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)

2010   2009   2008   2007   2006   2005   2004

Recent issues:

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 spans two pages, was almost totally redacted, i.e. blacked out. Martin's lawsuit, the dispatch report and the Incident Report are all on-line here: Why all the secrecy? Police officers play a unique role in society. They have the power to arrest and to use deadly weapons. With such authority comes a critical need for public oversight. In this case, Raymond Martin has publicly accused Officers Piro and Burns of engaging in "conduct [that] was obviously racist and egregious." Yet, when I attempted to learn the police department's side of the story, I was met with resistance and ultimately given two documents that are redacted so heavily that they're meaningless. The Monroe Police should release enough details regarding their encounter with Raymond Martin to allow citizens to judge whether Officers Piro and Burns acted reasonably under the circumstances. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

State pays $75,000 to family of prisoner who committed suicide

On July 10, 2009, the State of New Jersey, Department of Corrections agreed to pay $75,000 to the family of a man who allegedly hanged himself in his prison cell while incarcerated at Northern State Prison. In their suit, the family of Tyree Wilson alleged that prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to Wilson's medical needs, and that prison guards Todd Barnett and Craig Sears "failed to conduct the required rounds in the Unit in which [Wilson] was placed for close observation. The suit also accuses medical professionals employed by CFG Health Systems, LLC., a private vendor of health services, of failing to properly diagnose and treat Wilson. Wilson's family alleged that these failures, along with "injuries deliberately, wantonly and maliciously inflicted upon" Wilson led to his alleged suicide on January 16, 2005 The case is captioned Estate of Tyree Wilson v. Northern State Prison, et al., Federal Case No. 07-cv-1942 (WJM) and the Wilson family's attorney was Michael D'Aquanni of Springfield. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. There may have been a separate settlement with CFG Health Systems, LLC, but since that company is private, it does not respond to Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests. None of the family'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 the Department of Corrections or any of its employees. All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the family $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.
 

State pays $90,000 to family of prisoner who died in custody

On January 15, 2010, the State of New Jersey, Department of Corrections agreed to pay $90,000 to the mother of a man who died at Eastern State Prison on April 23, 2007. In her suit, Hazel Richardson, mother Rickie Allen Goldware, alleged that her son, classified as a psychiatric patient, was beaten by guards and forcibly medicated while strapped to a chair. The case is captioned Richardson v. State of New Jersey, Federal Case No. 09-cv-01383 and the mother's attorney was Vijayant Pawar of Morristown. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2010198A1//StateWilson.pdf None of Richardson's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $90,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Department of Corrections or any of its employees. All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Richardson $90,000 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.
 

Paff v. South Bound Brook

The July 26, 2010 Courier News reported on my lawsuit against the Borough of South Bound Brook. My lawsuit, along with my records requests and pre-suit correspondence with Borough Clerk Donald Kazar and Borough Attorney William Cooper are on-line here. I originally learned of the police investigation that is at the heart of this lawsuit by reading Robert Verry's postings on the NJ.com forums. When I learned that the Borough intended to charge Mr. Verry $375 to redact the police records related to the police investigation, I made a records request for a narrow subset of the same records Mr. Verry had requested. I had hoped that for little or no cost, I would be able to obtain records that would confirm or refute Mr. Verry's suspicions that information about this police investigation was being intentionally suppressed. (See Mr. Verry's Post 3180. "How much are YOU willing to spend?" 19:45 ET) In my May 24, 2010 records request, I stated: "This is a perfect example of a situation I've encountered many times: Where a government agency's apparent stonewalling raises a public perception that something is being covered up. . . . In my experience in similar cases, when the records are finally made available, it often becomes evident that there was no cover-up. The net results, however, are a) the taxpayers have paid their agency's lawyer (and perhaps the requestor's lawyer) substantial legal fees arising out of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) enforcement action and b) every agency official has needlessly lived under a cloud of suspicion that they or a member of their family were the target of a police investigation." In his May 24, 2010 e-mail, Mr. Kazar candidly revealed that "the investigation involved the Mayor's Wife's family but the Prosecutor's found no case" (p. 3 of the PDF file at the above link). Then, in his June 14, 2010 denial of my request, Mr. Cooper provided me with a two-page index of the records to which I was being denied access (pp. 33-34). At this point, it was apparent to me that a member of the Mayor's wife's family was involved in an investigation that produced approximately 25 investigative records, including 25 pages of photographs, a 9-page "evidence chain of custody form" and investigation reports filed by two police officers, one police sergeant and one police lieutenant. I don't know what happened or who or what was being investigated. I do believe, however, that the public's interest in knowing who was investigated, the nature of investigation and the reasons that the prosecutor chose not to file charges is greater than the Borough's interest in keeping this matter confidential. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

OPRA hearing on August 6th in Jersey City

On Friday, August 6, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., Hudson County Superior Court Judge Bernadette DeCastro will hear argument in the Open Public Records Act and common law case of Bruce D. Kowal v. City of Bayonne, et al, Docket No. HUD-L-3505-10. The lawsuit is on-line here: At issue in the case is whether Kowal, who is representing himself in the suit, is entitled to see an unredacted, or at least a more narrowly redacted, version of an Incident Report issued by the Bayonne Police Department regarding a Bayonne City Councilman found unconscious in his car by police in August 2008. The redacted incident report is at pages 59 and 60 of the PDF file at the above link. According to a September 4, 2008 Star Ledger article ("Ted Connolly blames blood pressure for passing out in his car." by Jason Fink), Councilman Connolly claimed that after he had three glasses of wine at a friend's house, he began to feel dizzy as was driving home and pulled his car to the curb. He said that he telephoned his friend on his cell and told him he was sick. He claims, however, passed out before he could complete the conversation. The friend, alarmed, called police in both New York City and Bayonne and Bayonne Police ultimately found Connolly unconscious in his car. According to the article, Connolly said that the police did not give him a Breathalyzer or take blood to determine whether he was intoxicated. He blamed his unconsciousness on low blood pressure. Kowal claims that the matter redacted from the report might provide more information on questions such as whether Mr. Connolly appeared to be intoxicated, whether he answered questions about the amount of alcohol he consumed and whether police had his car towed away from the scene. Kowal wants this information so that he can determine whether police afforded Connolly special treatment because he was a Council member. The August 6, 2010 hearing is open to the public. Those who wish to attend are encouraged to call Judge DeCastro's chambers at 201-795-6880 the morning of the hearing to ensure that it has not been cancelled or postponed. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Millville Police Dept pays $100,000 to settle sexual harassment suit

On February 22, 2010, the City of Millville (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $100,000 to a female Millville police officer who sued her follow officers for allegedly subjecting her to "repeated humiliating and degrading sexual harassment." In her suit, Jennifer Gentile claimed that her fellow officers and members of upper management would "make sexual comments about her breasts and what they desired to do to her sexually." She alleged that one of her superior officers would state that he always wanted to "get in her pants." She alleges that a male dispatcher told her that he would "bend her over and f--- the s--- out of her." She claims that she would "basically hide in her office" and take the elevator to the basement to enter and leave the building to avoid contact with the harassing co-workers. She complained that upper management was not responsive to her complaints and took no action against her harassers. The case is captioned Gentile v. Millville, Docket No. CUM-L-701-09 and Gentile's attorney was James M. Carter of Turnersville. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Gentile'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 Gentile $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.
 

Sexual Harassment in Brigantine: Open letter to Mayor and Council

I sent the following letter to Mayor Guenther and the Brigantine City Council today. The documents referenced in the letter are on-line here: I am making this letter public for two reasons. First, I want to put Brigantine taxpayers on notice that I may sue the City and that both my attorney fees and the City's might ultimately be borne by the taxpayers. Thus, it may be in citizens' interest to urge their elected representatives to disclose the requested information rather than continue to suppress it. Second, it's possible, perhaps likely, that readers might be willing to share any information they have regarding this sexual harassment matter. Please feel free to either post that information on the pennjersey.info or njo.com forums where this open letter appears or send it privately to me at paff@pobox.com I ask that readers NOT publicly post information that would identify the victim of the sexual harassment. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey ---------------------------- August 3, 2010 Hon. Philip J. Guenther, Mayor, and members of the Brigantine City Council 1417 W. Brigantine Ave Brigantine, NJ 08203 (Via E-mail only to lsweeney@brigantinebeachnj.com ) Dear Mayor Guenther and City Council members: I write both individually and as Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. The project's mission is to promote openness and transparency in government, particularly at the local level. Our work often involves requesting (and suing for) records evidencing official misconduct that public officials would rather keep hidden from the public. Please be aware that I consider this to be an "open letter" and have posted it on various Internet forums. A while back, I received an anonymous tip alleging that a) a high ranking member of the Brigantine city administration had been involved in sexual misconduct, b) that an outside law firm, at a cost of over $10,000, investigated this incident, and c) that an agreement was reached where the alleged offender was allowed to quietly retire in lieu of being disciplined. In early July, I submitted a records request for invoices that the City received from law firms. In response, I received many pages of records and among them was an April 15, 2010 invoice from Archer & Greiner, P.C. that showed that the City was billed $13,975 for a "special counsel investigation." The invoice showed that interviews were conducted, an investigation report was drafted and that an "agreement" was prepared. Upon receipt of this invoice, I submitted a more targeted records request for the records referenced in the invoice. On August 3, 2010, I received a response from Timothy P. Maguire, Esq., who serves as Brigantine's attorney. My records request was denied except that a) the City conceded that the investigation related to a sexual harassment complaint; b) that the "investigation memos" referred to in the invoice, which were not disclosed, consisted of 1) an "investigative chronology of Internal Affairs case," 2) an "investigative Internal Affairs report of Capt. Raymond Cox," 3) an "initial complaint to the Internal Affairs Unit of the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office," and 4) an "Internal Affairs Report of Capt. John B. Stone, Jr." c) that an agreement was ultimately reached "that resolved the dispute between the parties." Based on this response, it's reasonable to conclude that a city official, almost certainly an official within the police department, was accused of sexual harassment and, after an investigation, entered into some sort of agreement that resolved the matter to satisfaction of both the accused official and his or her accuser. While I appreciate the victim's desire for anonymity, I do not believe that the person accused, at least if he or she is or was a high ranking official, should remain anonymous. Instead, I think that the public's right to know the identity of the accused and the terms of the agreement between the parties outweighs any legitimate governmental need for confidentiality. Thus, I am contemplating suing the City of Brigantine for access to the parts of the denied records that a) identifies the accused official, b) provides the general nature of the official conduct complained of and c) sets forth the terms and conditions of the agreement reached with the official. My suit will specifically NOT seek to identify the alleged victim. Also, although my suit will claim that the City's denial violated the Open Public Records Act, it will also seek the records under the common law right of access, which I consider to be a stronger argument. I am informed by the City's Internet site that the Mayor and Council meets on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month. Accordingly, I ask that the Council, at either its August 4, 2010 or August 18, 2010 meeting, re-evaluate Mr. Maguire's response to my request and consider voluntarily disclosing the information set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph. Since this is "anticipated litigation," I believe that the Council's discussion could take place in executive session in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(7). While I have forty-five days within which to file my lawsuit, please keep in mind that I can't wait until the very end of that period before deciding whether or not to actual pursue a lawsuit. So, unless the City informs me, on or before Friday, August 20, 2010, that it agrees to disclose the requested information, I will consult with counsel and will file my suit, if I decide to, without further advance notice to the City. Thank you for your attention to this matter. John Paff
 

