blood transfusion if needed. While driving to the hospital on Route 46 at about 1 p.m., Duncan claimed that he was stopped by a roadblock set up by Mount Olive Police and detained there for about eight minutes while the police looked through car windows for evidence of criminal activity or motor vehicle violations. Duncan said that he felt that the roadblock was unconstitutional and was annoyed that it may have delayed his aunt's trip to the hospital. In order to express his displeasure at the roadblock, he stopped at a phone booth to call Mount Olive Police. When he found he had no change, Duncan called 911 and "criticized the police for having the roadblock and asked the operator whether they lived in a Nazi state." Duncan admits to having used foul and offensive language. According to Duncan's lawsuit, the Mount Olive police "immediately traced [Duncan's] call and tracked him down on the way to the hospital." Police allegedly "seized [Duncan] and forced him back to the site of the roadblock to have their supervisor" Michael Pocquat speak with him. There, Pocquat allegedly lectured Duncan for about twenty minutes about how the roadblock was needed to search for terrorists. After the lecture, Pocquat released Duncan and let him continue on his way to the hospital. According to the lawsuit, Pocquat, during the next several weeks, decided to press criminal charges against Duncan because of his "criticism of the roadblock and his indirect suggestion that the Mount Olive Police Department were 'Nazis.'" Duncan alleged that this decision to press charges was made with the assistance and cooperation of Mayor Richard DeLaRoche, Police Chief Edward Katona, Jr. and Municipal Prosecutor Brian Mason. Duncan alleged that Pocquat began calling members of Duncan's family to ask where Duncan lived, "even though Mount Olive police had written down [Duncan's] full name and address at the time of the roadblock incident and knew exactly where he lived." Duncan further alleged that at about 10 p.m. on August 27, 2002, Pocquat sent an officer to Duncan's elderly mother's house. He claimed that the officer told her that her house was under surveillance and that Duncan "is in a lot of trouble." He alleged that the visit "served no legitimate purpose but was designed to terrorize [Duncan's] mother. Duncan claimed that he was issued a summons and complaint at his home at about 10:15 the same night for having "knowingly placed a 911 call knowing no emergency existed and using offensive language to convey his dissatisfaction with Mt. Olive." Duncan alleged that the summons and complaint, which contained his full address, was written prior to the police visit to his mother's house, thus demonstrating that the police "had [Duncan's] home address all along and had no need to be harassing his mother late at night." Duncan was charged with violating N.J.S.A. 2C:33-3(e) (using 911 for non-emergency purposes). Duncan claimed that he was summoned to the Mount Olive Municipal Court to answer the charge even though it is a crime of the fourth degree which cannot be prosecuted in municipal court.. After apparently learning that the charge could not be prosecuted in municipal court, Mount Olive officials referred the case to the Morris County Prosecutor who declined to prosecute it as a crime. Rather, the County Prosecutor returned the matter to the Mount Olive Municipal Court to be prosecuted as the petty disorderly persons offense of harassment. Duncan claimed that since his right to criticize the police was protected by the First Amendment, the prosecution was "utterly without probable cause." He also alleged that at his March 29, 2004 trial, Pocquat and two other officers perjured themselves. After having been found guilty by Municipal Court Judge Philip J. Maenza, he was sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine and spend 30 days in jail. Duncan alleged that he asked Maenza to defer his sentence for a short while because his wife was having cancer surgery leaving him to care for his minor children. Despite this, Duncan claimed, Maenza ordered him to be sent to the Morris County Jail immediately where he stayed until March 31, 2004 when he was able to obtain a stay of sentence. Duncan alleged that on April 14, 2005, all the charges against him were dismissed by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which found "that the charges against [him] were insufficient as a matter of law." The case is captioned Duncan v. Pocquat, et al, Federal Case No. 2:07-cv-01570 and Duncan's attorneys were Edward P. Kelly of Spring Lake and Michael G. O’Neill of New York. Case documents are on-line here. None of Duncan's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $25,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Mount Olive or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Mount Olive or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Duncan $25,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claimed. Or, perhaps the claimed were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Clifton assigns official e-mail addresses to Mayor and Council

As a result of my March 19, 2010 request, the City of Clifton has assigned official "cliftonnj.org" e-mail addresses to Mayor and City Council members. Previously, the Mayor and Council were using their personal e-mail (e.g. Yahoo or Gmail) addresses for City business. \ This is a concern because e-mails sent from or received by a personal account might be lost or accidentally (or intentionally) deleted making them unavailable to a citizen who requests them. But, e-mails sent or received by an official "cliftonnj.org" e-mail address are permanently retained and archived on the City's server and will be available to future OPRA requestors even if the author and recipient delete them from their computers. This issue with Clifton is not fully resolved because the City has not yet established a policy requiring that only the official e-mail address be used for official business. I wrote to the City Council today requesting that they adopt such a policy. I have placed my correspondence with Clifton on line here. Please feel free to borrow from it if you would like to work to make your own municipality, school board or other public body establish a policy making it much less likely that important e-mail records will be deleted, lost or otherwise slip through the cracks.
 

Additional records from Lady Liberty Academy Charter School

An anonymous OPRA requestor sent me three large PDF files, each containing 60 to 75 pages of documents, that he or she received in response to his or her anonymous OPRA request to Lady Liberty. (Note: The Open Public Record Act requires government agencies, in most cases, to comply with anonymous records requests.) Although I can't guarantee the veracity of the records (since I didn't receive them directly from the school), they appear genuine so I decided to post them on-line here. John Paff
 

Millville pays $100,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On February 9, 2010, the City of Millville (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $100,000 to a Vineland woman who sued members of the Millville Police Department for allegedly beating her. In her suit, Sheila Stevenson said that on February 3, 2008, former officer Carlo Drogo punched her in the face, head, arms, legs and other parts of her body after stopping her as she rode her bicycle. Also named in her suit were Millville Patrolmen Sean Guy and Edmund Ansara According to a December 13, 2008 article in the News of Cumberland County ("Suit filed against former Millville police officer," by Joe Green), Stevenson was charged with possession of cocaine, failing to deliver a controlled dangerous substance to police, resisting arrest, obstruction of justice and giving false information to an officer in connection with the incident. Police dash-camera footage of the alleged beating are on various Internet sites in including You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TADnaCvVPAY The case is captioned Stevenson v. City of Millville, Federal Case No. 09-cv-3508 and Stevenson's attorney was Harold B. Shapiro of Vineland. The settlement agreement is on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Stevenson's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $100,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Millville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Millville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Stevenson $100,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

NJDOT pays $175,000 to settle racial/gender discrimination suit

On October 27, 2009, the New Jersey Department of Transportation agreed to pay $175,000 to a Burlington County woman who sued four officers and employees of the New Jersey Department of Transportation for attempting to prevent her from receiving a promotion. The Department officials and employees named in the suit all were white males: Malcolm Palmer, Regional Construction Engineer for Region South; Paul Hofmann, who was the woman's supervisor; William Mullowney, who was the woman's Supervising Engineer and Joseph Sacco, who was a Department employee. In her suit, Marlene Lane, an African American woman, claimed that she was a model Department employee for 21 years and in 1999 sought a promotion to the position of Principal Engineer in the region that covered Burlington County. After qualifying for the position by passing a Civil Service examination, her name was put on the Civil Service list but she did not receive either of the two Principal Engineer positions that were open. After allegedly learning from her supervisors that no more Principal Engineer positions were going to be offered in her region, she applied for and received a promotion to Principle Engineer in the Trenton region in March 2002. However, she alleges that within six months after taking the position in Trenton, "five vacancies for Principal Engineer were open" in the Burlington region, all of which were awarded to white males. She alleges that in 2003 she applied for one of two Principal Engineer positions in the Burlington region and was interviewed by Hofmann and Mullowney. She claimed, however, that one of positions was given to Joe Paradise, a white male who was promised the position even though he had less seniority than Lane and was not on the list for the position. She further alleges that Hofmann and Mullowney "made effort to score [her] poorly" on the interview and accused her of being untruthful when she actually was being truthful. She claims that the two men "continued during such interview to undermine [her] resume and give her a low score so that the position could be given to a white male." In December 2003, Lane filed a discrimination complaint with the Division of Civil Rights and attached to her lawsuit a December 20, 2004 letter from the Division concluding that the Department violated the State's policy on discrimination. The case is captioned Lane v. New Jersey Department of Transportation, et al, Federal Case No. 1:05-cv-04727-JEI-JS and Lane's attorney was Miriam Benton Barish of Cherry Hill. After the federal case was dismissed at both parties' request, the case continued in the New Jersey Superior Court, Docket No. CAM-L-1316-08. Case documents are on-line here. None of Lane's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $175,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by New Jersey Department of Transportation or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that New Jersey Department of Transportation or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lane $175,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Lesson learned: Don't refer to outside sources in OPRA requests.

On March 2, 2009, I submitted an OPRA request to the Borough of Lawnside (Camden County) in order to determine whether or not the Lawnside Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit was following the Attorney General's rules and regulations regarding internal affairs functions. The request contained five paragraphs, each defining a type of record that I wanted. Lawnside promptly acknowledged my request and asked for a 10-day extension, which I agreed to. Then, the Borough stopped communicating with me despite several attempts to get the Borough Clerk to act on my request. Finally, on May 7, 2009--more than two months after my request was made--I filed a complaint against Lawnside with the Government Records Council (GRC). Richard Gutman represented me in the GRC and all the documents from my GRC complaint are on-line here. After my complaint was filed, Lawnside provided me with records responsive to the first of the five paragraphs in my request and informed me that no records existed that were responsive to the other four paragraphs. On April 29, 2010, the GRC, in ruling on my complaint, held that the Borough violated OPRA by failing to provide me with the records responsive to the first paragraph of my request until after I had filed a complaint. The GRC ruled that this made me a "prevailing party" who was entitled recover attorney fees from Lawnside. But, disturbingly, the GRC also held that the second through fifth paragraphs of my request were not proper because they "require the Custodian to perform some type of research in order to identify any records responsive" to the request. (Findings and Recommendations, p. 10.) Since OPRA does not require custodians to conduct research, the GRC held that "the Custodian has not unlawfully denied access to the requested records." (Findings and Recommendations, p. 12.) An example of one category of records to which I was denied access was: "Any rule which 'requires an officer or employee to notify the agency if he or she has been charged with an offense, received a motor vehicle summons, or have been involved in a domestic violence incident' as recommended at the bottom of page 11-24 of the Attorney General’s Manual." I felt (and still feel) that this request clearly identified the record I sought. Basically, I a) informed Lawnside that the New Jersey Attorney General recommended that each local police department adopt a rule requiring their police officers to notify the department if the officers are charged with an offense, receive a traffic ticket or are involved in a domestic violence incident and b) asked for a copy of the rule if it had indeed been adopted. In case there was any confusion, I provided Lawnside with a link to the Attorney General's Manual where the recommendation was made. (That manual is on-line at http://www.njdcj.org/agguide/internalaffairs2000v1_2.pdf ) Although I believe that my request was clear, the GRC ruled that the request required Lawnside's Custodian "to conduct research in said manual to determine which records, if any, are required to be created and maintained by the police department." (Findings and Recommendations, p. 11.) It appears that my request's reference to an outside source, i.e. the Attorney General's Internal Affairs Policy Manual, is what made it fall into the GRC's impermissible "needs research" category. Apparently, had I simply requested "any rule which requires Lawnside police officers to notify the Lawnside Police Department whenever they are charged with an offense, receive a motor vehicle summons, or are involved in a domestic violence incident," the GRC might have found it to be a proper request. The GRC's logic in this case is confusing. Suppose I asked Lawnside for "any juvenile curfew ordinance currently in effect." I think that the GRC would find that to be a valid request. But, suppose my OPRA request instead stated: "N.J.S.A. 40:48-2.52(b)(1) authorizes every New Jersey municipality 'to enact an ordinance making it unlawful for a juvenile of any age under 18 years within the discretion of the municipality to be on any public street or in a public place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.' unless certain conditions apply. I would like a copy of any such ordinance currently in effect in Lawnside." Would the GRC rule that my request, since it referred to curfew ordinance's authorizing legislation, was improper because it required "research"? I would understand the GRC's position better had I requested, for instance, "any rule that the Lawnside Police adopted based on the recommendation at the bottom of page 11-24 of the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policies and Procedures Manual." Clearly, such a request would be onerous because it would require the Borough Clerk to consult the Attorney General's Manual to learn what was recommended on that page. But, when a request is clear and can be responded to without making reference to an outside source, the fact that the request also refers to an outside source should not invalidate it. In my case, the request contained enough information to allow the Clerk to respond to it without having to consult the Attorney General's manual. The lesson I've learned is that if I intend to ask the GRC to enforce an OPRA denial, I should refrain from referring to any statute, rule or other document in my request, even if I believe that the reference will clarify my request and make it easier to understand. Another lesson that could be taken from this experience is to look for future OPRA enforcement in the Superior Court instead of the GRC. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Important OPRA decision