State, prosecutor and cops share $106,900 seized in illegal search

n June 20, 2010, the Hunterdon County Democrat published an article by Lillian Shupe entitled "Appeals court: $100,000 in cash that smelled like marijuana, found in car, illegally seized by Readington Twp. police." As the title implies, the article concerned an Appellate Division decision that affirmed a lower court's ruling that Readington Police conducted an improper, warrantless search of a motor vehicle within which $106,900 in cash was found. After reading the article, I wondered: Whatever happened to the seized cash? An Open Public Records Act request to the Division of Criminal Justice revealed that the State of New Jersey filed a forfeiture action against the cash. The action was captioned "State of New Jersey v. $104,900 in United States Currency, Docket No. HUN-L-378-05." Then after nobody claimed the money, the state gave $25,197.60 (24%) to the Hunterdon County Prosecutor, $37,796.40 (36%) to the Readington Police Department and kept the remaining $41,906 (40%) for itself. The forfeiture default judgment and the distribution letters to the Hunterdon Prosecutor and the Readington Police are on-line here: John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Roselle pays $3,000 in attorney fees to OPRA claimant

On August 5, 2010, the Borough of Roselle paid my lawyer, Walter Luers of Oxford, New Jersey, $3,000 to settle an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) case that began nearly three years ago. The matter began when I read a September 1, 2007 Star Ledger editorial stating that Roselle Borough (Union County) “council members also complain they haven't seen any minutes for borough meetings since last October.” In order to investigate a probable violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, I submitted a September 2, 2007 request for Borough records, including the resolutions, "that authorized the first two (2) Borough Council nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) meetings that occurred after October 1, 2006." The Borough denied this request (and similar requests) claiming that it did "not identify a document, but rather requires that a work task be done by a government employee.” Roselle's argument was that the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) does not require it figure out the first two dates after October 1, 2006 that the Borough Council went into executive session. Rather, the Borough argued, it was my job to look through the Council's public meeting minutes in order to ascertain the dates of the executive sessions, and then to identify the desired resolutions by date. I, through Mr. Luers, filed a complaint with the Government Records Council (GRC). On April 30, 2008, the GRC issued its opinion (Paff v. Roselle, GRC Case No. 2007-255) and held that my request was not an "open-ended search" that was intended "as a research tool . . . to force government officials to identify and siphon useful information." See MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J.Super 534, 546 - 549 (App. Div. 2005). It also held that my request identified the requested records "with reasonable clarity" in accordance with Bent v. Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005). Ultimately, the GRC ruled that my request was "not open-ended, nor does it require research, but rather requires the Custodian to locate the corresponding meetings and provide resolutions and meeting minutes." This case made an obvious--but I believe important--distinction between a custodian's duty to "research" agency records and "searching" for identifiable records. On June 25, 2008, the GRC ordered Roselle Borough to pay my attorney fees for bringing the action. The GRC also found that Clerk Rhona Bluestein's handling of my request appeared to be "negligent and heedless" but not serious enough to warrant her being fined $1,000. After two years, the amount of the attorney fees due was agreed to be $3,000. The settlement check, settlement agreement and other case filings are on-line here. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Complaint dismissed against 30 Gloucester Twp officials

On October 8, 2008, I filed a complaint with the Local Finance Board against thirty (30) Local Government Officers serving Gloucester Township (Camden County). I filed this complaint because each of those officers had failed to file the Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) that the Local Government Ethics Law requires to be filed on or before April 30, 2008. After I filed my complaint, the 30 officials apparently filed their tardy FDS forms--the last one to file was Zoning Board Member Kevin Bucceroni on December 5, 2008. On July 30, 2010--about a year and half after Bucceroni's filing--the Local Finance Board notified me that my complaint was "dismissed" because it "no longer [has] a factual basis." In other words, the fact that none of the officials had filed by the April 30, 2008 deadline does not, in the Local Finance Board's view, constitute a violation of the Ethics Law. Thus, local government officers are free to simply ignore the FDS filing requirements, knowing that they can simply file their tardy forms in the unlikely event that someone complains. I have been complaining for years about the Local Finance Board's failure to meaningfully enforce the Ethics Law. In one news article I was quoted as saying: "If [the Local Government Ethics Law and the attorney disciplinary system] were intended to actually punish wrongdoing, I think they fail miserably. . . I believe that a decent argument could be made that neither system was intended to ferret out unethical conduct and discipline the perpetrators. Rather, these systems were intended to placate the public and create an illusion that lawyers and politicians are actually subject to oversight." (See http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/new-jerseys-behind-the-curve-in-ethics-and-reform ) Now that I've received the 30 tardy records (actually I received 28 of them--the Local Finance Board did not send me one for Rent Stabilization Board member Laurence Lamourine and sent me the 2007 form filed by District No. 1 Fire Commissioner Ralph Ferninando), I've decided to put them on-line so that Gloucester Township residents can easily access them. The records are here. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey P.S. Observant readers will note that: a) District No. 1 Fire Commissioner Ralph Ferninando's filing indicates that he has no source of income and b) Section II.A of Fire Commissioner Kevin Donahue's form is filled out incorrectly.
 

Ethics Complaint dismissed against 12 South Amboy officials

On August 25, 2009, I filed a complaint with the Local Finance Board against twelve (12) Local Government Officers serving the City of South Amboy (Middlesex County). I filed this complaint because each of those officers had failed to file the Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) that the Local Government Ethics Law requires to be filed on or before April 30, 2008. Note that when I filed my complaint, the FDS forms were over fifteen months overdue. After I filed my complaint, the 12 officials filed their tardy FDS forms and the City forwarded the completed forms to the Local Finance Board on September 15, 2009. On July 28, 2010--more than ten months after the City had filed the tardy forms--the Local Finance Board notified me that my complaint was "dismissed" because it "no longer [has] a factual basis." In other words, the fact that none of the officials had filed by the April 30, 2008 deadline does not, in the Local Finance Board's view, constitute a violation of the Ethics Law. Thus, local government officers are free to simply ignore the FDS filing requirements, knowing that they can simply file their tardy forms in the unlikely event that someone complains. I have been complaining for years about the Local Finance Board's failure to meaningfully enforce the Ethics Law. In one news article I was quoted as saying: "If [the Local Government Ethics Law and the attorney disciplinary system] were intended to actually punish wrongdoing, I think they fail miserably. . . I believe that a decent argument could be made that neither system was intended to ferret out unethical conduct and discipline the perpetrators. Rather, these systems were intended to placate the public and create an illusion that lawyers and politicians are actually subject to oversight." (See http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/new-jerseys-behind-the-curve-in-ethics-and-reform ) Now that I've received the two tardy FDS forms, I've decided to put them on-line so that South Amboy residents can easily access them. The records are here. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey P.S. Observant readers who review the link above will note that Planning Board Member Lawrence Stratton and Zoning Board Member Jamie Stratton claim to have had NO source of income of more than $2,000 in 2008.
 

Bloomfield turns over e-mail, pays almost $5,000 in attorney fees

On June 11, 2010, Montclair Attorney Richard Gutman filed suit on my behalf against Bloomfield Township (Essex County) to force disclosure of an e-mail sent by the Essex County Prosecutor's Office to a Bloomfield Councilwoman. (Paff v. Bloomfield, Docket No. ESX-L-4384-10). Background on the suit, as well as the lawsuit documents, can be found at the following link. http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloomfield-sued-for-refusal-to-disclose.html On August 10, 2010, the Township of Bloomfield (Essex County) decided to give me the e-mail that I sued to obtain. And, Bloomfield agreed to pay $4,913 for my costs of suit and Mr. Gutman's attorney fees. A copy of the e-mail that was provided is on-line here. I believe that Bloomfield taxpayers have good reason to ask their elected officials why nearly $5,000 was paid in order to suppress a record that even the Township concedes is not exempt from disclosure. An article on the disclosure and the payment of attorney fees follows. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey ----- Detective's e-mail: Bloomfield under investigation Thursday, August 12, 2010 BY JEFF FRANKEL Bloomfield Life of Bloomfield Life BLOOMFIELD - The township has settled out of court with a government watchdog who was seeking correspondences between the prosecutor's office and a council member. As part of the settlement with Somerset County resident John Paff, the township released an e-mail between an Essex County Prosecutor's Office detective and Councilwoman Patricia Spychala and will pay Paff $4,913 in costs and legal fees. Paff, chairman of the Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project, accused the township of violating the state's Open Public Records Act. Now that he's seen at least part of the conversation, Paff said he does not understand why the information he requested was not immediately released. To him, it appears there was nothing damaging anyone's reputation. "The e-mail is innocuous," wrote Paff to Bloomfield Life. "It does nothing more than confirm what I already knew - that the prosecutor's office was conducting some sort of investigation involving Bloomfield. It's hard to understand why the township dug in its heels and spent so much money trying to suppress this e-mail. "I suppose, however, that with a bottomless well of taxpayer dollars at its disposal, the township administration can afford to make these types of decisions." These are some the same documents Bloomfield Life has tried obtaining for several months. There is a caveat: a letter and e-mail between Township Attorney Brian Aloia and Spychala's personal attorney Edward Kologi are not yet released. It is unclear if and when the township will release them. Calls made to Spychala and Aloia were not immediately returned Thursday. According to the complaint first filed in April, Paff requested the specific e-mail through OPRA but was denied by Municipal Clerk Louise Palagano, who said it was protected under attorney-client privilege. OPRA records must be turned over to anyone requesting them no longer than seven business days. Some documents - such as budgets and bills - are subject to immediate access. But there are 24 exemptions, including "any record within the attorney-client privilege," according to the state. Superior Court Judge James Rothschild was scheduled to hear the OPRA case on Sept. 16 at the Historic Courthouse in Newark. "Our office is currently conducting an investigation concerning certain allegations involving the Township of Bloomfield and believe that you may have information which could assist that investigation," reads one sentence of the entire four-sentence e-mail from Det. David Campo to Spychala. For Paff, he can see now that there is certainly no exemption that would have kept the public from seeing this e-mail, as Campo asks Spychala to call him to be interviewed. "The attorney-client privilege doesn't even arguably apply, and there is no reason why the township couldn't have just turned the e-mail over to me when I requested it," Paff wrote. E-mail: frankel@northjersey.com
 

Several OPMA issues with the Bridgeton Board of Education

I attended a meeting of the Bridgeton Board of Education (Cumberland County) on August 10, 2010 to address two concerns: a) executive session minutes that are not "reasonably comprehensible" and b) meeting agendas not being given to the public until the beginning of the meeting. I arrived for the 6 p.m. meeting at 5:45 p.m. and found the building to be locked. I rang the bell and knocked on the door and in a few minutes a man came and pushed a latch to let me in, but he didn't unlock the doors for any other members of the public who might later arrive. This gave me an initial indication that openness and transparency were not among the Board's strong suits. When I walked into the meeting room, I encountered the smell of food. I looked to my left and saw several people sitting in an adjoining room eating and conversing. I took a seat in the public area and waited. While waiting, someone from inside the adjoining room closed the door. After a few minutes, the Board members and some administrators emerged from the adjoining room and took their places on the dais. Since it was about six o'clock, someone unlocked the exterior door to allow other members of the public to enter. The meeting was then formally called to order. At that time, the president asked for a short delay while one of the staff members duplicated the meeting agenda for the four members of the public (including me) who were present. We were each given copies of the meeting agenda and were invited to sign a list if we wished to address the Board. I signed up as did one other citizen. I was called first to speak and I distributed some exhibits to the Board members. Among the exhibits was the Board's July 14, 2009 Executive Session minutes (see here) which is typical of the Board's executive session minutes. I noted that the Board summed up a private meeting that lasted nearly one and a half hours with the following sentence that appeared in the minutes: "The Board discussed matters of personnel." I opined that this single, general sentence did not meet the Open Public Meetings Act requirement that meeting minutes be "reasonably comprehensible." (See N.J.S.A. 10:4-14). I next noted that the 30-page agenda that I had just been given ought to have been provided to the public at least a day or two prior to the meeting. I explained that it is difficult, if not impossible, for members of the public to present cogent comments and questions to the Board regarding agenda items when they don't have access to the agenda until literally seconds before the public comment period begins. While I was speaking, I observed that the Board members didn't look at me or appear to be paying any attention to what I was saying. I finally raised the issue of the Board's pre-meeting in the adjoining room and expressed my opinion that this gathering was disallowed by the Open Public Meetings Act. I then thanked the Board for their attention and asked them if they had any questions or responses. None of the Board members looked at me or paid any attention to me. So, after waiting at the podium for a few seconds, I returned to my seat. The next speaker was called, and she stated that she was an employee who received a letter that she did not understand. One of the administrators told her it was Rice Notice. She then asked why her union representative wasn't present and the Board Attorney, A. Paul Kienzle, Jr., brusquely told her that her union representative's presence or absence wasn't the Board's concern. Board President Edwards asked her "Is that all?" and the woman shrugged and returned to her seat. The Board then moved to go into executive session and told the four members of the public to leave the room. The following day, I filed a complaint against the Board, concerning the pre-meeting meals, with the Cumberland County Prosecutor and the New Jersey Department of Education. That complaint is on-line here. I have rarely witnessed more cavalier and imperious public officials than the members of the Bridgeton Board of Education. I look forward to working with them to improve their compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bridgeton Board of Ed Supervisor sued for alleged racist, sexually harassing comment

I recently became aware of a lawsuit filed on September 2, 2008 by a former Bridgeton school guidance counselor against the Bridgeton Board of Education. In her suit, Combs v. Bridgeton Board of Education, Docket No. CUM-L-1069-08, Angela Combs accused her supervisor, Robert Cwik, of sexually harassing and racially discriminating against her. She also accuses school principal Lynn Williams of ignoring her complaints about Cwik's alleged conduct. The exact nature of Cwik's alleged comments, which are very graphic and should not be viewed by those who are sensitive, are contained within paragraph 23 of Comb's complaint, which is on-line here. According to Gannett's "DataUniverse" web site, Cwik and Williams received salaries of $86,537 and $123,346, respectively, from the Board of Education in 2009. The pretrial discovery period will end in October 2010 and a trial notice will issue soon thereafter. I'll be checking on this case to see if it settles or whether it goes to trial and will keep this list informed. At this point, the allegations against Cwik and Williams are just that--allegations. It their responses to the suit, both Cwik and Williams have denied the complaint's allegations. Readers, therefore, should not draw any inferences or conclusions based on these unproven allegations. 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 post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil cases are of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bridgeton Board of Education pays $54,900 in attorney fees to settle First Amendment lawsuit

On May 19, 2010, the Bridgeton Board of Education (Cumberland County) and/or its insurer agreed to pay $54,900 toward the attorney's fees of a student (identified only as C.H.) who successfully sued the Board for violating her First Amendment rights. On April 22, 2010, United States District court judge Robert B. Kugler found that the Board violated C.H.'s rights by denying her permission to 1) wear a black and red tape armband saying “Life,” 2) distribute anti-abortion flyers during non-instructional times, and 3) wear tape over her mouth during the school day as part of her participation in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. The case is captioned C.H., a minor v. Bridgeton Board of Education, Federal Case No. 1:09-cv-05815 and C.H.'s attorneys were David A. Cortman of Lawrenceville, GA and Michael W. Kiernan of Marlton, NJ. The court's decision and settlement agreement are on-line here.
 

Bridgeton Board of Education members' Financial Disclosure Statements on-line

I have placed the Financial Disclosure Statements filed in 2010 by Board President Angelia Edwards, Vice-President J. Curtis Edwards, Marie Bernstein, Brenda Dellaquilla, Kenny Smith-Bey Jr., Ronald Bowman, Mary Peterson and Willie Tukes on-line here. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Franklin Board of Ed pays $80,000 to settle racial discrimination suit

On February 22, 2010, the Franklin Township Board of Education (Somerset County) agreed to pay $80,000 to a couple who sued the Board and Franklin Park Elementary School Vice Principal Anthony Caparoso for allegedly racially discriminating against their African-American son. The couple, Desmond and Celeste Clark, claimed that Caparoso repeatedly suspended their four year old son from preschool even though the Board's own policy prohibited suspending preschool students. (The school district, however, alleges that it was not improper to suspend preschool students until 2006 when the New Jersey Department of Education specifically prohibited such suspensions.) The parents further claim that Caparoso's suspensions were a result of his racial animus toward their son. In support of this claim, the Clarks referred to a statement that Caparoso allegedly made on June 16, 2004 that "I don't like that little black kid, he reminds me of one of those little black kids in the ghetto." The case is captioned Clark v. Board of Education of the Township of Franklin, Federal Case No. 3:06-cv-02736 and the Clarks' attorney was Brian F. Curley of Morristown. 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 Clarks' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $80,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Franklin Board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Franklin Board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Clarks $80,000 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.
 

Older issues:

2009

Students settle 2005 Barrington sexual harassment case for $200K

During the summer of 2008, nine former middle school students accepted a total of $200,000 to settle their federal lawsuit against the Barrington School District. The students, all girls who were 12 to 15 during the 2003-04 school year, had sued the District and Principal Patricia Moore for failing to remedy a "sexually hostile environment" at the Woodland School.
 

Some Local Finance Board decisions on the Internet

I have collected some decisions that apply and interpret the Local Government Ethics Law and have placed them on-line here.

As time permits, I will add more decisions to the site.

Most of these decisions, while technically "public," reside in the Local Finance Board's offices in hard-copy form and are not readily available. I believe that these decisions have value, because they can help people understand how the Local Finance Board rules on an issues. For example, if a person questioned the propriety of a municipality attorney supporting and contributing the campaigns of the public officials who appoint the attorney, he or she may benefit by reading the February 18, 2009 decision regarding Hamilton Township in Atlantic County. (See 08002.pdf )

 

Article written about court's refusal to decide whether councilwoman should forfeit office

In a February 13, 2009 letter, the New Jersey Libertarian Party requested the head of the municipal courts in three South Jersey counties to direct the Westville Municipal Court make a ruling--one way or the other--on whether or not Penns Grove Councilwoman Baytops should be removed from office due to her "electioneering" conviction in 2007. An on-line newspaper called New Jersey Newsroom (www.newjerseynewsroom.com) published a news article on this issue. The article quotes First Assistant Salem County Prosecutor William Brennan as saying that the NJLP is "certainly right in [my analysis" that the Westville Municipal Court should rule on the forfeiture question.
 

$2,000 settles teacher's civil case against Barrington School District

This is a follow-up to my earlier posting regarding the $200,000 civil settlement reached in 2008 between nine former Barrington middle school students and the Barrington school district arising out the girls' claims regarding a "sexually hostile environment" at the Woodland School. See http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2009101qs/ Today, I learned that Richard Morgenroth, the teacher who the girls claimed engaged in sexual harrassing conduct, settled his own suit against the Barrington school district in February 2008. In his complaint, Morgenroth claimed that the girls conspired with former superintendent Nelson Maloney and teacher Mary Spaeth to communicate false allegations against Morgenroth. According to Morgenroth's suit, these "false, grossly negligent and exaggerated allegations" were reported to the police, causing him to endure a three-day trial which ended in his favor. In his suit, Morgenroth also accused some of the girls and their parents of referring to him as a "Jew Bastard" and that anti-Semetic discrimination played a role in the way in which he was treated.
 

No criminal charges against Woodbury Heights police officer

On March 12, 2009, Lucas K. Murray of the Gloucester County Times wrote "Pair of officers brawl at bar" regarding a bar-fight between Woodbury Heights Officer Joshua Moline and Logan Officer Stanley Kemp. (text of article below) On April 22, 2009, I followed up with the Gloucester County Prosecutor on whether or not criminal charges were filed. The response indicated that no criminal charges will be filed, but that Kemp was advised that he could pursue a disorderly persons complaint in municipal court if he wanted to.
 

NJLP looks at Wanaque's Ethical Standards Board

The Open Government Advocacy Project has recently reviewed Wanaque Borough's Ethical Standards Board and found that a) despite an ordinance requiring annual meetings, it hasn't met since 1995 and b) some of its members have failed to file Financial Disclosure Statements. The Advocacy Project filed a complaint against several Wanaque officials who have failed to file their Financial Statements. A local news story on the NJLP's efforts published in the Suburban Trends on May 6, 2009. (2009)
 

Longport Borough Settles "Sunshine Law" suit

At its May 6, 2009 meeting, the Board of Commissioners for the Borough of Longport (Atlantic County) agreed to settle an Open Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act suit brought by John Paff, who chairs the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. In his lawsuit, filed against seventeen Atlantic County municipalities last September, Paff complained that Longport failed to provide him with closed session minutes until several months after the closed session occurred, and that the Board of Commissioners privately discussed topics that were outside of the scope of topics that the Commissioners told the public would be privately discussed. In the settlement agreement, Longport's Board of Commissioners agreed to definite deadlines for production of its closed meeting minutes and agreed to more carefully identify the topics that they discuss privately.
 

Committee to privately discuss and resolve defeated school board budget

I have recently written a letter to the municipal council and school board of South Bound Brook Borough (Somerset County) after being informed that the council and school board there each selected three of its members to serve on a joint committee to evaluate, without public observation, which items should be cut from a recently defeated school budget. Anyone encountering a similar issue may find my letter useful.
 

Private eyes settle with AC cops for $30K

On December 31, 2008, Private Detectives Drewery Hayes and Shirleena Barnes, both of Mays Landing, each entered into $15,000 settlement agreements with the City of Atlantic City and Atlantic City Police Officers Scott Fenton, Rodney Ruark and John Slota. The settlement brings to conclusion the pair's federal civil rights suit brought on June 13, 2008 (Hayes et al v. City of Atlantic City et al, Federal Civil No. 08-2952(RMB))
 

Minutes of Hasbrouck Heights Ethical Standards Board

As a public service, I've scanned the minutes of the most recent three meetings of the Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County) Ethical Standards Board into a searchable PDF file and uploaded it to the Internet.
 

GRC: Do you REALLY need these records? If so, be prepared to wait.

Attorney Walter Luers published a June 15, 2009 letter he received from the Government Records Council (GRC) which illustrates the trouble the GRC is having handling cases promptly. The letter, authored by GRC Case Manager John E. Stewart, and from which Luers removed information that identified the complainant, is uploaded with this entry. After noting that the case's most recent manager is "no longer employed by the GRC," Stewart bluntly asks Luers if his client will withdraw the complaint. As Stewart puts it, "the passing of time [might] obviate the need for the requested records." Translation: "We're wondering if the GRC's failure to promptly handle your case has caused you to lose interest in the outcome." Then, Stewart makes it clear that if Luers' client isn't willing to withdraw, he or she might be in for a long wait. Stewart writes: "As of today, I have about fifty six (56) cases pending adjudication and approximately five (5) cases are cleared each month, so it may take some time before I reach your case." So, it looks like it will take about another year for the case to be adjudicated. OPRA promises that "government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State." But, if you need to enforce your rights to this "ready" access, you may be better off taking your case to Superior Court and not to the Government Records Council.
 