On May 10, 2010, the Superior Court, Appellate Division issued a published opinion in the case of David Burnett v. County of Gloucester. The opinion is available on-line here. Since it's a published opinion, it is binding precedent. The requestor has asked the County for "any and all settlement agreements, releases or similar documents entered into, approved or accepted from 01/01/2006 to [March 14, 2008]" The Appellate Division made two holdings: 1. The fact that the requestor asked for settlement agreements and releases falling within a certain date range instead of specifying the lawsuits to which the settlements pertained did not impermissibly require the custodian to conduct "research." The Court held that "it is the documents, themselves, that have been requested, and their retrieval requires a search, not research." This clarifies and limits the Appellate Division's 2005 ruling in MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534. 2. The fact that some of the settlement agreement that were responsive to the request were held by other parties, such as insurance carriers and outside lawyers, did not relieve the County of its obligation of retrieve them for the requestor. This clarifies and limits the Appellate Division's 2005 ruling in Bent v. Township of Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Process for appealing denial of access to court records

New Jersey's Judicial branch of government, including municipal courts, are not subject to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). See Giacoboni v. Superior Court of New Jersey, GRC Complaint No. 2003-126 at http://www.state.nj.us/grc/decisions/2003-126.html Access to court records is governed by an October 12, 2005 directive entitled "New Jersey Judiciary Open Records: Policies and Procedures for Access to Case-Related Court Records." That directive, which includes forms for making requests and establishes appeal procedures, is on-line at https://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/web0/directive/admin/dir_15_05.pdf An example of a successful appeal is on-line here. At issue was the Bridgeton (Cumberland County) Municipal Court's improper redaction of defendant addresses from summons/complaint forms that I had requested. On April 5, 2010, I appealed Bridgeton's redactions to Carole A. Cummings, the Municipal Court Division Manager for Cumberland, Salem and Gloucester Counties. On May 7, 2010, Cummings ruled that Bridgeton is required to give me summons/complaint forms that contain the defendants' addresses. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Supreme Court rules on suit filed by speaker gaveled down during public comment period

In a decision released May 17, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a Board of Education President, who silenced a citizen who was speaking during a meeting's public portion for no reason other than the unpopular viewpoint he expressed, could subject the Board to damages for violating the speaker's First Amendment rights. But, the Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the $100,000 he received in damages arising out of being silenced because the "emotional distress" he claimed to have suffered was not proven to be anything more than minimal mental anguish or fleeting embarrassment. Five of the seven justices sent the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of the damages. Two of the seven said that the plaintiff should get no damages and that the trial court should not even consider the question. The decision, Philip A. Besler, et al. v. Board of Education of West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, et al., Docket A-81-08, is on-line here.
 

George Field's lawsuit against Robbinsville

In a May 17, 2010 e-mail, Deputy Township Clerk Beth Dupnak denied my request for a settlement agreement between Robbinsville Township and former Public Works Supervisor George Field. According to Dupnak, Mitch Jabobs, the Township's "consulting attorney" for Field's lawsuit, told her that "the settlement agreement has not been formalized, presented or approved by the Township Council as of yet." Accordingly, my request for the agreement was denied "as no such document exists." Yet, court records show that the case was "settled per letter 04/15/10." So, apparently, even though the case was marked settled over a month ago, the settlement has yet to be formalized and approved, thereby placing it out of reach of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request. By way of background, Field filed a discrimination and wrongful termination suit on September 26, 2007 against the Township, Mayor David Fried and then Business Administrator Mary Caffrey. Field claims in his suit that after he told Fried and Caffrey that he would need surgery, the pair met with him one July 20, 2005--the day before the surgery--and told him that "his position was being evaluated." On July 22, 2005, the day after his surgery, Field alleges that he was told that when he returned to work, his foreman would be in charge. Field, who turned 58 in 2005, claimed that the stated reason for his discharge was that "he did not follow orders." But, Field alleged, this was just a "pretext for discrimination based upon his age, disability and/or perceived disability." He claims that his duties were taken over by an employee named "Dino" who is "substantially younger than" Field. Field's lawsuit, the court record indicating that the case was settled on April 15, 2010, my OPRA request and Dupnak's denial are all on-line here.
 

Elmwood Park and Rutgers University pay $12,000 to settle police false arrest malicious prosecution suit

In January 2010, the Borough of Elmwood Park (Bergen County) and Rutgers University agreed to pay $6,000 each to a Hillside man who sued members of Elmwood Park's and Rutgers' police departments for false arrest and malicious prosecution. In his suit, Andre Shakoor said that a Rutgers student, on September 20, 2007, reported his laptop computer stolen. A campus security camera captured an image of a bearded man taking the laptop. The laptop was "equipped with a 'LoJack' tracking system which activates when a user of the computer goes on the Internet." Shakoor alleges that he purchased a used laptop the next day for $400 from a store in East Orange. About a week later, when Shakoor went on the Internet, the LoJack monitoring agency was able to track the laptop to an Elmwood Park motel where Shakoor was staying. But, when police showed the security video to a motel clerk, she couldn't identify the bearded man. On October 4, 2007, Rutgers Police traced the laptop to Shakoor, who had used it to pay a traffic ticket. Elmwood Park Police Officer Vincent Scillieri, along with Rutgers Police Officers Bradley Morgan, Gregg A. Hippe and Joseph Churchill, reportedly went to the motel where Shakoor was staying. There, they allegedly stopped Shakoor as he drove into the motel's parking lot and asked to search his room and car because "they were looking for drugs." Shakoor consented to the request, according to the lawsuit, although he later learned that it was based on a "false pretense." During a search of Shakoor's room, the officers reportedly found the laptop and arrested Shakoor even though he claimed to have explained that he purchased it and even though he didn't resemble the person identified in the security video. He claimed to have been taken to the police station, fingerprinted, photographed, issued a summons and released. On October 17, 2009, Shakoor alleged that Officers Hippe and Churchill spoke to someone at the store where Shakoor purchased the laptop and received information that led them to another man who later admitted to stealing the laptop. Shakoor's lawyer requested discovery from the Rutgers Police Department, but was allegedly not informed that police had arrested another man for stealing the laptop which resulted in Shakoor's prosecution being prolonged. According to the lawsuit, the police knew that Shakoor legitimately purchased the laptop but "refused to disclose [the arrest of the other man to Shakoor] and persisted in their prosecution of [Shakoor]. After making numerous court appearances, the charges were dismissed on the prosecutor's motion on March 26, 2009. The case is captioned Shakoor v. Borough of Elmwood Park, et al, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-04724-JAG-MCA and Shakoor's attorney was Paul Casteleiro of Hoboken. Case documents are on-line here. None of Shakoor's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $12,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elmwood Park, Rutgers or any of their officials. All that is known for sure is that Elmwood Park, Rutgers or their insurers, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Shakoor $12,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Springfield pays $250,000 to settle lawsuit filed by two township cops

On March 18, 2010, the Township of Springfield (Union County) agreed to pay $250,000 to two police officers who sued the Township and its police chief for mistreating them. The two officers, Patrolman Walter Brooks, who is African-American, and Captain Peter Davis will receive $150,000 and $100,000 respectively. According to an April 30, 2010 Star Ledger article on the settlement, Davis continues to work for the Springfield Police Department while Brooks has been transferred to the Union County Prosecutor’s Office. In their suit, Brooks and Davis claimed that Police Chief William Chisholm conducted himself inappropriately. As one example, Brooks claimed that Chisolm took him to a Halloween display that included a effigy of an African-American man hanging from a tree. Brooks also claimed that Chisolm manipulated the scoring of a test which deprived him of a departmental promotion. Brooks also made the startling allegation that Chisolm purchased an armor piercing handgun and fired an armor piercing bullet into the type of bullet-proof vests that Brooks and other officers typically wore. Chisolm allegedly brought the pierced vest into police headquarters even though he knew that Captain Vernon Peterson allegedly had earlier made threats against Brooks' life. Peterson, according to Brooks' complaint, had a history of telling racist jokes within earshot of Brooks. Davis' allegations stem from a February 17, 2009 deposition that he gave in Brooks' lawsuit. After Davis testified in a manner critical of Chisholm, Chisholm allegedly retaliated against him by assigning him to the midnight shift. The case is captioned Brooks and Davis v. Springfield, Docket No. UNN-L-137-08 and Brooks' and Davis' attorney was Mark Mulick of Montclair. Case documents are on-line here. None of Brooks and Davis's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $250,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Springfield or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Springfield or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Brooks and Davis $250,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Loss in Supreme Court

On May 19, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied a request for a review of a March 5, 2010 Appellate Division decision holding that the New Jersey Attorney General's unpublished, written opinions transmitted to state agencies are attorney-client privileged communications and thus exempt from disclosure under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). I was the plaintiff and appellant in the case, and was ably represented by Richard Gutman of Montclair. All of the filings in the case, from the trial court, the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court are in one 25 MByte file available for download here. State agencies, such as the Department of Community Affairs, rely upon the Attorney General's opinions, known as Administrative Agency Advice (AAA) letters, as interpretations of the statutes and regulations that the agencies apply and enforce. The AAA letters are, in essence, a body of law that state agencies use to enforce statutes and regulations. Mr. Gutman argued that the AAA letters were not made in professional confidence or in the course of an attorney-client relationship. He also argued that citizens who are subject to an agency's jurisdiction have a right, under the common law, to access the legal opinions that guide the agency's interpretations of the regulations it applies and enforces. He also argued that there was a distinction between a government lawyer representing a client in litigation and that same lawyer formulating law that will be applied to others. In support of this argument, he cited two federal appeals court decisions. Yet, the Appellate Division elected to "part company" with the federal appeals court and held instead that "so long as the attorney is providing legal advice in some form, the privilege will apply." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to review the Appellate Division's decision.
 

OPRA and Disclosure of Executive Meeting Minutes

Sometimes I receive questions that I believe may be of general interest. Here is one such question and my answer to it. Question: I have a question for you on OPRA and executive session minutes. My municipal council regularly meets in executive session. But, when I submit an OPRA request for those executive session minutes, my request is denied because the municipal clerk hasn't yet written up the executive session minutes even though several months have passed since the executive meeting was held. The clerk tells me that this doesn't violate OPRA because she's not required to give me records that don't exist. What can I do about this? Answer: The Clerk is correct that OPRA doesn't require her to produce records that don't exist. But, she's only telling you half the story. The Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) (click here http://wikifoia.pbworks.com/nj+Open+Public+Meetings+Act for the full text of it) requires that meeting minutes be made "promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with" the section of OPMA that allows certain matters to remain confidential. (See N.J.S.A. 10:4-14.) So, regardless of OPRA, public bodies are legally obligated by OPMA to make at least redacted (i.e. blacked out) versions of their executive session minutes "promptly" available to the public. What does "promptly" mean? For the answer, please see my blog article at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-jersey-cases-regarding-prompt.html So, suppose the public body, despite knowing that OPMA requires it to make its minutes "promptly available," simply ignores this requirement. What do you do then? There are only two ways to enforce the OPMA: 1) get the county prosecutor or Attorney General to enforce it (see N.J.S.A. 10:4-17), and 2) file a lawsuit to get a court order requiring compliance (see N.J.S.A. 10:4-16). Both methods have their plusses and minuses. The big advantage of complaining to the county prosecutor or Attorney General is that it's free and relatively easy to do. You could simply send a short letter to the prosecutor or Attorney General saying "As of [date], the [name of public body] has still not made even redacted minutes of its [date] meeting available to the public, even though [number] months have elapsed. I believe that this violates N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 which requires minutes to be made "promptly available." I ask that your office, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-17, investigate this matter and assess civil penalties against the elected officials who are violating the law, if you believe this to be warranted." If you were to send a copy of that the letter to the public body, it might scare it into compliance. It is more likely, however, that both the prosecutor/Attorney General and the public body will simply ignore your letter. Unfortunately, prosecutors typically have an unofficial policy of not enforcing OPMA and many public bodies are aware of that policy. The other way to go is to file a lawsuit against the offending public body. The problem with this method is that OPMA, unlike the OPRA, does not provide a successful plaintiff with his or her attorney fees. So, if decide to hire a lawyer file suit on your behalf, the court will not make the public body pay for your lawyer no matter how strong your case is. So, unless you're wealthy enough to afford to pay a lawyer, you may have to sue without an attorney. And, the court will typically make the public body pay your out-of-pocket costs of filing a suit ($200 initial filing fee and $30 for each motion, etc.) if you win. When confronted with this problem, I like to threaten the public body with a lawsuit and try to convince them to produce their minutes more promptly. A example of my threat is on-line here. Please feel free to use it to whatever extent it may be helpful.
 

$530K judgment in favor of Elizabeth superintendent upheld

On May 25, 2010, the Appellate Division affirmed an April 20, 2009 ruling by a Union County Judge in favor of former Elizabeth School Superintendent Thomas G. Dunn, Jr. The Appellate Division's decision is on-line here. According to the decision, the Elizabeth Board of Education entered into a five-year contract with Dunn ending in June 2006. In May 2005, the Board notified Dunn that it would not renew his contract. Dunn and the Board entered into an agreement on May 16, 2005 where Dunn would go on administrative leave during the last year of this contact, then serve as Assistant Superintendent through June 30, 2008 at a salary of $180,000 per year and then retire. Also in the contract was the Board's agreement to pay Dunn for his unused sick and vacation days. The Board and Dunn both agreed that Dunn had accumulated 377.5 sick days and 200.03 vacation days. On August 31, 2006, Dunn resigned, alleging that the Board had created a hostile work environment. He then requested payment for his unused sick and vacation days. A dispute arose, however, regarding the way in which payment his sick and vacation days should be calculated. Dunn's original contract, signed in 2000, set the maximum number of reimbursable vacation days at forty-four and paid unused sick days at $10 per day for up to half the days unused. Yet, the May 16, 2005 agreement said that Dunn would receive reimbursement for his unused days "at his last Superintendent of School per diem rate," which came to $833.05 per day. An April 20, 2009, the trial judge found in Dunn's favor and awarded him $529,700.03, consisting of $481,336.29 for each of his 557.80 unused sick and vacation days at $833.05 per day, plus $47,181.40 in interest and $1,182.34 in court costs. The School Board appealed and the Appellate judges found that the Board's arguments "are without sufficient merit to warrant a discussion in a written opinion." The judges also found that Dunn testified during the proceeding credibly while the trial judge held that the testimony of Bob Murray, who served as the Board's labor attorney and testified during the trial, "was replete with memory lapses." Also, it is worth noting that according to June 13, 2008 article in the Star Ledger, Dunn at that time served as a lobbyist for the New Jersey Association of School Administrators. Also of interest is a quote by Union County Freeholder Chairman Dan Sullivan, in an August 30, 2000 Star Ledger article, that "Dunn got the [superintendent's] job because of political favoritism and his father - Thomas Dunn Sr. - who was Elizabeth's mayor for three decades."
 

Mercer County OPRA hearing on June 22, 2010

On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 at 9 a.m., Mercer County Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Hurd will hear argument in Paff v. Division on Civil Rights, Docket No. MER-L- 1224-10, in his courtroom at 175 S Broad Street, Trenton. At issue is the Division on Civil Rights' denial of my request for a listing of discrimination complaints filed with the Division during August 2009. I am being represented by Walter M. Luers of Oxford. The case filings are on-line here The public is invited to attend the hearing. Before making the trip, however, call Judge Hurd's chambers at 609-571-4825 to make sure that the hearing hasn't been cancelled or postponed.
 

Ridgewood Teacher Settles Tenure Charges

As reported in the Ridgewood News on February 8, 2010 ("Ridgewood teacher could lose tenure" by Delores Alfieri), tenure charges were filed by the Ridgewood Board of Education against Wende L. Greenberg, an English teacher who has taught at the Village's high school since 1989. The hearing on the tenure charges was scheduled on begin on March 22, 2010 before Administrative Law Judge Daniel McKeown. But, the Board and Dr. Greenberg agreed, prior to the hearing, to settle the case. I have placed the Settlement Agreement between the Board and Dr. Greenberg on-line here. None of the records that I have on file give any detail as to the conduct from which the charges against Dr. Greenberg arose. However, the "Appendix of Exhibits" attached to the "Statement of Charges" identifies exhibits such as "12/11/2008 - Typed notes from Matt Cheplic to Jane Blakely, regarding harassment incident of December 10, 2008." Assuming that these records are available under the Open Public Records Act or the common law right of access, citizens who are interested in learning the nature of Dr. Greenberg's alleged conduct may submit a written request for one or more exhibits to the Board of Education. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Salem County Political Party Bylaws posted on-line

A relatively new law (N.J.S.A. 19:5-3.2), which became effective on October 2, 2009, requires each County Committee of the Democratic and Republican parties to make their constitutions and bylaws available to the public. Specifically, the law a) requires each county board of elections to post the parties' constitutions and bylaws on its site if it has one; and b) requires each county committee to post its constitution and bylaws on its site, if it has one. When the law was enacted, it received praise from both Democrats and Republicans. Democratic Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein said that the law "is a crucial step toward more accountability and transparency at every government level." And, Republican Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk said that the new law "goes a long way in ending the era of ‘top-down' political party rule." (Source: New Jersey Newsroom, "Corzine signs legislation changing how county political organizations are governed," by Tom Hester, Sr., October 2, 2009.) Yet, even though the law has been in effect for nearly eight months, the Salem County Board of Elections (http://www.salemcountynj.gov/cmssite/default.asp?contentID=731) and the county's Republican Committee (http://www.salemcountygop.org/) have thus far failed to post the constitutions and bylaws as of this writing (May 27, 2010). The Salem County Democratic Committee (http://www.salemcountynjdemocrats.org), however, has made the required posting. As a service to the public, the New Jersey Libertarian Party has submitted an OPRA request to Salem County, obtained the constitutions and bylaws for both of the older parties and placed them on-line here. Also, even though not required by law to do so, the New Jersey Libertarian Party has its own bylaws on its web site here. http://njlp.org/ John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Spring Lake Heights pays $7,500 to settle police brutality suit

On January 17, 2010, the Borough of Spring Lake Heights (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Belmar man who sued members of the Spring Lake Heights Police Department for allegedly beating him. The officers named in the suit are Patrolmen Andrew O'Neil, Douglas Mayer, Christopher Bennett, Edward Gunnell and Sergeant Barry Johnstone. In his suit, Joseph Dellago said that on July 14, 2007, at 12:26 a.m., he was "wrongfully pulled out of his vehicle" by Patrolman O'Neil. He said that O'Neil "put his foot or knee on [his] neck and head area and was pushing his head into the macadam." He said that another officer "kicked [him] very hard in the testicles while [he] was lying prone on the ground after having been handcuffed." The case is captioned Dellago v. Spring Lake Heights, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv--4231 and Dellago's attorney was Edward A. Genz of Brick. Case documents are on-line here. None of Dellago's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Spring Lake Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Spring Lake Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Dellago $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Point Pleasant Beach pays $10,000 to MTV star to settle police assault claim

On January 28, 2010, the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach (Ocean County) agreed to pay $10,000 to an MTV star who lives in Elmwood Park and who sued members of the Point Pleasant Beach Police Department for allegedly assaulting him. The MTV star who is plaintiff in the lawsuit is named Thomas J. Perno. An Internet search suggests, but does not prove, that Perno played "Tommy Cheeseballs" in MTV's "Real Life." In his suit, Perno said that he and his friends went to Jenkinson's in Point Pleasant Beach on July 22, 2006. Perno claims that even though he is a celebrity, he and his friends "maintained a low profile and drew no attention to themselves." Despite this, Perno was recognized and "accosted because of his appearance and speech in the [MTV] special." He claimed to have been "assaulted and injured" by "bouncers" or other Jenkinson's employees. He further claimed that Point Pleasant Beach police officer Robert Kowalewski came to the scene and "further assaulted" him. Perno said that he had done nothing wrong and the Jenkinsons employees and Officer Kowalewski assaulted him to "put him in his place because of his fame and status as a public figure through the MTV special and his following." The case is captioned Perno v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, Federal Case No. 3:07-cv-02627 and Perno's attorney was Maurice W. McLaughlin of Totowa. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. The $10,000 settlement discharges only Point Pleasant Beach Borough and its employees from the suit. There may have been additional sums paid by or on behalf of the private defendants in the matter. None of Perno's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Point Pleasant Beach or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Point Pleasant Beach or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Perno $10,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Neptune Township pays $65,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On April 5, 2010, the Township of Neptune (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $65,000 to a Brick Township man who sued members of the Neptune Police Department for allegedly beating, falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting him. In his suit, Carl R. Lepis said that shortly before midnight on March 15, 2008, he and a friend, identified as Vitale, were having a cigarette outside the Jumping Brook Spirits and Bar on State Route 33 in Neptune. While Lepis was standing next to Vitale's truck smoking his cigarette, a Neptune patrol car allegedly approached and shined a spot light on the pair. According to the suit, Patrolman John Jackon asked for Lepis' identification and Lepis handed him his passport. Jackson then allegedly asked Lepis for his address and Lepis responded that the address was listed on the passport. After asking for and receiving Vitale's identification as well, Jackon allegedly ordered Lepis to turn around because he was under arrest. Lepis claims that although he complied with Jackson's request, Patrolman J. Hunter Ellison approached and both officers "grabbed" him and "slammed [his] body against Vitale's truck." The two officers then allegedly "slammed [Lepis'] body against Jackson's police vehicle" and pushed him to the ground. Jackson then allegedly sprayed Lepis with OC Spray while Ellison allegedly "punched [him] in the face and back." According to the complaint, "without any resistance from [Lepis], Defendants Jackson and Ellison continued to beat, punch, kick and pull [his] hair." They then allegedly handcuffed him and "slammed [his] head against the door frame as he was pushed into the police vehicle." These incidents were allegedly witnessed by Neptune Police Officers Fred Faulhaber, Leslie Borges and Bryce Byham, but all of these officers are claimed to have "failed to intervene and prevent the violation of [Lepis'] civil rights." Lepis was charged with Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest and a local ordinance for being drunk in public. Lepis claims that Jackson "made numerous false statements of fact in order to justify [his] arrest and beating. Lepis alleges that "the criminal proceedings initiated by [the officers] terminated in [his] favor." Also named in the suit were Neptune Police Chief John O'Neil. The case is captioned Lepis v. Township of Neptune, et al, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv-00402 and Lepis's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Lepis's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $65,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Neptune or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Neptune or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lepis $65,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Appellate Division: Rules that were proposed but not enacted do not create OPRA exemptions.