New Jersey cases regarding "prompt" public access to meeting minutes

The Sen. Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act (N.J.S.A. 10:4-14) requires public bodies to make their meeting minutes "promptly available." But, what does this mean? Here are the cases that I know about that shed some light on this question. PUBLISHED DECISIONS: Liebskind v. Mayor and Municipal Council of Bayonne, 265 N.J. Super. 389, 394-395 (App. Div. 1993). The Appellate Division did not take issue with the trial court's order that required the Bayonne City Council to make "copies of final meeting minutes . . . available for inspection within two weeks after each meeting and at least three business days before the next meeting." Matawan Regional Teachers Association v. Matawan-Aberdeen Regional Board of Education, 212 N.J.Super. 328 (Law Div. 1986). The court interpreted the statutory requirement of making the minutes available "promptly" in light of the Meetings Act's policy "favoring public involvement in almost every aspect of government." Id. at 330. The court held that making minutes promptly available implements the Act's overall purpose by, among other things, "[p]roviding all persons with the opportunity to take action prior to the next meeting of the public body." Id. at 331. UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS: 1. O'Shea v. West Milford Township Council, et al, (Passaic County, Docket No. L-2229-04, Passero, A.J.S.C.) Public minutes to be publicly disclosed 48 hours prior to the next meeting. 2. O'Shea and Paff v. Kearny Board of Education, (Hudson County, Docket No. L-856-07. O'Shaughnessy, J.S.C.) Public minutes to be disclosed three business days prior to the next meeting. 3. Kanter v. Mountain Lakes Borough Council (Morris County, Docket No. L-2388-07, Bozonelis, A.J.S.C.) Drafts of public minutes need to be disclosed two business prior to the next meeting. 4. Paff v. Dover Township a/k/a Toms River Township (Ocean County, Docket L-2165.07, Grasso, A.J.S.C. Nonpublic (closed or executive) minutes need to be available for the next council meeting (transcript page 10) but then changed his mind to make it 30 days (page 14). 5. Paff v. Keyport (Monmouth County, Docket No. L-3317-07, Lawson, A.J.S.C.) Nonpublic and public minutes need to be made public either 30 days after a meeting or prior to the next scheduled meeting, whichever comes first (decision page 23). Last updated: 06/22/09
 

Motion Paperwork in Paff v. Port Republic

Cross Motions have been filed by me and the City of Port Republic (Atlantic County). The issue: Within what period of time does the City Council need to publicly release the nonexempt parts of its executive session minutes?
 

Favorable settlement in OPMA/OPRA case against Howell Township

In August 2008, I filed a five count pro se lawsuit against Howell Township in Monmouth County. Today, June 27, 2009, I received in the mail a signed Consent Judgment that resolved the first three counts of the complaint. The other two counts are still pending.
 

OPRA charges limited to "actual cost"

In an unpublished trial court decision released on May 21, 2009, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg rejected the Mercer County Clerk's argument that the "actual cost" of making a copy is relevant only when the governmental entity elects to charge more than the fixed OPRA rates. Rather, Feinberg held that language in OPRA Section 5(b) is clear and unambiguous and susceptible to only one interpretation"--which is: "[T]he clear intent of the Legislature [was] to limit copying charges to the actual cost of duplication under OPRA. Indeed, the fees prescribed by [OPRA's 75c/50c/25c] fee schedule do not permit an entity to charge the maximum fees without calculating the actual cost. An entity remains responsible for calculating the actual cost at all times. The sole function of the fee schedule is to provide the maximum permissible amounts with respect to actual cost, unless an agency can demonstrate that the actual cost exceeds such rates." Feinberg's decision is contrary to that of two other Superior Court Judges: a) Stephen B. Rubin, J.S.C. in Gench v. Hunterdon County Clerk's Office, No. HNT-L-307-07 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2008), and b) Edward v. Gannon, J.S.C. in O'Shea v. Sussex County Clerk's Office, No. L-655-06 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2008)
 

Atlantic County Insurer Group issues "OPRA Bulletin."

On June 26, 2009, the Atlantic County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund Association (ACMJIFA) sent an "OPRA Bulletin" to approximately forty municipal clerks, advising them that regarding Mercer County Assignment Judge Feinberg's May 21, 2009 unpublished opinion in Getts v. Mercer County Clerk's Office (Docket No. MER-L-696-07). (The Getts opinion is at http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2009179Uo//Getts.pdf the clerks who received the Bulletin are at http://www.acmjif.org/members/acm-members.html) As previously reported here, Feinberg held that OPRA requires custodians to charge the ACTUAL COST for photocopying records and that the 75c/50c/25c copying fee schedule merely establishes a MAXIMUM COST for records. In other words, according to Feinberg, if it costs the town a nickle to make a copy, they have to charge requestors a nickle for a copy and it is irrelevant that the OPRA statute sets a maximum charge of seventy-five cents. My original posting on the Getts decision is at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2009/05/actual-cost-v-opras-75-cent50-cent25-c.html In its Bulletin, the ACMJIFA said that while Feinberg's opinion is nonbinding, it is highly likely that this determination will become law." The Bulletin goes on to say that "What that means is that public entities are still permitted to charge the maximum rate permitted by the Statute; however, if and when the law changes, there may be applications for refunds if you in fact charged more than the actual costs." The Bulletin also advises that when responsive documents are sent to a requestor via e-mail attachments, the ACMJIFA "recommend[s] that there should be no charge.
 

Hillside "Sunshine Ordinance" Compliance Date Extended

On September 8, 2008, the Township of Hillside (Union County) enacted a local "Sunshine" ordinance requiring it to become much more open and transparent. The ordinance was "voluntarily" passed by the Township Council after the filing of a citizen initiative petition, spearheaded by Councilwoman Shelley Ann Bates, that sought to force the ordinance to the ballot. (Hillside has a "Faulkner" form of government, so citizens can, by petition, bypass their elected officials and put ordinances directly on the ballot.) After realizing that the ordinance's effective date had passed and that the Township had done virtually nothing to implement it, I wrote to the Mayor and Council on June 22, 2009 threatening to file suit unless immediate steps were taken to implement the ordinance. On July 1, 2009, the Township Attorney informed me that on June 23, 2009, the day after my lawsuit threat was received, the Township Council introduced an amendment that will extend the Township's compliance date to September 8, 2009. The stated justification for the extension is that implementing the ordinance "will require the expenditure of substantial sums of money" and that the "continuing global financial and economic crises" require further evaluation of the "manner and timing in which which the various components of the Ordinance are to financed and implemented so as to to ensure that the Township is not overburdened with unreasonable, irresponsible or unanticipated costs . . ." The Township Attorney also informed me that Councilwoman Bates will take over as chair of the previously inactive committee that is tasked with overseeing the ordinance's implementation. The ordinance to extend the Township's compliance deadline is set for final reading and passage on July 7, 2009 at 7 PM.
 

GRC closed session minutes challenged

In a July 3, 2009 letter, I question the sufficiency of the Government Records Council's closed session minutes.
 

Asbury Park Questioned on Executive Meeting Procedure

In a July 3, 2009 letter, the New Jersey Libertarian Party's (NJLP) Open Government Advocacy Project expressed concern over whether or not the Asbury Park City Council is properly abiding by the Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act (also known as the "Sunshine Act."). In its letter, the NJLP stated that a) the City Council cannot refuse to release its executive meeting minutes in redacted form until after the minutes are "approved" by the Council; b) that the Council's private conversation about bicycle traffic appears to have violated the Sunshine Law; and c) that the Council cannot, while in executive session, discuss matters other than those listed in the session's authorizing resolution.
 

Order entered in Paff v. City of Port Republic

On June 26, 2009, Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Steven P. Perskie, in Paff v. Absecon et al, ordered the City of Port Republic to make its public and nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) minutes available to the public within 30 days after a meeting or prior to the next scheduled meeting, whichever comes first.
 

State ordered to release settlement agreement

On May 9, 2008, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda R. Feinberg ruled in my favor in my Open Public Records Act case against the Division of Law. At issue was the Division's denial of my OPRA request for a settlement agreement arising out of a civil rights lawsuit filed against the New Jersey State Police. I was ably represented by Richard Gutman, Esq. of Montclair and the Division of Law was represented by Deputy Attorney General Sarah B. Campbell, Esq. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Cracking the 75/50/25 OPRA fee schedule

In the past week or so, four news articles and editorials have been published that show that many municipalities around the state are scrambling to drastically lower the cost of paper copies. Those articles are downloadable here. 07/02/09 Article - New Jersey Law Journal "Town Insurers Fear Effects of Ruling Limiting OPRA Charges to Actual Costs" 07/05/09 Article - Daily Record (Morristown). "Can cost a bundle for Morris public records." 07/08/09 Editorial - Daily Record (Morristown). "The cost of public records Towns should follow court guidance and reduce fees." 07/08/09 Article - New Jersey Herald (Newton). "Towns slash public records fees" I urge readers to inform their local officials about this cost-lowering movement and urge them to follow suit.
 

Fines sought for Sunshine violation

As an open government advocate, I often encounter local bodies that do not publicly release their executive session meeting minutes promptly enough. It is rare, however, for me to find a public body that doesn't even KEEP minutes of its closed session. Unfortunately, such is the case with Fire District No. 3 in Monroe Township (Middlesex County). I believe that failure to keep minutes of meetings is such a fundamental and egregious violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, I have requested the Middlesex County Prosecutor to levy fines upon the District 3 Board of Fire Commissioners.
 

Asbury Park to better comply with Sunshine Law

In a July 10, 2009 letter, Asbury Park City Attorney Frederick C. Raffetto, writing on behalf of the Mayor and City Council, agreed to modify the Council's executive session procedure to better comply with the Sen. Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act. Raffetto's letter was in response to a July 3, 2009 letter from the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project (NJLP) that expressed three concerns regarding the City's closed meeting procedure. Specifically, the NJLP expressed concern that a) minutes of executive sessions were not being promptly disclosed the the public, b) the Council discussed an issue in executive session that ought to have been discussed in public, and c) the Council would privately discuss issues other than those listed on the executive session's agenda.
 

Atlantic County OPMA Transcript available on-line

The transcript of the June 26, 2009 oral argument of my OPMA case against the City of Port Republic (Atlantic County) is on the Internet. Despite City Attorney Salvatore Perillo's attempts to complicate the issue presented, Judge Stephen P. Perskie ruled on the sole, narrow before the Court: Whether the City Council is required by law to publicly disclose some version of the minutes of its executive sessions promptly after the meeting. Perskie took care to NOT opine on other issues, such the level of detail that closed minutes need to contain. He ultimately ordered that the City Council "shall publicly disclose draft versions of the City Council's nonpublic meeting minutes, redacted as lawfully allowed, within thirty (30) days after the nonpublic meeting is held or prior to the City Council's next scheduled meeting, whichever occurs first." The transcript is entertaining. Perskie is obviously frustrated when Perillo seems to be evading his direct questions. For example, at page 19, Perskie asks Perillo: "Which one of us is Abbott and which one is Costello?" Perillo's reply: "Hopefully neither."
 

Appellate Court reinstates Monmouth corrections officer

In a decision released July 16, 2009, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court reversed Monmouth County's firing of corrections officer Michael Brown. The county had terminated Brown, who had worked there for 17 years, after a July 2004 random drug test allegedly disclosed that he tested positive for marijuana. According to the appellate court, "the County's entire case was based upon incompetent, inadmissible evidence" and that "the testimony and the documentary evidence are so substantially lacking in reliability that they cannot support the County's case against" Brown. Monmouth County taxpayers may want to submit Open Public Records Act requests to determine how much tax money was wasted in this debacle.
 

Monroe Board threatened with OPRA suit

Since I last reported on Monroe Fire District No. 3's noncompliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, I have threatened to file a civil suit for injunctive relief against the District. Today, I received a vague response and conflicting from the District's lawyer, Robert M. Schwartz of Monroe, to which I responded.
 