Back in 2002, when OPRA was enacted, Governor McGreevey issued an executive order which, in part, allowed state agencies to deny access to records that were exempted by administrative rules that had been proposed but had not yet been adopted. In 2008, the Government Records Council (GRC) held that rules that were proposed by state agencies back in 2002 but never enacted still constitute a lawful basis for denying OPRA requests. On June 4, 2010, the Appellate Division reversed the GRC's decision. The court said that it could "perceive no basis for this kind of expansive interpretation" of McGreevey's executive order. Rather, the court ruled that McGreevey's executive order "was only intended to establish a stopgap exemption from disclosure during the interim period between the effective date of OPRA and the adoption by State agencies of proposed rules that would establish such exemptions" permanently. The Appellate Division delayed implementing its decision under November 5, 2010, apparently to give state agencies an opportunity to enact rules that will restrict public access to their records. The Appellate Division's decision and the GRC decision that it overturned are on-line here.
 

Springfield Board of Ed pays $20,000 to settle fired bus driver's racial discrimination suit

On July 6, 2009, the Springfield Board of Education (Union County) agreed to pay $20,000 to an Irvington woman who sued the Springfield Board of Education and several Board employees and officials for wrongfully terminating her and for subjecting her to "an intolerable, abusive, and racially hostile work environment. In her suit, Sharon Moore, an African-American woman, claimed that certain employees and officials of the Board of Education, all of whom are white, treated her disparately "and despite her excellent performance and experience, her responsibilities and shifts were decreased until she was ultimately and wrongfully terminated." Named in the lawsuit were Superintendent Michael A. Davino, Board Secretary Matthew A. Clarke, Human Resources Director Ellyn Atherton, Transportation Coordinator Sheila Hahn, Facilities Supervisor Michael L. Moore and supervisor Jared Moskowitz. According to the suit, Moore, who was employed by the Board in 2000, said that in 2003, the Board hired another, white bus driver named Dixie Dougherty who received preferential treatment even though she had been newly hired. When Moore complained to Hahn about her treatment, she was allegedly summoned by Michael Moore who told her that she was "stirring the pot." When she asked Moore why Dougherty was receiving preferential treatment, Moore reportedly responded that it was "none of your damn business" and told her that "he would do whatever is necessary to get rid of 'troublemakers.'" Moore also alleged that she was assigned to drive busses that "barely had heat in the winter and no air conditioning in the summer" while a newer bus remained idle in the garage. Her suit also claims that she was suspended on November 21, 2005 as a result of "a ridiculous and unfounded child abuse charge brought against" her "as direct retaliation" for her discrimination complaints. She claims to have been "cleared on all allegations." She further claims that she was again suspended on January 23, 2006 in response to Moskowitz's "bogus and unfounded complaint [the she] was driving recklessly." She claims that this charge resulted in her being fired as well as being "subjected to an unwarranted DYFS investigation." The case is captioned Moore v. Springfield Board of Education, Union County Superior Court Docket No. UNN-L-1191-08. Moore's attorney was Gina Mendola Longarzo of Madison. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Moore's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $20,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Springfield Board of Education or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Springfield Board of Education or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Moore $20,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Media Advisory: South Bound Brook asked to repeal invalid ordinance still being "enforced" by Borough officials

On June 9, 2010, the New Jersey Libertarian Party formally requested Mayor Terry Warrelmann and the South Bound Brook Borough Council to repeal several invalid provisions from the Borough Code. This request was made after the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office agreed, based on the Libertarians' December 9, 2009 complaint against the Borough, that municipal prosecutors in the county needed to be reminded that they are not permitted to downgrade statutory charges to violations of invalid municipal ordinances. After investigating the records of the South Bound Brook Municipal Court, the Libertarians found that Borough Prosecutor James P. Fitzgerald was improperly allowing defendants charged with offenses such as assault to plead guilty to an invalid Borough ordinance. That ordinance, enacted in 1931, makes it unlawful to "commit any lewd, immoral or indecent act or utter loud or offensive or indecent language or by hilarity disturb the peace and quiet" while "upon about or within the waters of or bounding the Borough." Although it was rendered inoperable when New Jersey passed its uniform Criminal Code in 1979, South Bound Brook never repealed it. In its complaint to the Prosecutor, the Libertarians argued that Fitzgerald's downgrading of assault charges was "particularly repugnant because such dispositions potentially allow violent offenders to escape accountability for their actions." The Libertarians noted that under the law, first offenders of the assault statute are afforded a “presumption of non-incarceration” while repeat offenders do not benefit from that presumption and are more likely to go to jail. Allowing assault defendants to plead guilty to an invalid ordinance, the Libertarians argued, prevents those who are actually guilty of assault from being identified in the state’s database as previous offenders. "These plea bargains subvert the state's criminal justice system and that's why Attorney General Verniero outlawed them in 1998," said John Paff, Chairman of the Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project. Prosecutors like these downgrades because everybody pleads guilty saving them from having to conduct time consuming trials. The defendants like these downgrades too because they can pay a couple hundred in fines and not face incarceration or be saddled with a criminal record. And, the towns like the downgrades as well because the fines are an easy and lucrative source of revenue." "Maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system," Paff said, "is far more important than the municipal prosecutor's administrative convenience and the Borough's interest in collecting revenue." The Libertarian Party's repeal request, its complaint to the Somerset County Prosecutor and the Prosecutor's response are on-line here. For more information on the Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project, click here. http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/Loiter.html ###
 

Media Advisory: Somerville asked to repeal invalid ordinance still being "enforced" by Borough officials

On June 9, 2010, the New Jersey Libertarian Party formally requested Mayor Brian Gallagher and the Somerville Borough Council to repeal several invalid provisions from the Borough Code. This request was made after the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office agreed, based on the Libertarians' December 22, 2009 complaint against the Borough, that municipal prosecutors in the county needed to be reminded that they are not permitted to downgrade statutory charges to violations of invalid municipal ordinances. After investigating the records of the Somerville Municipal Court, the Libertarians found that the Borough Prosecutor was improperly allowing defendants charged with offenses such as assault to plead guilty to an invalid Borough ordinance. That ordinance, enacted in 1966, makes it unlawful to "assemble in the streets, public places or public halls of the Borough of Somerville, or be upon the streets, sidewalks, steps or platforms of any store, business house, park, church or railroad station, bus or other conveyance or within or around any building, dwelling house, office, place of business, factory or private or public place within said borough, behaving in a disorderly manner by noisy, rude or indecent behavior, by using profane, vulgar or indecent language, by making insulting remarks or comments to others, by begging for alms, by fighting, by unnecessary congregating in groups upon any street, sidewalk, railroad station or other public place to the obstruction thereof or to the annoyance of other persons lawfully there being, or by unnecessarily doing or performing any other disorderly thing whatsoever that shall disturb the peace or quiet of any family, neighborhood or any of the inhabitants of the borough." Although it was rendered inoperable when New Jersey passed its uniform Criminal Code in 1979, Somerville never repealed it. In their complaint to the Prosecutor, the Libertarians argued that downgrading assault charges was "particularly repugnant because such dispositions potentially allow violent offenders to escape accountability for their actions." The Libertarians noted that under the law, first offenders of the assault statute are afforded a “presumption of non-incarceration” while repeat offenders do not benefit from that presumption and are more likely to go to jail. Allowing assault defendants to plead guilty to an invalid ordinance, the Libertarians argued, prevents those who are actually guilty of assault from being identified in the state’s database as previous offenders. "These plea bargains subvert the state's criminal justice system and that's why Attorney General Verniero outlawed them in 1998," said John Paff, Chairman of the Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project. Prosecutors like these downgrades because everybody pleads guilty saving them from having to conduct time consuming trials. The defendants like these downgrades too because they can pay a couple hundred in fines and not face incarceration or be saddled with a criminal record. And, the towns like the downgrades as well because the fines are an easy and lucrative source of revenue." "Maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system," Paff said, "is far more important than the municipal prosecutor's administrative convenience and the Borough's interest in collecting revenue." The Libertarian Party's repeal request, its complaint to the Somerset County Prosecutor and the Prosecutor's response are on-line here. For more information on the Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project, click here. http://www.lpcnj.org/OGTF/Loiter.html
 

Plainsboro pays $12,500 to settle police false arrest suit

On January 21, 2010, the Township of Plainsboro (Middlesex County) agreed to pay $12,500 to a Collingswood man who sued Plainsboro Police Officer Jason Mariano for allegedly arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Vincent Capriotti said that on April 5, 2009, he was driving on Route 1 North when Mariano, who was "conducting selective enforcement" pulled him over. He claims to have given Mariano his registration and a lapsed insurance card, but could not produce his driver license because his wallet had recently been stolen. He said, however, that he was able to tell Mariano his driver license number. After Capriotti got out of his vehicle at Mariano's request, he claims that Mariano "unlawfully requested to search [his] vehicle for his driver's license and insurance card." Capriotti allegedly told Mariano that "he would not allow [Mariano] to search his vehicle without first speaking to his supervisor." At this point, Capriotti claims that Mariano handcuffed him and took him to the Plainsboro police station where he was released after being held for four hours. Although it is not clear from the complaint, Capriotti was apparently charged with obstructing the administration of law and government function and was later acquitted of that charge. He sued for the attorney fees he expended fighting the charge, his car's towing and storage charges, lost wages and "severe emotional distress." Also named in the lawsuit was Police Chief Richard Furda. The case is captioned Capriotti v. Plainsboro, Middlesex County Superior Court, Docket No. L-9620-09 and Capriotti's attorney was Richard T. Silverman of Cherry Hill. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Capriotti's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $12,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Plainsboro or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Plainsboro or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Capriotti $12,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Eatontown pays $200,000 to settle police negligence suit

On January 25, 2010, the Borough of Eatontown (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $200,000 to the family of a woman who sued members of the Eatontown Police Department for allegedly failing to warn her about a hazardous road condition that resulted in the woman's death. In their suit, the parents of Allison M. Lynman, then 19, said that their daughter lost control of her car after hitting a large body of water that accumulated on Route 35. Her car collided with a utility pole causing her to sustain fatal injuries. Her family alleges that prior to the accident, Eatontown Patrolman Robert Green had been dispatched to the Route 35 location by Patrolman James DiGiovanni after DiGiovanni received a report that the road was flooded and represented a dangerous condition. According to the lawsuit, Green went to the site and observed "the accumulation of at least two (2) to three (3) inches of water on both northbound laes of travel of Route 35 and the shoulder of the roadway." Green then allegedly reported the flood condition to DeGiovanni and the left the scene "without attempting to correct the dangerous condition or warn the public of its existence." DiGiovanni then allegedly took no further action except to notify the State Department of Transportation of the flooding. The suit alleges that both DiGiovanni and Green breached their duty to warn Lynam of the dangerous condition and that this failure was the proximate cause of her death. Press reports indicate that in addition to the $200,000 paid by Eatontown, the New Jersey Department of Transportation also contributed $10,000 to the settlement. The case is captioned the Lynam v. Eatontown, Docket No. MON-L-4522-04 and the Lynams's attorney was James A. Maggs of Brielle. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of the Lynams' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $200,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Eatontown or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Eatontown or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Lynams $200,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Bordentown City Mayor falsely accuses Internet site

In a Trentonian article written by Jeff Edelstein and published on May 24, 2010, Bordentown City Mayor James Lynch is reported to have said that postings on BordentownMayorReallySucks.com, a site that is critical of him and his administration, "were personal attacks on him, his wife and daughter, and a city police officer who suffers from a disability. After reading the Trentonian article, I visited the BordentownMayorReallySucks.com site but could not find any postings that were "personal attacks" on Mayor Lynch's wife or daughter or a disabled police officer. In order to determine the truth or falsity of Mayor Lynch's claim, I submitted an Open Public Records Act request to Bordentown City for the postings that the Mayor believed contained those "personal attacks." On June 9, 2010, I received a 111-page response from the City. I have placed that response, in its entirety, along with my two-page OPRA request on-line here. I will refer to page numbers within the resulting 113-page PDF file in the remainder of this post. First, in the letter that accompanied the responsive records (page 3), City Attorney Richard W. Hunt said that the alleged personal attacks against Mayor Lynch's wife and daughter were actually not on BordentownMayorReallySucks.com. Rather, he says, they were on a Facebook page with a fictitious name of "Jim Fibber." The anonymous person who posts on the page as "Jim Fibber" writes in the first person and pretends to be Mayor James "Jim" Lynch. Second, Hunt doesn't claim that the "Jim Fibber" page actually contained "personal attacks" on Lynch's wife and daughter. Rather, he says that the Facebook page contains "derogatory references to the Mayor" and that the Facebook page's anonymous author "sent this site to the Mayor's wife, daughter and other family members." Then, he claimed, "when the wife and daughter attempted to decline the Facebook invitation to Jim Fibber, they were directed to" an apparently innocuous site called Bordentownmayor.com. I have examined pages 61 through 80 of the PDF file (i.e. those pages that the City says are a complete list of Jim Fibber's Facebook pages), and I cannot find any postings that even mention Lynch's wife or daughter, let alone constitute "personal attack" upon them. Derogatory comments concerning the Mayor himself are present. Finally, the only references to a "disabled police officer" I could find are on pages 8 and 11 of the PDF file. The postings do not constitute a "personal attack" on the officer because they do not identify the officer by name. They note that the officer was issued a handicapped parking permit 10 years ago and question who in the City is responsible for ensuring that police officers are fit for duty. In sum, it appears that the Mayor falsely claimed that his wife and daughter were subjected to "personal attacks" on BordentownMayorReallySucks.com when they were actually sent invitations to a Facebook page that contained derogatory remarks about the Mayor himself. He also falsely claimed that the site's postings contained "personal attacks" on a disabled police officer. I welcome any comments or corrections to my analysis. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey Paff@pobox.com
 

Veteran Berlin Borough Police Officer suspended

Berlin Borough Police Officer Anthony Anthony M Giannini, who is listed on Gannett's "DataUniverse" site as having made $70,688 in 2009, was suspended for twenty days on March 24, 2010. Giannini was originally dealt a thirty day suspension by Berlin Borough Police Chief Robert L. Carrara on August 26, 2009, but the suspension period was reduced to twenty days by a Superior Court judge who ruled on Giannini's appeal on March 18, 2010. (Giannini v. Borough of Berlin, Docket No. CAM-L-5321-09.) The judge also reduced a six day suspension Giannini received on April 16, 2009 and served in September 2009 to three days. Thus, Giannini was required to serve another seventeen days of unpaid suspension. The basis for the six-day suspension was set forth in an April 16, 2009 letter Chief Carrara sent to Patrolman Giannini. According to that letter, Carrara, on April 8, 2009, had ordered Giannini to appear before the department's physician for a fitness for duty exam on April 15, 2009 and to telephone Chief Carrara after the exam was completed. After Giannini reportedly failed to appear for the exam and failed to telephone, Chief Carrara filed five charges against him and proposed a three day suspension as a penalty. Giannini rejected the proposal and demanded a departmental hearing. On September 8, 2009, the Borough imposed a six day suspension which was served later that month. The basis for the thirty-day suspension was set forth in a August 26, 2009 letter Chief Carrara sent to Patrolman Giannini. According to that letter, Giannini, during the July 22, 2009 hearing on the other charges, admitted that he had secretly tape recorded an April 20, 2009 meeting that Giannini had with Chief Carrara and Lieutenant Paul Miller. While being interviewed by Miller on August 7, 2009 regarding the charges arising out of the April 20, 2009 taping incident, Giannini was also found to have been secreting recording that interview. This caused Chief Carrara to state in his August 26, 2010 letter that Giannini's "conduct shows a complete disregard for authority in that you were not only violating Department Policy on April 20th, but again on August 7th after you knew that you what you were being investigated for." Carrara proposed a 30 day suspension and Giannini again rejected it and demanded a departmental hearing. I have placed the disciplinary records on-line here.
 

Dover pays $15,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On October 29, 2009, the Town of Dover (Morris County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a Morris County woman who sued members of the Dover Police Department for false arrest, excessive force and malicious prosecution. In her suit, Angelica Lopez said that on March 7, 2003, when she was 15 years old, she was exiting a teen-party when she was approached by a Dover Police Officer who she believed to be Justin Gabrys who yelled "move along" or words to that effect. Lopez, who was 5'1" tall and weighed 110 pounds, allegedly told the officer that she was waiting for her ride. The officer then allegedly got out of his car, grabbed Lopez by her arm and pushed her against a wall "pressing his body hard against hers." Gabrys then allegedly spun Lopez around, handcuffed her and called for back-up. The back-up officer, who was alleged to probably be Sergeant Bruce Cole, reportedly sprayed Lopez with mace. Lopez says that she was then "thrown into the police car" and taken to the station. While at the station, she alleges that Cole screamed at her, used obscenities and threatened to have her taken to a mental institution. Lopez says she was charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstructing the administration of justice and held in detention for two days. She alleges to have been acquitted of all charges except for disorderly conduct. The case is captioned Lopez v. Dover, Federal Case No. 2:2008cv02115 and Lopez's attorney was Jeffrey J. Mahoney of Flemington. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Lopez's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Dover or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Dover or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lopez $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Middletown pays $125,000 to settle abuse case that resulted in officer's suicide

On December 11, 2009, the Township of Middletown (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $125,000 to the family of Middletown Auxiliary Police Officer who sued the Middletown Police Department, particularly Police Lieutenant Robert Morrell for the officer's wrongful death. In her suit suit, Kathleen Provost, the wife of the late Michael Provost, said that her husband, then age 39, committed suicide on November 2, 2005 after having been berated and arrested by Morrell and other members of the Middletown Police Department. Provost alleged that her husband Michael, who had Attention Deficit Disorder, was a cocaine addict who overcame his addiction in 1998. While clean and sober, he allegedly reinvented himself and dedicated himself to his family and community. In 2004, he "realized his dream of becoming an auxiliary police officer" with Middletown Township. The complaint further alleges that unlike most others in the police department, Lieutenant Morrell "harbored a sinister dislike of" Provost because he was a recovering drug addict. Morrell's contempt for Provost was allegedly well known throughout the department and Provost "became intimidated and fearful of Lt. Morrell and sought to avoid personal contact with him whenever possible." Morrell is alleged to have also abused other officers and reportedly "sent boxes filled with horse manure" to the homes of four officers he had a dispute with. Despite complaints from others and questions arising as to Morrell's emotional and mental stability, Police Chief Robert Oches and others in the administration "were deliberately indifferent to numerous recurring complaints about Lt. Morrell and his increasingly obvious emotional problems." On the day of his suicide, Provost was assigned to traffic control detail at a funeral. Allegedly fearful of running into Morrell, Provost reportedly took his own licensed B92-5 Beretta pistol with him instead of retrieving his identical, department issued pistol from the police station. When Morrell learned that Provost was carrying his personal pistol, he allegedly "became enraged." Even though Morrell's direct supervisor allegedly ordered him to handle the issue as a minor disciplinary matter, Morrell "issued an all points bulletin ordering that [Provost] be arrested and brought to the the Police Department headquarters." After officers arrested Provost and brought him in, he was locked in "the cage" and Morrell allegedly went into a "an ear-splitting, hysterical rage that could be overheard throughout headquarters." He allegedly "mercilessly berated, cursed and threatened [Provost] in a vile, malevolent manner. Morrell then allegedly charged Provost with unlawful possession of a hand gun and bail was set at $7,500. After making bail, Provost went home, "wrote two poignant notes, one to his wife and one to Morrell [and] ended his life with a single rifle shot to the head." $75,000 of the $125,000 was paid to Provost's estate to settle the federal civil lawsuit and the other $50,000 was paid because of a dependency claim filed with the New Jersey Division of Worker's Compensation. The case is captioned Provost v. Middletown, Federal Case No. 3:07-cv-5260 and Provost's attorney was Robert F. Vardy of Union. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Provost's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $125,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Middletown or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Middletown or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Provost $125,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Long Beach pays $125,000 to settle retaliation lawsuit