Sample of Asbury Park Zonging and Planning Minutes on-line

 

Monmouth Settlement Agreement case to be reviewed by Supreme Court

In a July 20, 2009 Order, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to review the Appellate Division's March 17, 2009 published decision in Asbury Park Press and John Paff v. Monmouth County. This is the ruling that held that the Asbury Park Press and I were entitled, under OPRA, to a copy of a settlement agreement in a sexual harassment case filed by a county employee against a county official.
 

Hasbrouck Heights Ethics Board mulls fate of nonfilers

On June 2, 2009, I filed a complaint with the Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County) Ethical Standards Board alleging that twenty-six Borough officials failed to file the Financial Disclosure Statements that were due to be filed on April 30, 2008. I recently was informed that the Ethical Standards Board will meet on August 10, 2009 to "determine the penalty that shall be imposed upon those who were charged with respect to violation of the 2008 Financial Disclosure Statement."
 

Atlantic County OPMA Suit

On October 3, 2008, I filed a civil complaint against seventeen (17) Atlantic County municipalities to correct their noncompliance with the Sen. Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act. The suit concluded yesterday. Of the seventeen defendant municipalities, I entered into Consent Judgments with sixteen of them and won a summary judgment against one.
 

Middletown Financial Disclosure Complaint Dismissed

My complaint against several Middletown officials for failure to file their Financial Disclosure Statements or for not filing them correctly was dismissed, after most of the officials filed late or corrected their forms.
 

State Police dismiss Internal Affairs Complaint

On March 19, 2009, I filed an Internal Affairs complaint against two State Troopers for conducting an illegal, warrantless search of a car on the New Jersey Turnpike on February 24, 2007. Trial and appellate courts both suppressed the illegally gained evidence after finding that the Trooper's search violated the Fourth Amendment. What had prompted me to file the complaint was Trooper Lewis Locchetto's testimony in the trial court that the warrantless search was not an accident or an aberration. Rather, Locchetto testified, it is the policy and practice of the New Jersey State Police to search motor vehicles without regard to whether or not a search warrant is legally required. In its June 5, 2009 letter, the State Police informed me Trooper Locchetto's unconstitutional search, "did not violate any of the New Jersey State Police Standard Operating Procedures, Rules and Regulations, or laws of the State of New Jersey." Apparently, the State Police do not feel that their internal policies need to conform to the Constitution.
 

Forfeiture of Office Statute

I have asked two New Jersey Supreme Court committees to consider promulgating a rule to prevent, or at least make it harder for, municipal prosecutors to evade their responsibility to seek "forfeiture" of office sanctions, in appropriate cases, against municipal officials who are charged with offenses that may touch upon their offices. This letter arises out of my unsuccessful effort to have the question of whether Penns Grove Councilwoman Tami Baytops should have forfeited her office after being convicted of an "electioneering" offense.
 

Howell Council Executive Minutes

I've posted the May 6, 2008, May 20, 2008 and July 15, 2008 Howell Township Council's executive session minutes online. I posted to versions of the same minutes: 1) redacted (i.e. partially suppressed) form that were given to me prior to my Open Public Meetings Act lawsuit being filed and 2) unredacted (i.e. complete) form as provided after my lawsuit was completed.
 

Hoboken sued for Meetings Act violation

I recently sued the Hoboken City Council on a single issue: Did the City Council violate the Meetings Act's "promptly available" mandate by refusing to disclose even redacted minutes of an executive session held approximately eight months earlier? Instead of proceeding by summons and complaint, as I normally do, I asked the court to issue an order to show cause and to temporarily restrain the Hoboken Council, while the case is pending, from refusing to make the nonexempt portions of its executive session meeting minutes "promptly available." I requested the court, for the purposes of the temporary restraint, to define "promptly available" as "within 30 days after each meeting or prior to the next scheduled meeting, whichever comes first." This is consistent with the rulings of Judges Lawson and Perskie in my cases against Keyport Borough (Monmouth County) and Port Republic City (Atlantic County), respectively. Hudson County Superior Court Assignment Judge Maurice J. Gallipoli denied my request for temporary restraints, but issued an order to show cause that will be heard on Friday, August 28, 2009 in Jersey City.
 

Lawnside Police Sergeant and Patrolman settle discipline suit with Borough

In agreements signed on July 15, 2009, Lawnside Police Sergeant William Plenty and Police Officer Daniel Battista settled a civil suit they had filed in July 2008 against the Borough of Lawnside and several Borough officials. In their lawsuit (Battista et al v. Borough of Lawnside, et al, Docket No. CAM-2607-08), Plenty and Battista alleged that the Borough suspended them from duty "immediately and without pay" without affording them "an opportunity to be heard why an immediate suspension without pay was necessary." Plenty had been suspended for twenty days and Battista had been suspended for fifteen days. The pair also accused the Borough as having "never properly adopted rules and regulations for the discipline of members of the police department as required by law." The pair, who were represented in the suit by Christopher A. Gray, Esq. of Helmer, Paul, Conley & Kasselman of Haddon Heights, sought back pay, compensatory damages, attorney fees, a purging of the incident from their personnel files and damages "compensating the Plaintiffs for emotional pain and suffering" caused by the Lawnside officials. The suspensions arose out of Plenty's and Battista's enforcement of the Borough's curfew ordinance against six juveniles in the early morning hours of January 27, 2008. According to police investigation records, after taking the juveniles to the police station, Plenty inexplicably "grabbed" one of the male juveniles, "and kissed him on his forehead while they were in the hallway of police headquarters." According to police records, the kissing incident was caught on video, which was reviewed by Lieutenant Allison Turner of the Camden County Prosecutor's Office. Turner found that Plenty's "unwarranted and inappropriate touching" of the juvenile did not warrant criminal charges against Plenty. However, the Lawnside Police Department charged that the kissing incident was "unbecoming of an officer" and "subversive to the good order and discipline of the Department." Plenty and Battista were also charged with improperly transporting juveniles, releasing the juveniles to people other than their parents or legal guardians (one juvenile had been released to an older sibling) and failing to inform the juveniles' parents or legal guardians that they had been detained. The pairs' lawsuit was settled prior to trial. Both Plenty and Battista accepted a one-day suspension, a letter of reprimand in their files and agreed to take additional regarding the handling of juveniles.
 

How to get a tenured teacher fired

An acquaintance of mine has been working on getting a tenured school teacher disciplined in light of a) her third drunk driving conviction, which netted her a 180 jail term, b) information that she was at least once removed from her classroom for being intoxicated while on the job. My acquaintance wrote to his representative in the General Assembly to learn the procedure for getting the teacher disciplined and the Assembly representative, in turn, asked the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) to set forth the procedure in writing. The OLS's response indicates that there are two mechanisms that a citizen can employ to bring formal action against a tenured teacher: a) seeking dismissal under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10, and b) pursuing suspension or revocation of the teacher's teaching certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.6(a)(8). I believe that this information from OLS might be of interest to members of the NJLP as well as the general public.
 

Irvington pays out $130,000 on two police-dog bite cases

Five men have accepted a total of $130,000 in settlement of their claims against the Irvington Township (Essex County) Police. Each of the men alleged that Irvington police officers intentionally caused police dogs named Bullet and Apollo to maul them while they were handcuffed. The cases are Lopez et al v. City of Irvington, Case No. 2:05-cv-05323 and Egoavil v. City of Irvington, Case No. 2:06-cv-01869. The Lopez case settled on March 6, 2008 for $115,000 and the Egoavil case settled on April 27, 2009 for $15,000. All the men were represented by Robert B. Woodruff, Esq. of Morristown. In his complaint, Lopez alleges that on May 2, 2004, he was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a squad car and questioned. Police Officer Alfredo Aleman, who was not satisfied with Mr. Lopez's answers to the questioning, released the dog into the back seat and closed the doors. The police then watched as the dog tore into Mr. Lopez's left shoulder. Mr. Lopez was reportedly still handcuffed while the dog mauled him. Egoavil, in his suit, claimed that a police dog, while under the control of Police Officer Steven Woodard, "ripped at [Egoavil's] face as he lay on his stomach, hand cuffed and unable to defend himself from the attack." None of the men's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $130,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Irvington Township, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the men $130,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Irvington's 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 Irvington 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.
 

State pays $21,000 to settle claim against "sex talk" Camden Probation Officer

On June 4, 2009, the New Jersey Attorney General's office paid a $21,000 settlement to a Franklinville woman who claimed that Camden County child support enforcement officer Martin Kay required her to engage her in graphic sexual dialogue in exchange for working on her case file. In her civil lawsuit(Camden County Superior Court, Docket No. L-3552-07), Gladys Madden said that she had contacted the Camden County Probation Department for help in collecting overdue child support payments from her ex-husband. Her case was signed to Kay. She claimed that during a sixteen month period in 2005 and 2006, Kay would repeatedly ask her questions regarding about her physical characteristics, such as her bra size, and request that she remove her clothing. She also claimed that when she complained to Kay's superiors, no action was taken. Madden's claims against Kay, as well as similar claims made by other women, were reported on June 26, 2008 by WTXF-Fox News (Philadelphia). A clip of the coverage is on-line at http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/FOX_Investigates_Child_Support_Worker_Harassed_Moms Madden was represented in her suit by Michael Aimino, Esq. of Woodbury. None of Madden's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $21,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Kay or anyone else. All that is known for sure is that the State, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Madden $21,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the State's 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 Madden's claims were true and State 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.
 

Union County questioned on ethics law compliance

In an August 24, 2009 letter, I question Union County's compliance with the Local Government Ethics Law.
 

Montclair opens meeting to the public

The cited article appeared in the Montclair Times. It reports on a letter that I had sent to the Montclair Township Mayor and Council regarding an Open Public Meetings Act violation.
 

Bulk of Springfield Police Officer's Complaint Dismissed

On August 26, 2009, Union County Superior Court Judge Kathryn A. Brock issued a 40-page decision that dismissed the majority of the claims that Springfield Police Officer Walter Brooks' brought in his 2007 civil lawsuit against Police Chief William Chisholm and Springfield Township. The remainder of the claims will probably be adjudicated shortly after a court ordered four month discovery period is concluded. Brooks, who is African-American, claimed that Chisholm and the Township racially discriminated against him in violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination. Brock's decision, along with Brooks' lawsuit, are provided with this report. Brock's decision provides some insight into the Springfield Police Department's inner workings. For example, the decision (page 7), reveals that in 2007, Chief Chisholm was found to have violated the Township's harassment policy and was required to successfully complete a harassment training program.
 

South Amboy Officials Fail to File Financial Disclosure Statements

I am uploading a file of my complaint with the Local Finance Board regarding several South Amboy officials failure to file their Financial Disclosure Statements.
 

Complaint filed against nineteen Gloucester City officials

On September 11, 2009, a Complaint was filed with the Local Finance Board against nineteen (19) Gloucester City (Camden County) officials, including one member of the the City Council, who failed to file financial disclosure forms that were due over sixteen months ago.
 