On December 21, 2009, the Township of Long Beach (Ocean County) agreed to pay $125,000 to a local man who claimed that Township officials "commenced and continued an outrageous, despicable, year long campaign of retaliation against" him. Named in the suit were Mayor DiAnne C. Gove, Commissioner Ralph H. Bayard, Zoning Official Francis A. Rowen, Construction Official Ron Pingaro and Municipal Attorney Richard Shackleton. In his suit, Anthony Majer, claimed that Township officials set their sites on him after he complained about health and safety code violations committed by his neighbor Eugene Kelly, who is also named in the suit, who Majer claims has family and friends employed by the Township. According to Majer, the retaliation campaign included confiscation of his "open house" signs, issuance of "baseless Notices of Violation," "amendment of ordinances without any rational basis in order to prevent [him] from renting his home," and "effecting a 'local ordinance arrest'" against him. Majer claims that he has, since 2000, owned a duplex on Long Beach Island that he rents out during the summer months. In 2003, he claims he was permanently disabled after being hit by a drunk driver, making the rental income more critical than before. In March 2004, Majer alleges, he called the police about Kelly's dog running loose and defecating on the lawn of another neighbor named Rohr. According to the complaint, the "fecal matter left on the Rohr lawn by the Kelly dog accumulated over many months and filled a thirty pound garbage bag." Kelly, Majer claimed, was a long-time resident whose family had lived in the Township for over seventy five years. According to Majer, Kelly felt that he was entitled to special privileges because of the length of his residence and his family ties. He allegedly called Majer a "f------ a--hole" and told him that he did not know who he was "messing with." After not being successful with court mediation, Majer claims he filed two citizen complaint against Kelly on May 23, 2005 because his dog allegedly still was running loose. Kelly allegedly threatened him by saying he would not be able to "rent his property anymore." Majer allegedly responded by filing harassment charges against Kelly. Shortly thereafter, Majer alleges, John Jones, the DPW supervisor, confiscated one of Majer's "Open House-For Rent" signs. He also received a Notice of Violation on the same day alleging that placing the sign in the right-of-way violated a municipal ordinance. Then a day later, Pingaro allegedly went to Majer's home and confiscated three additional signs. Majer claims that many other residents put out similar signs and that none of them had any ordinances enforced against them. After the signs were confiscated, Kelly allegedly told Majer "See what happens you fat f---, you're out of business now! We can settle his another way, why bother going to Court. I'll f------ kill you next time." These comments reportedly resulted in Majer filing another harassment claim against Kelly. Then,on July 10, 2005, Kelly allegedly "made a false statement to the Township police that Mr. Majer 'lived in a shack with no bathroom." The police allegedly responded to Majer's home at 9:30 in the evening with three patrol cars with flashing lights to investigate whether or not Majer's home had a bathroom. The, other Township officials inspected Majer's bathroom but "broadened" their inspection to other rooms in Majer's house. The officials "questioned the validity of Mr. Majer's Certificate of Occupancy and hinted that his property taxes would be raised." Majer claims that on September 29, 2005, he met with Township officials regarding the Notices of Violation. Attorney Shackleton, who was at the meeting, allegedly said that a temporary measure that allowed for temporary "open house" signs would be withdrawn and that all such signs, going forward, will be banned. Shackleton allegedly cited safety concerns for withdrawing the policy and also wanted to ensure that Mr. Majer didn't feel discriminated against. Thereafter, the Township reportedly issued Majer another Notice of Violation for putting out an "open house" sign. Majer allegedly responded by documenting fifty other residence who had similar signs. One of those residents was reportedly sent a Notice of Violating, listing Majer as the "complainant" while the other forty-nine cases went unaddressed. On November 10, 2005, the Township allegedly passed an ordinance banning "Open House-For Rent" signs while permitting "Open House-For Sale" signs. Majer claims that he was the only resident who put out "Open House-For Rent" signs, so the ordinance unfairly targeted him. The complaint goes on to allege additional acts of retaliation including a Township street sweeper dumping sand and stones in front of Majer's house. The case is captioned Majer v. Long Beach, Federal Case No. 3:06-cv-02919 and Majer's attorney was Steven Siegler of East Brunswick. The lawsuit, a court opinion and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Majer's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $125,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Long Beach or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Long Beach or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Majer $125,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Stratford Mayor Gentless files defamation suit against former Council members

On March 25, 2010, John Gentless, Mayor of Stratford Borough (Camden County) filed an eight-count civil complaint against the Stratford Republican Club, Club president Joan Trexler, former Stratford Council members William Grover and Steven Venuto and Stuart A. Platt, Esq. of the firm of Marrazzo & Platt, P.C. who served as Stratford's "Conflict Solicitor." Gentless is represented by John B. Kearney of Kearney and Associates, P.C. of Haddon Heights. The lawsuit, which is captioned Gentless v. Stratford Republican Club, et al, Docket No. CAM-L-1586-10, is on-line here. Gentless' claim primarily pertains to an "Investigation Report" that Platt had prepared and sent to the Borough Council on December 24, 2009. The report, which is attached as Exhibit A to the lawsuit and is available at the above link, accused Gentless of various improprieties and suggests that the Council may wish to file ethics charges against Gentless, remove him from office and/or refer the matter to the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. The report concludes that "it seems clear that [Gentless] has used his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself and others and has violated his duties as an elected official." Platt's firm billed the Borough $7,843.09 for the report, which was in excess of the $6,000 that the Borough had authorized. Platt explained why he went over the authorized amount in a January 14, 2010 letter to the Council. It is unknown at the time of this writing whether the Council paid him the extra $1,843.09. Platt's letter and legal invoices are on-line here. Grover and Venuto, upon being served with the suit, sought defense and indemnification from the Borough and its insurers. The insurers, however, denied coverage and refused to provide either Grover or Venuto with legal defense. The Borough Council, however, passed a resolution on May 25, 2010 in which the Council "expressed a desire to assist" Grover and Venuto and "agreed to fund 10% of the total legal representation fees not to exceed $5,000, $2,500 to each" Grover and Venuto. The resolution also committed the Borough to "fund 10% of any damages against both of them, not to exceed $5,000, $2,500 to each of them . . . on condition that the jury does not rule against either of them" on the Defamation count of Gentless' lawsuit. It appears from a draft release on file with the Borough that the Borough's insurer--Municipal Excess Liability Joint Insurance Fund--may have paid the Borough $2,500 in exchange for the Borough not contesting the denial of insurance coverage. The denial letters from the insurers, the Council resolution and the draft release are all on-line here. According to Gentless' lawsuit, Platt's report was publicly discussed at the Borough Council's December 28, 2009 meeting. He claims that the allegations contained in the report are false, defamatory and exposed him to "hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy." He claims that the report was "published by Defendants with malice, hatred and ill-will . . . and the desire to injure [Gentless] in that Defendants expressed a desire to 'get' [Gentless]." By way of example, Platt's report accuses Gentless of "facilitating the cutting down of a curbside tree located within the Borough right-of-way at property located at 100 Webster Ave, which is owned by Barbara, John and Vincent Gentless, without prior authorization from the Shade Tree Commission." In his complaint, however, Gentless claims that he "did in fact receive the permission of the Shade Tree Commission to remove the tree at his own expense, which he did" and that he "has documentation to prove his actions complied with the direction of the Shade Tree Commission." As another example, the report accuses Gentless of "enabling the 'email forwarding' setting on the Borough Clerk's e-mail account such that e-mails sent to the Borough Clerk" were forwarded to Gentless' personal e-mail account. In his complaint, Gentless "admits that he did in fact have the Borough Clerk's emails forwarded to his own email account." But, he claims that he had "drafted a form and the chief of police signed it, permitting [Gentless] to sign out the Clerk's computer." Interested readers should review both the complaint and the report, at the link above, to see the other accusations and Gentless' response to them. Gentless' suit also refers to a four page document that was allegedly distributed to Stratford residents and allegedly contained false and libelous claims against him. It also refers to a Notice of Intention to Recall John Gentless, Mayor of the Borough of Stratford, which Gentless claims contains false accusations against him. These two documents are exhibits to Gentless' lawsuit and are available at the above link. Finally, Gentless' suit claims that Grover "posted defamatory and false statements" on an online public forum and that Gentless filed a harassment complaint against Grover that was assigned to the Pine Hill Municipal Court. Gentless claims that Grover agreed to retract his statements and eventually did so by issuing a "formal letter of retraction" on February 11, 2010. -30-
 

ACLU criticizes Lady Liberty Charter School's Open Records and Meetings compliance

A June 4, 2010 letter from the American Civil Liberties Union to Lady Liberty Academy Charter School is posted on-line here. I received this letter in response to my OPRA request to the school John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com
 

Highlands Fire Department pays $7,500 to settle sexual assault lawsuit

On March 22, 2010, the Borough of Highlands (Monmouth County) and the Highlands Fire Department agreed to pay $7,500 to a Colts Neck woman who claimed that she was sexually assaulted by a member of the fire department in the firehouse. In her suit, the woman said that she became separated from her boyfriend on September 3, 2005 while she was at the Sugar Shack in Highlands. She claimed that while she was walking around town looking for her boyfriend, she was approached by Gary Branin, Jr., who was on a bicycle, who "under the pretext and ruse of helping [the woman], coaxed and lured her inside the confines of the Highlands Fire Department." She claims that Branin sexually assaulted her, that she reported the assault to the police and that Branin "was convicted and ultimately sentenced to serve a term in State Prison." She based her suit against the fire department for "retaining Branin as a member of the Highlands Fire Department and permitt[ing] him to have unsupervised access to the premises . . . when they knew or should have known that he was not fit to be a member." The lawsuit continues against Branin individually. The woman's attorney was Darren M. Gelber of Woodbridge. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of the woman's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Highlands, the fire department or any of their officials (except for Branin). All that is known for sure is that Highlands or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the woman $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Weehawken pays $105,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On November 18, 2009, the Township of Weehawken (Hudson County) agreed to pay $105,000 to a Palisades Park man who sued members of the Weehawken Police Department for allegedly applying excessive force upon him during an arrest. In his suit, Richard Sedell, said that on June 30, 2006, he was arrested by Weehawken Police Officers William Paynter and John Mulvaney. During the arrest, the suit alleges, the officers force Sedell's "previously compromised left shoulder beyond the range of motion that it could tolerate, despite [his] prior advice and contemporaneous protests." The case is captioned Sedell v. Weehawken, Federal Case No. 2:08-cv-03151 and Sedell's attorney was Jonathan Koles of Jersey City. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Sedell's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $105,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Weehawken or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Weehawken or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Sedell $105,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Appellate Court: List of employee's training courses is public record

On June 28, 2010, the Appellate Division reversed a Somerset County Judge's dismissal of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) case. The eight-page opinion in the case, Vasil Kovalcik v. Somerset County Prosecutor's Office, is on-line here. The records requested were the curriculum vitaes for and lists of training courses taken by two detectives in the prosecutor's office. After the OPRA lawsuit was filed, the custodian certified that the only record responsive to the request was a "two-page document reflecting training courses attended by [one of the detectives]. The prosecutor's office provided a copy of the two-page list to the trial judge for an in camera review. During oral argument, the prosecutor's office argued that the two-page record was "protected from public disclosure as a personnel record under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10." During argument, the unidentified trial judge asked the custodian, who was sitting in the courtroom but not placed under oath, to "describe the basic qualifications for someone to become a prosecutor's office [detective]." The custodian replied that a candidate must take a course offered by the Division of Criminal Justice Academy and receive a course certificate. (As a matter of policy, the Appellate Division never discloses the identifies of trial judges in its opinions, except when it affirms the trial judge's ruling.) The trial judge noted that N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 exempts "personnel records" from access, except that records that "disclose conformity with . . . educational . . . qualifications required for government employment" are public. Based on the custodian's comments, the judge concluded that the two-page record was exempt because it revealed training courses taken that exceeded those required for the detective's position. The judge held that any training beyond the Division of Criminal Justice's course was "at the pleasure of the prosecutor" and did not need to be disclosed. The Appellate Division first found that the unsworn comments made by the custodian were "wholly devoid of evidential value because the information" was not sworn to under oath. Therefore, the court found, the custodian's written certification was the only evidence the government could use to carry its burden of proving that the record is exempt from access. The Appellate Division next found that to the extent that N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 was ambiguous, it "must be resolved against those seeking to withhold information from public scrutiny." After reviewing the record themselves, the Appellate Division judges specifically found the list of training courses did "not contain any private or confidential information that would trigger any concern for [the detective's] privacy rights." In sum, the Appellate Division reversed the trial judge's decision and ordered release of the two-page listing of the detective's training courses. The requestor's lawyer was Jennifer L. Marshall of New Brunswick. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

State Police have no record of alleged incident involving Bordentown City Mayor's daughter

In a Trentonian article written by Joan Galler and published on May 25, 2010, Bordentown City Mayor James Lynch is reported to have "told the crowd of 60 residents who showed up for [the May 24, 2010] City Commission meeting that his 26-year-old daughter was frightened about two weeks ago when two men approached her with guns outside her home around 9 p.m., told her they were detectives, and asked many questions. The article further reported that Lynch claimed that "the incident is under investigation by the New Jersey State Police and prosecutor’s office." From reviewing the video of the meeting at it appears that the newspaper article is accurate. (See 8:38 to 9:04 on a YouTube video here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrAb4Xfn68 ) After reading the Trentonian article and in order to determine the truth or falsity of Mayor Lynch's claim, I submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to the State Police on May 25, 2010 asking for any records regarding this alleged incident. On June 28, 2010, I received a response dated June 3, 2010 from State Police Acting Records Custodian Christopher Nunziato informing me that "after a thorough investigation was conducted, I am unable to provide any documents responsive to your request as no such documents exist. The NJSP did not conduct any investigation, assist any local department or have any involvement in the events referenced in your request." Accordingly, Mayor Lynch's assertion is false to extent that he claimed that the New Jersey State Police investigated this alleged incident. Today, I have submitted another ORPA request to the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office asking for any records they might have. I will post again when I receive the Prosecutor's response. I have placed my records request to the State Police, its response and my follow-up request to the Mercer Prosecutor on-line here. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey Paff@pobox.com
 

Bloomfield sued for refusal to disclose e-mail

On June 11, 2010, Montclair Attorney Richard M. Gutman filed suit on my behalf against Bloomfield Township (Essex County). At issue in the suit is an e-mail sent by the Essex County Prosecutor's Office to a Bloomfield Councilwoman. A news article about the lawsuit appears below and the case documents are on-line here. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey ------------------ Advocate sues township, seeking release of documents Thursday, June 24, 2010 BY JEFF FRANKEL Bloomfield Life A New Jersey open public records advocate is suing the township, accusing it of withholding unrestricted documents from the public. John Paff, chairman of the Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project, filed suit with the State Superior Court in Newark June 11, alleging Bloomfield violated the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) when it did not release to him an e-mail from the Essex County Prosecutor's Office to Councilwoman Patricia Spychala. This is among the same documents Bloomfield Life has been trying for several months to obtain without success, as the township asserts they are protected under attorney-client privilege. "Our position is it's a government record and no apparent exemption applies to it," said Paff, reached by phone. "It's not supposed to be broadly applied. The whole point of OPRA is to construe it in favor of public access. The public has the right to know if their (government is) acting reasonably and responsibility." OPRA records must be turned over to anyone requesting them — and in no more than seven business days. Some documents are even subject to immediate access: e.g. budgets, bills, vouchers, contracts and public employee salary and overtime information. But not all documents are public record (there are 24 exemptions), according to the state, including "any record within the attorney-client privilege." The township received the complaint yet as policy does not comment on pending litigation, said Township Administrator Fred Carr. According to the complaint, on April 28 Paff requested a copy of a Nov. 5, 2009 e-mail between Detective John Campo and Spychala. On May 10, Municipal Clerk Louise Palagano denied Paff access to the e-mail, stating, "(in) reviewing recent information provided by the GRC (Government Records Council) as guidance, as well as the specific facts of this record, I am denying the above item due to…attorney-client privilege." The GRC, describing itself as "the facilitator of open government in New Jersey," is a government agency charged with making government records easily accessible to the public. The two-count lawsuit alleges Bloomfield denied access to OPRA documents and the common law. Paff is asking for a declaration that the township violated the Open Public Records Act and that he be granted access to the requested e-mail. It also seeks attorney's fees and other relief as the court deems just. A hearing is scheduled for Friday, July 23 at 10 a.m. before Judge James S. Rothschild. Paff, a Somerset resident, is an open government advocate who regularly initiates lawsuits against New Jersey governing bodies, often with much success, to gain access to public records. He says he is "pushing the envelope" to ensure the state clarifies its stance on certain issues. "People in Bloomfield are paying a bit of taxes to support this apparatus called Bloomfield Township," he said. "It doesn't matter if it's my town or your town…I ask for records all over the state. I do it to vindicate the public's right to know." He said government, especially on the local level, tends to be secretive by nature. "If not everyday, it's every other day," he said. "Municipal government and school boards just have a propensity to keep records secret. If there is any question in mind, they favor in mind of secrecy." E-mail: frankel@northjersey.com
 

After two years, Newark school board settlement still not "finalized."

In 2005, Veronica Williamson, who served as president of the Parent Teacher Student Organization (PTSO) in Newark, sued the Newark Public Schools claiming that the Alma Flagg Elementary School principal Roy T. Wilson improperly suppressed her free speech and assembly rights. According to her federal lawsuit, (Williamson v. Newark Public Schools, Federal Court Docket No. 05-4008), Wilson allegedly tried to silence Williamson's criticisms of the school's performance and safety. Specifically, Williamson claimed that Wilson tried to mute her in three ways: a) banning her or removing her from the school, b) prohibiting her from distributing PTSO flyers during a school talent show and c) canceling a PTSO meeting. A May 31, 2008 Opinion by United States District Court Judge William J. Martini said that "Williamson appeared on the local news to talk about the events described above [and] alleged that Wilson engaged in the aforementioned actions not only because she criticized him and the School, but also because she refused sexual advances." The Opinion goes on to say that Wilson disputes Williamson's claims of harassment and that criminal charges that Williamson brought against Wilson were eventually dismissed. According to Court records, the case was "settled" and dismissed on July 25, 2008. Yet, despite the passing of nearly two years, I am still unable to obtain a copy of the settlement agreement. In her June 30, 2010 denial of my most recent records request, Pamela D. Luke, the school district's custodian of records, denied my request for the settlement agreement because it "is a draft document with the terms thereof in process of negotiations. Access is denied pursuant to the Advisory Consultative Deliberative ('ACD') exception under OPRA, N.J.S.A 47:1A-1 et seq." Whenever the parties inform the court that they've settled a lawsuit, the written settlement agreement usually is signed within days or perhaps a few weeks thereafter. And, if the parties have difficulties reducing their agreements to writing, they will typically ask the court to reopen the case and conduct further proceedings. Here, the case has been dormant since July 25, 2008 and the matter is still not settled. Unfortunately, this deprives the public of knowing the amount and terms of the settlement. Without this information, it is impossible for taxpayers to know how much weight they should give to Williamson's allegations. My records request and Luke's denial are on-line here. Our blog on civil settlements is available here.http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/ John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Stratford Court Clerk fired for failing to promptly deposit funds

According to John D. Keenan, Jr., Clerk of the Borough of Stratford Camden County), Alyson Heriegel, Stratford's Municipal Court Administrator, was terminated from her position after a Borough hearing on Monday, June 28, 2010. In response to my Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, the Borough disclosed a "Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action," dated March 5, 2010, charging Heriegel with violating "guidelines and procedures in the handling of funds received by the Municipal Court Office." Specifically, Heriegel, after being audited by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), was found to have violated a law that requires all municipal court funds to be deposited in the bank within forty-eight hours of receipt. The AOC audit found that Heriegel: a) did not deposit $400 received on January 25, 2010 until February 4, 2010; b) accepted $10 in cash on May 27, 2009 that was never "receipted into the [court's computer] system as a miscellaneous payment"; and c) accepted $15 in cash on September 9, 2010 that was also not properly receipted into the system. Heriegel may still appeal her termination but has not yet done so. The "Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action" and Clerk Keenan's e-mail are on-line here. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. As part of my work, I routinely look for disciplinary matters involving public employees. Most often, the public does not get to see these records. I post them on-line for several reasons: a) because they sometimes reveal official wrongdoing by a government employee, b) because they sometimes suggest that a government agency is using the disciplinary process to retaliate (i.e. file trumped up charges) against an politically or otherwise unpopular employee and c) because disciplinary charges cost public money and the taxpayers ought to be aware of how their money is being spent. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org For similar postings on other government officials, see my blog. http://njpublicemployeediscipline.blogspot.com/ John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Internal Affairs Complaint against the Garwood Police Chief

During an April 30, 2010 hearing before the Hon. Kathryn A. Brock in the Union County Superior Court, I became aware that a certification filed by Garwood Borough Police Chief William Legg was at odds with the facts. By way of background, I am suing Garwood for access to video surveillance of former Garwood police officer Gennaro Mirabella trespassing in the Borough's offices. Legg, in order to bolster Garwood's claim that disclosing the video would jeopardize security at the Borough offices, submitted a written certification to the court stating that the Borough's safe was depicted in the video. After the judge and two lawyers viewed the video in a back room, it was publicly disclosed that the safe was NOT depicted in the video. Thus, it appears that Chief Legg made a false statement that misled me and the court. (For more background on the hearing see my blog entry at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2010/05/interesting-friday-in-judge-brocks.html ) I believe that people, especially government officials, must tell the truth in the court filings. Accordingly, on May 12, 2010, I filed a complaint against Chief Legg with the Garwood Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit. A copy of that complaint is on-line here. On Monday, June 28, 2010, I was contacted by Detective Sergeant Edward Koenig of the Union County Prosecutor's Office, and at his request, I appeared at his office in Elizabeth on Thursday, July 1, 2010 to give a formal, sworn statement regarding this matter. Sergeant Koenig said that he will release his final report on the mater in 30 to 45 days. Upon receipt, I will post it on-line and direct readers' attention to it. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Glen Ridge Borough agrees to use more descriptive closed session resolution

On June 15, 2010, I checked the meeting minutes of the Glen Ridge (Essex County) Borough Council and found that the Council always uses the same, vague resolution when it goes into executive or closed session. The boilerplate resolution states: "The Mayor And The Borough Council of The Borough Of Glen Ridge shall convene in 'Executive Session' to discuss Legal and Personnel matters in accordance with the [Open Public Meetings Act.]" I wrote to the Mayor and Council on June 21, 2010 urging them to provide more detail in their resolutions so that the public and press in attendance can better understand the issues that are being privately discussed. I attached a "model" resolution that I had drafted and asked them if they would consider using it instead of their present resolution. I recently learned that the Council met on June 28, 2010 and agreed, going forward, to use my "model" form of resolution. The draft minutes from the June 28, 2010 meeting state, in pertinent part: EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION Administrator Royal reviewed the letter from John Paff regarding executive session resolutions. Mr. Paff correctly points out that the resolution should specifically note the reason for the executive session. The Borough will be using the model resolution which Mr. Paff provided for all future executive sessions. I have placed my letter to Glen Ridge and my "model resolution" on line here: Readers who would like to urge their own municipal councils, school boards or other government bodies to improve their closed session resolutions should feel free to borrow the language from my letter and resolution. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Glen Ridge Borough agrees to use more descriptive closed session resolution

On June 15, 2010, I checked the meeting minutes of the Glen Ridge (Essex County) Borough Council and found that the Council always uses the same, vague resolution when it goes into executive or closed session. The boilerplate resolution states: "The Mayor And The Borough Council of The Borough Of Glen Ridge shall convene in 'Executive Session' to discuss Legal and Personnel matters in accordance with the [Open Public Meetings Act.]" I wrote to the Mayor and Council on June 21, 2010 urging them to provide more detail in their resolutions so that the public and press in attendance can better understand the issues that are being privately discussed. I attached a "model" resolution that I had drafted and asked them if they would consider using it instead of their present resolution. I recently learned that the Council met on June 28, 2010 and agreed, going forward, to use my "model" form of resolution. The draft minutes from the June 28, 2010 meeting state, in pertinent part: EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION Administrator Royal reviewed the letter from John Paff regarding executive session resolutions. Mr. Paff correctly points out that the resolution should specifically note the reason for the executive session. The Borough will be using the model resolution which Mr. Paff provided for all future executive sessions. I have placed my letter to Glen Ridge and my "model resolution" on line here: Readers who would like to urge their own municipal councils, school boards or other government bodies to improve their closed session resolutions should feel free to borrow the language from my letter and resolution. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Two lawsuits against Plainfield Board of Education