Atlantic City pays $40,000 to police abuse claimant

In November 2008, Seth Rouzier of Bridgeport, Connecticut, accepted $40,000 in settlement of his claim against Atlantic City Police Officers Frank Timek and Richard Lasco. In his lawsuit, Rouzier alleged that the two officers physically assaulted him in connection with their November 5, 2005 investigation of an incident at the Hard Rock Cafe on the Boardwalk at Virginia Avenue. According to Rouzier's lawsuit, the Hard Rock's manager called police after a patron had kicked the front door. Rouzier contents that he was waiting for a food takeout order at the Hard Rock when one of the officers placed him a choke hold, wrestled him to the floor and handcuffed him. Rouzier further alleges that Officers Timek and Lasco put him the back seat of their patrol car, took him into an alley, sprayed him in the face with pepper spray and "said something to the effect of 'welcome to Atlantic City.'" When they finally got to the police station, Rouzier's lawsuit contends, the two officers dragged him out of the patrol car by his ankles. Since he was still handcuffed, that "caused him to flop down hard on the concrete floor." Thereafter, he alleges that the officers stood him up and "pushed him hard into a wall at least three times." The case is captioned Rouzier v. Timek et al, Case No. 2:07-cv-5218. Rouzier's lawyer was Raoul Bostillo of Union City. The Settlement Agreement contains a confidential clause that requires Rouzier to not disclose the amount of the settlement. Fortunately for the public, such confidential clauses are trumped by the public's right to know. According to a July 31, 2008 Press of Atlantic City article, Officer Lasco was involved in a previous lawsuit which Atlantic City settled for $95,000. According to the Press article, Sara Mulrooney alleged in her lawsuit that Lasco and another officer, Russell Bouffard, gave her a prescription painkiller which caused her to fall face-first onto the Boardwalk. According to her suit, Lasco and Bouffard invited Mulrooney, who was 20 years old at the time, into their patrol car and gave her Tramadol, a strong painkiller. According to the suit, the pair of officers, once their shift ended, took the underaged girl to a nightclub where the girl drank alcohol in front of the officers. The Press reports that city officials confirmed that Lasco and Bouffard received, respectively, 40 and 180 day unpaid suspensions due to the incident. None of Rouzier'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 the city or either of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Atlantic City, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Rouzier $40,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Atlantic City's 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. 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.
 

Margate to Require Employees and Officers to use City e-mail accounts

The City of Margate (Atlantic County) will soon require its officers and employees who use e-mail for municipal business to use their "margate-nj.com" e-mail addresses and not their personal e-mail addresses (e.g. Yahoo.com, Gmail.com, Verizon.net, etc.) The City's policy change was announced in a September 3, 2009 letter sent in response to an August 31, 2009 letter I sent the City in my capacity as Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. In my letter I had noted that the City's response to my recent OPRA request showed that a) all of the City's elected officials were sending and receiving e-mails concerning City business using their personal e-mail accounts, and b) the City's existing "E-mail Voice Mail and Internet Usage Policy" did not address the City's responsibility to maintain and archive official e-mails in case a records requestor later sought access to those e-mails. By requiring City officials to use only their municipal e-mail addresses for official business, the City's e-mail server will preserve those e-mails for future disclosure. Under the City's previous policy, there was often no straightforward way for a records requestor to gain access to some official e-mails. For example, if a member of the City Council lost his or her council seat as of January 1, 2009, and a record requestor later asked for official e-mails that the council member sent in November 2008, there would be no easy way for the City records custodian to honor that request if the council member used a Yahoo.com or Gmail.com account to send the requested e-mails.
 

Pemberton Councilwoman fined $200 for Ethics Infraction

On September 14, 2009, the New Jersey Local Finance Board (LFB) assessed a $200 penalty against a Pemberton Township Council member for violating the state's Local Government Ethics Law (LGEL). In its decision, the LFB found that Councilwoman Sherry Scull violated the LGEL by voting to adopt an ordinance that increased the salary of her husband's supervisor. The LFB noted the supervisor who received the pay increase--Raymond Williams--was Scull's husband's at the Township's water department. The LFB determined that "given the scope of control wielded by" Williams over Scull's husband--Harry Scull--the Councilwoman "had a direct or indirect personal involvement" that "might reasonably be expected to impair her objectivity or independence of judgment." The matter was brought to the LFB's attention by the New Jersey Libertarian Party and a Pemberton resident. Scull has thirty days within which to appeal the ruling.
 

Court finds that home and e-mail addresses are public records under OPRA

In an October 27, 2009 9-page written opinion, Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Vincent J. Grasso ruled that the Township of Plumsted must provide an OPRA requestor: a) a list of the e-mails of those who signed up to receive the Township's "Plumsted Township Alerts," and b) copies of Tort Claim Notices filed against the Township without redactions of the addresses of those filed the tort claim notices. On page 8 of his decision, Judge Grasso stated that his ruling was limited to the case's particular facts, and that it should not be taken as a broad ruling that home and e-mail addresses are always available under OPRA. Judge Grasso said that "under a different scenario, it is conceivable that that one's home address or e-mail could be protected from public access."
 

Seaside Park pays $225,000 to police abuse claimant

On September 16, 2009, Alexander Casey, who receives mail at a post office box in New Vernon, New Jersey, accepted $225,000 as full settlement of his excessive force claim against the Borough of Seaside Park (Ocean County) and several members of its police department. Casey's civil lawsuit, filed in June 2007, arose out his encounter with Seaside Police Officers Christopher Bonner, Jillian Dworzanski, Michael Garvey, Matthew Brady, Christopher R. Graham, Joseph M. Luna, Ryan Jenkins and Rafiq Abdul-Ghafur during the early morning hours of June 10, 2005. Casey alleges that walked from the Terrace Motel to the beach across the street via the sand dunes and was approached by officers while lying on the beach. He claims that Officer Abdul-Ghafur told him that he was under arrest and that he offered no resistance to the arrest. During his arrest, Casey claimed that the six officers verbally and physically abused him by punching and kicking him in the face and head, spraying him with OC spray, hitting him in the head with police batons, kicking sand in his eyes and rubbing his injured face in the sand and handcuffing him so tightly as to cause injury. Casey further alleged that after he arrived at the Seaside Park Police Headquarters, the six officers continued to spray him in face with OC spray while he was handcuffed in his cell and denied him medical treatment for his injuries. He claims that his injuries were so severe that the Ocean County Jail refused to admit him and required him to be transported to Community Medical Center for medical treatment. The case is captioned Casey v. Borough of Seaside Park, Case No. 3:07-cv-02704-JAP-DEA . Casey's lawyer was Michael J. Fioretti of Bridgeton.. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Casey's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $225,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Borough of any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Park, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Casey and his lawyer $225,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Seaside Park's 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 Seaside Park 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.
 

Manchester pays $10,000 to settle malicious prosecution suit

On August 18, 2009, James Wall of Jackson, New Jersey, accepted $10,000 in settlement of his malicious prosecution lawsuit against the Township of Manchester (Ocean County), its Mayor and Zoning Officer. In his suit, which was filed on June 5, 2008, Wall alleged that Manchester Zoning Officer Donald Cain, with an improper motivation, issued sixty-seven zoning citations against him during a nine-month period in 2006 and 2007. Of the sixty-seven complaints, all of which regarded Wall's property at 3051 Highway 547, Wall claims that six resulted in administrative dismissals by the prosecutor, sixty were dismissed by the court and one resulted in a negotiated plea agreement. Wall alleged that the ticket writing blitz was a "common scheme" developed by Cain and Manchester Mayor Michael Fressola "to harass [Wall] and constituted "an orchestrated attempt to force [Wall] to sell [his] property to a neighboring property owner." The case is captioned Wall v. Manchester Township, Case No. 3:08-cv-02801-AET-TJB . Wall's lawyer was Tennant D. Magee, Sr. of Brielle. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Wall'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 the Township or any of its officers. All that is known for sure is that Manchester, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Wall and his lawyer $10,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Manchester's 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 Manchester 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.
 

Sussex County pays $25,830 to jail inmates who were "ankle deep" in sewage

On September 10, 2009, five men who were inmates in the Sussex County Jail accepted a total of $25,830 as full settlement of their lawsuit for damages resulting from raw sewage backing up into their cells. Of the sum, the inmates each received $3,340, for a total of $16,700, while the remainder went for their attorney's fee and other costs. The backup, which occurred on June 12, 2005, entered into the cells of inmates Jeffrey Bissonette, Matthew Everhart, Shawn Laverty, Thomas Piscotty and Jack Asencio, all of whom were being held in isolation in the jail's disciplinary unit. In their lawsuit, the men claimed that jail officials refused their requests to be removed from their cells and were forced to eat their meals there and to clean up the mess. The backup was apparently caused by another inmate flushing a blanket down a toilet. The case is captioned Everhart et al v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Sussex, Case No. 07-cv-02650-FSH . The inmates' lawyer was Damiano M. Fracasso of Mount Olive. The settlement agreements require the inmates to keep the settlement terms "as confidential as possible under the circumstances." Such confidentiality agreements, however, do not supersede the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). None of the mens' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $25,830 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the County or the its jail officials. All that is known for sure is that Sussex County, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the men and their lawyer $25,830 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Sussex County's 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 Sussex County 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.
 

South Bound Brook challenged on Executive Session minutes

I sent a letter, dated November 2, 2009, to the South Bound Brook Mayor and Council asking them to develop consistent policies regarding a) timely release of the Council's Executive Session minutes and b) timely review and approval of those minutes.
 

Court rules on OPRA and OPMA case

On October 28, 2009, Camden County Superior Court Judge Louis R. Meloni issued a written opinion in the case of Cassel v. Township of Haddon et al, Docket No. CAM-L-1426-09.
 

Lawnside pays $350,000 to settle female cop's harassment suit

In October 2009, Carmen Chapman, a police officer for Lawnside Borough (Camden County), accepted $350,000 in settlement of her lawsuit against the Borough and her supervisors within the Borough's police department. In her lawsuit, filed on April 4, 2008, Chapman, who was Lawnside's first female police officer when appointed in 2002, alleged that Public Safety Director John Cunningham and Sergeant Lloyd Lewis (now a lieutenant) engaged in a pattern of misconduct against her. Specifically, Chapman alleges that Lewis, who was her supervisor, continually asked her to socialize with him outside of work hours and repeatedly suggested that they get "together for drinks." After her swearing-in ceremony, while other officers shook her hand, Chapman alleges that Lewis "grabbed and hugged" her. Chapman alleges that she always rebuffed Lewis' advances, but was nonetheless "verbally reprimanded for inappropriate contact with Lewis by then Public Safety Director George D. Pugh." She further alleges that Lewis harassed her by instructing officers of the Barrington Police Department not to provide back up to her and her partner should they call for backup, failing to supply her with necessary equipment and for applying the department's bereavement leave policy to her differently than to other, male officers. As to Cunningham, Chapman alleges that shortly after taking his position in May 2006, he started subjecting her and her activities to a level of scrutiny different than that applied to male police officers. She also alleges that while she was on medical leave after having surgery on her right knee due to a work injury, Cunningham determined that she was unfit for duty, stopped her salary from being paid and had a disciplinary notice served upon her at her home. The case is captioned Chapman v. Borough of Lawnside, Case No. 1:08-cv-01695-NLH-JS . Chapman's lawyer was Jacqueline M. Vigilante of Mullica Hill. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Chapman and the Borough from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. The settlement agreement also requires Chapman to resign on December 31, 2009 if she does not receive employment with another agency by then. None of Chapman's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $350,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Township or any of its officers. All that is known for sure is that Lawnside, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Chapman and her lawyer $350,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Lawnside's 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 Lawnside 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.
 