I wanted to inform Plainfield residents of two lawsuits against the Plainfield Board of Education. I learned about these suits while checking the docket sheets at the courthouse. It is important for readers to understand that the allegations contained in these lawsuits are just that--allegations. They have not been proven by the plaintiffs and may or may not be true. Yet, lawsuits against public bodies are of legitimate public interest and concern. For one thing, both the lawsuits are being defended by the Board of Education at public or at an insurance company's expense. Also, some of the allegations claim official wrongdoing and could be proven or disproven by any citizen who wishes to make an Open Public Records Act request. For example, in paragraph 24 of her complaint, Dr. Ebler claims that "on October 19, 2009, [Executive County Superintendent] Centuolo sent a letter to [Superintendent Dr. Steve] Gallon ordering Gallon to remove [two employees that Gallon allegedly hired] from their respective administrative positions given that they were not properly certified to serve as anything other than clerks." An interested citizen who wished to verify whether this is indeed true could submit an OPRA request to the Plainfield Board of Education (or the County Superintendent's office) seeking a copy of Centuolo's October 19, 2009 letter. DR. BETH EBLER V. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (A copy of the lawsuit is on-line here: ) This lawsuit, which bears bears Docket No. UNN-L-1740-10, was filed on May 3, 2010 by Dr. Beth Ebler, who served as the school district's Director of Curriculum and Instruction until June 30, 2009. She alleges that she was an exemplary employee who made $134,000 per year. She claims that she became aware that Dr. Steve Gallon, the Superintendent of Schools hired in 2008, "may not have been properly certified at the time under New Jersey to serve as a superintendent." On March 9, 2008, Ebler claims to have written to the Commissioner of Education "expressing concerns regarding Dr. Gallon's qualifications and other issues." Some of the "other issues" allegedly complained about in Ebler's letter were "the practice of Board of Education members securing jobs for friends and family, the elimination of key personnel while maintaining other personnel in questionable assignments, and the district's failure to have a coherent plan to satisfy state monitoring requirements." She claims that Gallon then hired some of his former coworkers even though they "all lacked proper certification to serve in the positions for which they were hired." Ebler claims that when she came back from vacation on August 8, 2008, all her belongings had been removed from her office and that another employee had taken control of her office. She also alleges that her personal belongings and computer files had been searched. She alleges that she received a notice of nonrenewal on May 4, 2009, that claimed that she was being let go for reasons of economy and efficiency. Pretrial discovery in Dr. Ebler's lawsuit is due to be completed by September 7, 2011. She is represented by Attorney David Nash of Monroe Township. MARY C. TAFUR V. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. (A copy of the lawsuit is on-line here: ) This lawsuit was originally filed in Middlesex County under Docket No. MID-L-3005-09 and was later transferred to Union County under Docket No. UNN-L-2479-09. The court has set a deadline of August 22, 2010 for all pretrial discovery to be completed, so it's likely that in the next couple of months, the case will either be tried or settle. Tafur alleges that she began serving as a bus driver in 1999 and served full time as a bus driver and a custodian until she was terminated on June 30, 2008. She claims that in starting in 2005, a male bus driver started sexually harassing her and claiming that she was having an affair. She claims that she complained to Margaret O'Keeffe, who is presumably a supervisor, but that O'Keeffe simply told her to ignore the comments. She further alleges that in early 2008 this male bus driver squeezed a different female co-worker's nipple "to the point where it caused her pain." When Tafur asked Ms. O'Keeffe to do something about the male coworker, she claims that O'Keeffe did nothing. Tafur further alleges that in 2008 she went out for a a month and half leave due to a death in her family, and that when she came back to work she was demoted. She claims that Ms. O'Keeffe told her that her absence "hurt the department" and that she "stirs up coworkers." She claims that her contract was not renewed for the 2008-09 school year. Tafur, who is suing for damages of an unspecified amount, is res presented by Attorney Ronald J. Wronko of Montclair. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Confidential Informants

I was curious to see how often New Jersey municipal police departments use "confidential informants" and how much those informants are compensated. So, I requested the following records from the South Plainfield Police Department (Middlesex County): Copy of the "Confidential Informant Report File" for the year 2009 showing the "confidential informant number" and "monies dispersed." I recognize that the informants' names and addresses must be redacted. For clarification, the reports I seek are required to be kept by Records Series 0017-0000 within Records Retention and Disposition Schedule No. M900000-004 (Municipal Police Departments) issued by the New Jersey Division of Archives and Records (www.njarchives.org). While I expecting resistance, South Plainfield responded with the requested record, which I put on-line here. According to the record received, South Plainfield Police paid about $1,200, spread over thirteen transactions, to confidential informants during 2009. In order to follow up a bit more, I submitted the following OPRA request to South Plainfield today: Background: Your police department recently sent me a redacted "Confidential Informant Report File" for the year 2009. Most payments are made to confidential informants that are identified by number, such as "CI# 74" or "CI# 76." Yet, some entries, including one made on May 28, 2009, shows a $400 payment to a Confidential Informant referred to as "Det." Does this mean the Confidential Informant is a police detective? If so, I would question the propriety of paying a police detective, other than his or her regular salary, for information that leads to detection of criminal offenses. I appreciate the sensitive nature of my inquiry, but I believe that the purpose of keeping Confidential Informants' identities confidential extends only to individuals who are not employed by law enforcement. Records Requested: 1. Another copy of the same 2-page record previously provided, but with the name of each person identified as "Det" disclosed. (In lieu of responding, and although I recognize OPRA does not require you to answer my questions, I would appreciate it if you tell me, in general terms, what the "Det" entries mean. Perhaps there is a good reason that their names need to be kept confidential that I haven't thought about.) 2. All CDR-1 forms, CDR-2 forms or other forms of complaint that were issued as a result of the tip that the Police Department paid $400 for on May 18, 2009. (I note that most of the payments are for $20 to $60, and I presume that these were for tips that led to street level drug dealers. I'm interested in learning whether the $400 payment, which is much more than the other payments made, resulted in charges being brought against a higher level dealer or kingpin.) I will keep this list informed of South Plainfield's response. Also, I have included the exact text of my requests in case readers wish to make similar requests to other police departments around the state.
 

Elizabeth pays $5,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On February 13, 2010, the City of Elizabeth (Union County) agreed to pay $5,000 to a man who sued members of the Elizabeth Police Department for allegedly punching him and hitting him in the head with a sharp object. In an August 25, 2009 court opinion, United States District Judge Jose L. Linares describes Boone's lawsuit's allegations. According to the opinion, Elizabeth Police Officers Amilcar Colon and David Conrad, while in plain clothes on June 11, 2005, observed Boone on a bicycle interacting with a person at the intersection of Jackson and Bond. Officer "Conrad saw Boone holding money in his right hand after the interaction." When of the officers approached, Boone allegedly pedaled away and shouted that he "didn't sell anything." According to allegations summarized in the opinion, after Boone jumped a fence and entered an Anna Street residence by kicking down the rear door, he surrendered to officers. Boone alleges that after he was handcuffed, one or two of the officers punched him and that a sharp object struck his head and drew blood. Officer Colon claimed that he wasn't present at the arrest and that Boone's head wound was a result of him going over the handlebars of his bike. Boone was arrested for various charges and was sentenced to three years probation on July 31, 2006. He brought his civil suit on March 30, 2007. Also named in the suit sere Michael Kurinzi and Vincent Flatley. The case is captioned Boone v. Elizabeth, Federal Case No. 2:07-cv-01848 and Boone's attorney was Robert Alan Ungvary of Elizabeth. Judge Linares' opinion and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Boone's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $5,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Elizabeth or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Elizabeth or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Boone $5,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Gloucester County pays $35,000 to settle jail guard beating suit

On January 22, 2010, the County of Gloucester agreed to pay $35,000 to a Pitman man who sued three officers at the Gloucester County Corrections Facility for allegedly beating him. In his suit, Ryan Martin said that on January 22, 2008, while an inmate at the Corrections Facility, Officers Furtado (also spelled Fortago), Fox, Hickman and McGloughlin beat him "mercilessly." Unfortunately, the court records do not identify the officers' first names. The case is captioned Martin v. Gloucester County, Federal Case No. 1:09-04483 and Martin's attorney was Michael M. Mulligan of Carney's Point. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Martin's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $35,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Gloucester or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Gloucester or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Martin $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Citizens file petition to roll back Borough's salary increase

Voters in the Borough of Spring Lake Heights (Monmouth County) employed a little-used statutory mechanism to force the Borough Council to reconsider two ordinances that would have raised salaries for some Borough officers and employees. The purpose of this posting is to explain the mechanism so that voters in other municipalities can also avail themselves of it. At issue are Ordinances 05-2010 and 06-2010, which were both enacted on June 14, 2010. The ordinances, respectively, sought to raise certain employee and officer salaries retroactively to January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2010. On July 6, 2010, a group of citizens who call themselves "Let Those Who Pay Have The Say" submitted a petition, signed by 432 voters, invoking the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40A:9-165. That statute provides that whenever and ordinance shall provide for increases in salaries, wages or compensation of elective officials or any managerial, executive or confidential employee, the ordinance or that portion thereof which provides an increase for such elective or appointive officials shall become operative in 20 days after the publication thereof, after final passage, unless within said 20 days, a petition signed by voters of such municipality, equal in number to at least 5% of the registered voters of the municipality, protesting against the passage of such ordinance, be presented to the governing body, in which case such ordinance shall remain inoperative unless and until a proposition for the ratification thereof shall be adopted at an election by a majority of the voters voting on said proposition. The number of registered voters in Spring Lake Heights Borough is 3686, 5% of which is 185 voters. Accordingly, the petition was sufficient to suspend operation of the ordinances and put the two salary increase questions on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot. On July 12, 2010, in response to the petition, the Borough Council introduced Ordinances 08-2010 and 09-2010 which will, respectively, repeal Ordinances 05-2010 and 06-2010. The two repeal ordinances will be voted upon on July 26, 2010. If they pass, there will be no need to put the salary increase questions on the November ballot. The petition, ordinances and and the full text of N.J.S.A. 40A:9-165 are on-line here. The statute can be used in any New Jersey municipality, including those which are not governed by Faulkner forms of government. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Police secrecy makes citizen oversight difficult

To the editor: On April 26, 2010, a Piscataway man sued Monroe Township (Middlesex County), its police department and officers Piro and Burns (presumably Peter S. Piro and Brian P. Burns) for racially discriminating against him at a local supermarket on January 29, 2010. The man, Raymond Martin, alleged that he went to the local Stop & Shop to purchase a money order to send back to relatives in his home country of Jamaica. After buying the money order, Martin, who is African American, claims he was eating pizza at the supermarket's cafe when Officers Piro and Burns approached him. According to Martin's lawsuit, the following verbal exchange took place. Police: "What are you doing here?" Martin: "I'm eating." Police: "Raymond is not a black or Jamaican name. We're taking your downtown, we're going to fingerprint you and lock you up." Martin "Why?" Police: "Shut the f--- up." Instead of taking him to the police station, Piro and Burns allegedly took Martin to his residence that he shared with a home health aide named Sylvania Allan. The two officers allegedly pushed Martin through the front doorway and entered the residence despite Allan telling them that weren't allowed to come in. After allegedly asking "persistent questions" to both Martin and Allan, the officers were satisfied and left. After reading the suit, I thought "OK, that's Mr. Martin's side of the story." Knowing that lawsuit plaintiffs and their lawyers don't always tell the unvarnished truth about encounters with police, I submitted a records request on May 7, 2010 to Monroe Township to get the police officers' side of the story. As expected, my requests were met with considerable resistance. After several exchanges with police officials and Township lawyer Kevin G. Boris, I ended up getting two relevant documents. The first is a police dispatch report showing that police were dispatched to the Stop & Shop on Perrineville Road on January 29, 2010 at 1:46 p.m. The other is an "Incident Report" prepared six days after the incident showing that Piro and Burns were dispatched to investigate a report of a "suspicious person." The narrative of the report, which s