Princeton pays $67,500 to woman denied access to toilet during traffic stop

On August 1, 2009, Princeton resident Linda Fahmie-Arnold accepted $67,500 in settlement of her lawsuit against Princeton Borough and the Borough's police department. In her lawsuit, filed on August 13, 2008, Arnold alleged that she was "brutally treated" by Police Officer Adam Basatemur during an April 30, 2007 traffic stop on Route 206 South. She alleges that after being stopped, she told Basatemur that she "was having severe stomach cramps and that she needed to use a bathroom quickly and that she lived a short distance away." According to her complaint, Basatemur told her "on two separate occasions that if he had to use the bathroom that she should go behind a tree." Further, she alleges that "Basatemur humiliated, embarrassed and/or treated her inhumanely by watching her go to the bathroom in direct and clear violation of her federally and state protected constriction rights." She claimed that Basatemur issued her a motor vehicle ticket which was later dismissed. According to the filed complaint, Police Chief Anthony V. Federico, after learning of the incident told Arnold that Basatemur's conduct was "inexcusable and unprofessional" and violated numerous police department rules. Arnold alleges that Basatemur was suspended for two months due to the incident. The case is captioned Arnold v. Borough of Princeton, Case No. 3:08-cv-04125-MLC-TJB. Arnold's lawyer was Todd J. Leonard of Morristown. None of Arnold's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Township or any of its officers. All that is known for sure is that Princeton, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Arnold and her lawyer $67,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Princeton's 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 Princeton 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.
 

GRC: Unrelated requests can be on same OPRA form

On November 6, 2009, the Government Records Council (GRC) released its decision in Anonymous v. Long Hill Board of Education (GRC Complaint No. 2008-192). The issue presented was whether the custodian could lawfully require the requestor to submit separate Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request forms for each item requested rather than including multiple requests on a single form. The GRC held that although there may be some circumstances in which a custodian may require a requestor to submit separate OPRA request forms, such as if the request is extremely voluminous, the requestor in this case sought access to only four records: a meeting agenda; two sets of meeting minutes; and a pupil enrollment report. Since this was not a voluminous request, the GRC held that the school board's custodian, John Esposito, violated OPRA by requiring the requestor to complete separate request forms for each item requested. Indeed, the GRC held that the custodian's "practice provides a road block for a requestor to gain access to government records." While the GRC declined to find that the custodian "knowingly and willfully" violated OPRA, it did find that Anonymous was a "prevailing party" under OPRA and ordered the Board of Education to pay Anonymous' lawyer--Walter Luers of Oxford--his attorney fees.
 

Appellate Division: OPRA requires disclosure of "Use of Force" reports

In a November 9, 2009 published opinion, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division upheld a lower court's ruling that police "use of force" reports, with the names of suspects who were not arrested or charged redacted, are public records subject to disclosure under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). The case is Martin O'Shea v. Township of West Milford, Docket No. A-1185-08, and the decision is available on-line. The reports at issue are those that the New Jersey Attorney General requires police officers to complete whenever force is used against a citizen. Examples of force include unholstering a firearm, striking with a police baton or applying a chemical spray. The Attorney Generals's rule and regulations regarding use of force are on-line at http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/useofforce2001.pdf Examples of actual Use of Force Reports, from the Cranbury Township (Middlesex County) Police Department are on-line. Mr. O'Shea was represented by Richard Gutman of Montclair. The American Civil Liberties Union and North Jersey Media Group were amici curiae and were represented by Bobby Conner, Edward L. Barocas, Jeanne LoCicero and Jennifer A. Borg.
 

GRC issues "Alert" and updates "Model Request Form" and "Custodian Handbook."

On November 9, 2009, the Government Records Council (GRC): a) Issued an "OPRA Alert" advising records custodians that ordinances are not needed to establish "special service charges" and that such charges need to be determined on a case by case basis. This "OPRA Alert" is available at b) Adopted a new "model form" for OPRA requests. The new form, which is on-line at http://www.nj.gov/grc/public/docs/modelrequest.pdf , among other changes: a) provides a space for requestors to make requests under the common law right of access in addition to OPRA and b) requires only those requestors who seek "records containing personal information" to certify to their criminal histories. c) Updated its "Custodian Handbook." The updated version is on-line at http://www.nj.gov/grc/pdf/Custodians_Handbook%20.pdf
 

OPRAing "high speed" audiotapes

Many local governments record the audio of their meetings on tape as opposed to compact disc. One complaint that frequently arises is that the tapes are recorded at "high speed" and are impossible to listen to on ordinary cassette players. When requestors ask for versions of the tapes that can actually be listened to, they are typically informed that satisfying their request is technologically impossible or that it is possible only upon payment of a prohibitively expensive "special service charge." I have learned of a lawsuit filed in Camden County Superior Court that addressed this issue and resulted in a settlement under which the Borough agreed to provide future requestors with tapes at "normal speed." The case is Susan Scoblink-O'Neill v. Borough of Haddon Heights, Docket No. L-4390-08. The civil complaint and settlement agreement are on-line. The Plaintiff was represented by Donald M. Doherty, Jr. of West Berlin.
 

Ridgewood Board of Education

The Ridgewood Board of Education suspended a tenured employee without pay and has threatened to file certified tenure charges against him or her. Of course, the Board's position is that the public is not entitled to know the identity of this employee or the nature of the charges. Thus, I'm trying to gain this information through and OPRA request.
 

Dunellen pays $7,500 to settle nonspecific claims of police misconduct

On October 15, 2009, Plainfield resident Chauncey Scott and his parents, Ernest Scott and Donna Scott, accepted $7,500 in settlement of their lawsuit against Dunellen Borough and its police department. The lawsuit, filed in State Court in early 2008, is vague. It alleges only that that Dunellen engaged in unspecified acts of misconduct against Chauncey Scott on February 22, 2006. While most such complaints recite specific details regarding the alleged misconduct, this one does not. The complaint was drafted by the Scotts' lawyer, Gerald Gordon of New Brunswick. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. None of the Scotts' allegations--whatever they are--have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Borough or any of its officers. All that is known for sure is that Dunellen, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the Scotts and their lawyer $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Dunellen's 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 Dunellen 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 Board of Ed pays $175,000 in alleged child molestation case

On October 19, 2009, a twelve-year old girl and her mother, accepted $175,000 in settlement of a lawsuit arising out of the girl's claim that she had been sexually molested by a school janitor. In her suit, which was filed on August 21, 2008, the girl alleged that on October 24, 2003, when she was six years old and a first grade student at the Chelsea Heights School, school janitor Reinaldo Rodriguez "sexually molested her by rubbing her inner thighs while she was seated in the school cafeteria." The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. The girl and her mother were represented by Michael J. Mackler of Atlantic City. None of the girl's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $175,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Atlantic City Board or any of its officers. All that is known for sure is that the Atlantic City Board, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay the girl and her lawyer $175,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the Atlantic City Board's 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 Atlantic City Board 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.
 

Andover pays $60,000 to settle cop's discrimination suit

On August 10, 2009, David Szatkiewicz a police officer in Andover Township for 17 years, accepted $60,000 in settlement of his discrimination lawsuit against the Township of Andover (Sussex County). In his suit, which was filed in January 2008, Szatkiewicz alleged that previous members of the Andover Township Committee and Police Chief Phillip Coleman retaliated against him for backing other candidates for Township Committee. The lawsuit alleges the chief once told Szatkiewicz he had "hitched his cart to the wrong horses." In addition to the $60,000 settlement, Szatkiewicz received $19,557 of accumulated sick and vacation time, and $3,981 in holiday time. He also agreed to resign his position. The case is captioned Szatkiewicz v. Township of Andover et al, Case No. 2:08-cv-00047-JAG-MCA . Szatkiewicz's lawyer was Gregory F. Kotchnick of West Caldwell. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line None of Szatkiewicz'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 the Township or any of its officers. All that is known for sure is that Andover, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Szatkiewicz and his lawyer $60,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Andover's 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 Andover 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.
 

Andover Township has drafted an e-mail use policy

On September 13, 2009 I posted concerning the City of Margate's (Atlantic County) policy of requiring its officers and employees who use e-mail for municipal business to use their "margate-nj.com" e-mail addresses and not their personal e-mail addresses (e.g. Yahoo.com, Gmail.com, Verizon.net, etc.). That posting is on my blog at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2009/09/margate-to-require-employees-and.html Today, I learned that the Township of Andover (Sussex County) has drafted--but not yet implemented--a more comprehensive policy designed to a) ensure that all official e-mails are preserved on the Township's server and b) prevent e-mail conversation from becoming "meetings" as defined by the Sen. Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act. That draft policy is on-line. While it's not perfect, Andover's draft policy is the best I've seen so far. Readers may want to forward it to their own municipalities and school boards and suggest that they adopt something similar.
 

Warren County pays $12,000 to arrestee

On August 11, 2009, a Camden County man accepted $12,000 as full settlement of his lawsuit arising out of his Friday, March 31, 2006 arrest and incarceration by members of the Warren County Sheriff's Department. The man, Richard Bailo of Voorhees, claimed in his March 28, 2008 lawsuit that he was arrested on a child support warrant that he said was issued in error. Although he was told he would be taken to the probation department to resolve the error, he alleges that he was instead taken to Warren County Correctional Facility where he, and other arrestees, were were chained to a bench "without intake for approximately four hours" while the correctional officers "ate and read magazines." Bailo claims that his troubles intensified after he objected to the treatment another inmate received after asking to be unchained so that he could use the restroom. According to the suit, the inmate "soiled his clothing" after officers denied him use of the restroom and told him to "go ahead and pee in your pants." Bailo claims that after he objected to the treatment his fellow arrestee received, a Caucasian female officer "with red curly hair" accused him of being "a real hard ass" and moved the other arrestees into another room. At that point, Bailo claims, officers placed his right hand behind his head, pushed him face down to the floor and handcuffed him while one officer stood on his back. Then, Bailo claims, Sheriff Officer Pablo Sanchez and Jonathan Danberry lifted him and "threw him head first" through a doorway, which caused his left knee to strike the steel corner of a bed. He states that he "heard a snap in his left knee" but was denied medical attention--except for being given two aspirins. Bailo further claims that he was not allowed to use the telephone until the evening of Saturday, April 1st, which was more than 24 hours after his arrest. Ultimately, he claims, he was held until Monday morning when officers told him "that there had been a mistake at the court house, that he was no longer under arrest and that he did not have to appear in front of a judge." He claims to have suffered "a torn meniscus and anterior cruciate ligament" in his knee. The case is captioned Bailo v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Warren County, Case No. 08-cv-1555-JAP. Bailo's lawyer was Dennis M. Abrams of Cherry Hill. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. None of Bailo's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $12,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the County or the its jail officials. All that is known for sure is that Warren County, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Bailo and their lawyer $12,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Warren County's 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 Warren County 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.
 

Town mulls ordinance requiring public announcement of lawsuit settlements

Andover Township (Sussex County) is presently considering an ordinance that would require the mayor, at the following Township Committee meeting, to "publicly announce the amount and terms of" any judgment or settlement arising out of a civil lawsuit against the Township or its employees. The proposed ordinance, which will be considered for adoption in early 2010, is online. This ordinance is beneficial because settlement agreements, which are often signed years after the the lawsuit's initial filing, are not easy to track and often escape the public's and media's attention. Currently, the only way for a citizen or reporter to find out if a given lawsuit settled is to periodically--perhaps monthly--check with the court or OPRA the settlement agreement. Since most people are not sufficiently motivated to follow up on a given lawsuit's status dozens of times, the settlements are often entered into without the public's knowledge. And, because of the confidentiality agreements that are often inserted into settlement agreements, the public cannot rely upon the plaintiff in the underlying suit to inform the public of the settlement. Knowing about settlement agreements helps identify patterns of questionable conduct. If, for example, citizens become aware that multiple lawsuit settlements have arisen out of the acts or omissions of a particular municipal employee, those citizens can aptly inquire of their elected officials as to why that employee is still on the public payroll. I think that readers should provide a copy of Andover's proposal to their own municipal governing bodies and school boards and urge them to adopt something similar.
 

Spotswood pays $50,000 to to arrestee who committed suicide in jail

On March 19, 2009, the family of a Monroe Township (Middlesex County) man accepted $50,000 from the Borough of Spotswood as partial settlement of his and his aunt's lawsuit arising from their January 20, 2003 arrests. The arrests preceded the man committing suicide in his cell at the Middlesex County Adult Correctional Center (MCACC) the following day. The $50,000 settlement discharged only Spotswood and its police officers from the suit. After settling with Spotswood, the suit continued against both Middlesex County jail officials and CFG Health Systems, LLC, a private firm under contract with Middlesex County to provide medical and psychiatric services to inmates. According to the lawsuit, Nestor Tosado (also referred to in court papers as "Nester Tosado"), then 24, was stopped by Spotswood Police on January 20, 2003. After reportedly being placed "in fear of his life" by the allegedly :abusive and threatening" conduct of the officers, Tosado fled on foot to the home of his aunt, Carmella Povlosky, who resided in an apartment at 289 Main Street. Povlosky, who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, claimed that the police entered her apartment without a warrant, and "kicked, punched, used pepper mace and brutally beat" Tosado. When Povlosky "asked the officers why they were beating Nester," the officers allegedly arrested her. Ms. Povlosky alleges that the charges brought against her were later dismissed in court. According to a July 15, 2005 article in the Home News Tribune, the police said that after they stopped Tosado, they discovered that he had two active warrants and "found syringes, some containing heroin, in his car." The Spotswood officers who are named as defendants in the suit are: Chief Karl Martin, Capt. Michael Zarro, Sgts. Joseph Seylaz and Philip Corbisiero, detective Eugene Scheicher, and patrolmen William Desrosier, Les Genovese, and Scott Hoover. Chief Martin was quoted in the Home News Tribune article as having said, "It's another frivolous lawsuit wasting the resources of the Police Department." A September 16, 2008 opinion written by District Court Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise summarized the lawsuit's allegations as follows. Upon his arrival at the MCACC, Tosado was given an intake exam by CFG. Despite knowing that Tosado "had a history of depression and was in severe withdraw from heroin and methadone," it did not put Tosado in a closely monitored "special needs unit" or in the hospital. Rather, "he was placed in a standard cell and left to fend for himself until the next examination at 6:25 the following morning." At Tosado's examination the next morning, his blood pressure was highly elevated, he complained of nausea and prison staff reported to CFG that he was vomiting in his cell. "Despite these developments, CFG nurses refused to examine him. In fact, one CFG employee actually crossed [Tosado's] name off a list of inmates who were scheduled to receive psychiatric evaluations that day. Suffering from severe withdrawal and unable to get help, Mr. Tosado apparently decided to take his own life. At 4:33 that afternoon, corrections officers found him hanging from a bed sheet in his cell." The $50,000 settlement was equally split between Tosado's estate. administered by his mother, Catherine Tosado, and Povlosky. On May 29, 2009, Judge Debevoise dismissed the suit against the Corrections Center, Warden Michael Abode and other unnamed county officers. On September 29, 2009 the suit was reportedly settled with CFG Health Systems. Since CFG is not a public entity, the settlement agreement is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). Thus, there is no way to learn the amount and terms of settlement. However, an August 7, 2009 letter to the court from Maria D. Noto of Matawan--who represented the Tosado's estate and Povlosky in the lawsuit--she had demanded a $750,000 settlement from CFG and the firm responded with a counter-offer of $35,000. Accordingly, it stands to reason that the ultimate settlement amount fell somewhere between these two figures. The case is captioned Catherine Tosado et al v. Middlesex County Department of Corrections, et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-05112-DRD-MAS. The lawsuit, settlement agreement and other relevant documents are on-line. None of Tosado family'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 the Borough or its officials. All that is known for sure is that Spotswood Borough, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Tosado family and their lawyer $50,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the Borough's 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 Spotswood Borough 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.
 

Freehold Borough pays $65,000 to man who gave officers "the finger"

On July 15, 2009, Melvin Love, of Freehold, New Jersey, accepted $65,000 as full settlement of his excessive force claim against the Borough of Freehold (Monmouth County) and several members of its police department. Love's civil lawsuit, filed in February 2008, arose out his encounter with Freehold Borough Police Officers Christopher Colanear and Christopher Otlowski on June 6, 2007. Love alleges that while he was talking to two friends outside his mother's home, Colanear, Otlowski and other unnamed officers drove by and "taunted" him. In response to the officers, Love "gestured to them with his middle finger." This gesture, according to the suit, angered the officers who allegedly threw Love "through a fence and maced him" and then arrested him for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and drug possession. The case is captioned Love v. Freehold Borough et al, Case No. 3:08-cv-00749-FLW-DEA . Love's lawyer was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Love and the Borough from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Love's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $65,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Borough of any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Freehold and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Love and his lawyer $65,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Freehold's 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 Freehold 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.
 

East Orange paid out a total of $75,000 to settle two intertwined lawsuits

In May 2007, Keith Hinton, then a East Orange Police Sergeant, accepted $50,000 to pay his lawyer, Algeier Woodruff, P.C. of Morristown, for legal services performed on a suit Hinton had filed against the East Orange Police Department and several police officials. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. In August 2007, Angelic (Angel) Muhammad of East Orange, accepted $25,000 to settle her lawsuit against the department and several police officials. Muhammad was also represented by Algeier Woodruff, P.C. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line. Both lawsuits are summarized in an article published in the October 13, 2004 Star Ledger.
 

Asbury Park City pays $35,000 to man who claims he was falsely arrested

On October 15, 2009, David Jules of Neptune, New Jersey, accepted $35,000 as full settlement of his false arrest and malicious prosecution claim against the City of Asbury Park (Monmouth County) and two members of its police department. Jules's civil lawsuit, filed April 8, 2007, arose out two April 2005 incidents that occurred while Jules was employed by Tactical Security Operations (TSO), a private security firm. According to the lawsuit, Jules, who is African-American, was patrolling a construction site at about 10 p.m. on April 8th when an individual named Douglas Eschner allegedly informed him that he reported Jules to the police for driving down the street with his vehicle's yellow light activated. Later that same evening, Jules alleges, he was told by Asbury Police Officer Brian Townsend that Eschner complained that Jules had harassed him. Jules alleged that in the early morning hours of April 11th, while on patrol for TSO, he was stopped by Townsend and Sergeant David DeSane and arrested for a drug possession offense. He reportedly was held for "more than two hours and released without bail." Jules alleges that during the stop of his vehicle, "his personal property, including binoculars, a video monitor and surveillance camera used in performance of his job were all destroyed," and that the arrest stigmatized him and jeopardized his career choices." According to the complaint, the drug charges were all dismissed "on motion of the prosecutor." Jules alleged that Townsend and DeSane knew at the time of the arrest that Jules was not in possession of any drugs, and that the arrest was done maliciously and "in retaliation for his encounter with Eschner. The case is captioned Jules v. Asbury Park et al, Case No. 06-cv-509 . Jules's lawyer was Stephen M. Latimer of Hackensack. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Jules and the City from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Jules's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $35,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the City of any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Asbury Park and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Jules and his lawyer $35,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Asbury Park's 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 Asbury Park 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.
 

Custodians may tell citizens to "present" OPRA forms during business hours

Prior to the Appellate Division's ruling in Renna v. County of Union, record requestors were required to use an agency's specific OPRA request form. In the pre-Renna days (and to a lesser extent now), I became concerned when a custodian's request form contained false information or otherwise misled requestors as to their rights under OPRA. The form used by the High Bridge (Hunterdon County) Board of Education, and other school boards, contained a provision that I felt--and still feel--is misleading. Specifically, the High Bridge Board's form stated: "This form must be completed and presented to the Office of the Board Secretary between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday — Friday when offices are normally open." I believe that this language could lead some requestors to erroneously believe that their request forms would not be accepted unless they were personally DELIVERED to the Board Secretary during normal business hours. Some requestors, especially those who work during normal business hours, might be dissuaded from exercising their rights under OPRA if they believed that they were not allowed to mail, fax or otherwise electronically submit their requests. I filed a complaint on September 26, 2008 asking the Government Records Council (GRC) to rule that the form's language violated OPRA. On November 18, 2009, the GRC ruled against me. It held that the word "present," which is defined in the dictionary as "to offer for observation, examination, or consideration," is broad enough to include mailed, faxed and other transmittal methods. A copy of the High Bridge Board's request form and the GRC's decision are on-line.
 

Freehold Township pays $25,000 to man who claims he was maliciously prosecuted

On November 17, 2009, Michael Rogers of Neptune, New Jersey, accepted $25,000 as full settlement of his false arrest and malicious prosecution claim against the Township of Freehold (Monmouth County) and Michael Denham, who serves as a Freehold Township Police Officer. Rogers' civil lawsuits, filed March 10, 2008 and February 27, 2009, arose out a July 14, 2005 incident that occurred at Escondido's Restaurant at 402 West Main Street, Freehold. According to the lawsuits, Rogers was lawfully at the restaurant when Denham detained him "without a reasonable justifiable suspicion of any criminal activity." Rogers goes on to claim that Denham arrested him in a "violent manner" without an arrest warrant and "falsely and maliciously charged [him] with resisting arrest and aggravated assault on a police officer." Rogers claims that a jury acquitted him of the charges on February 28, 2007. On July 14, 2008, United State District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper dismissed Rogers' claims of false arrest and false imprisonment because the suit wasn't filed until after the two-year statute of limitations had expired. The malicious prosecution claim, however, was not barred by the statute of limitations because that claim arose on February 27, 2007, the date of Rogers' acquittal. The cases are captioned Rogers v. Freehold et al, Case No. 3:08-cv-02080-MLC-LHG and Rogers v. Denham, Case No. 3:09-cv-01936-MLC-DEA. Rogers' lawyer in both cases was Pablo N. Blanco of South Orange. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Rogers and the Township from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Rogers'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 the Township or any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Freehold and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Rogers and his lawyer $25,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Freehold's 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 Freehold 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.
 

Paterson pays $4,000 to woman who claims she was falsely arrested

On June 22, 2009, Sau Fong Lam of New York City, accepted $4,000 from the City of Paterson as full settlement of her lawsuit against Passaic County Jail officials, the City of Paterson, Paterson Police Officer Quaema McElveen and other unnamed Paterson officers. According to Timothy J. Cunningham, Esq., Passaic County's Deputy County Administrator, "the County of Passaic did not contribute to any financial settlement with" Ms. Lam. The incident that gave rise to the suit occurred on August 17, 2008 at a Paterson residence that the New Majestic Restaurant Buffet of Wayne provides as sleeping quarters for its restaurant staff. According to Lam's lawsuit, she shared a bedroom with Li Ni when the two women began arguing. Ni allegedly asked a third woman, named Ping and who was proficient in English, "to call 911 and make a false report that Sau Fong Lam had assaulted her." Ping allegedly placed the call after receiving permission from New Majestic's owner to call 911. Officer McElveen responded to the call and allegedly arrested and handcuffed Lam without an arrest warrant and despite Ni having no visible injuries to suggest that she had been assaulted. While she was at the police station, Lam claimed an unnamed officer shut a door on her left hand causing her to scream out in pain. She further alleged that the officer did not release her hand from the door until after she apologized for screaming out. Further, Lam alleges that when she was taken to the emergency room for treatment of her hand, she was given a prescription a pain medication that Paterson officers would not allow her to fill. She claims to have been held in jail overnight and was not allowed access to the prescribed pain medication. Finally, she claims that the assault charges against her were dismissed on October 9, 2008 for lack of prosecution. The case is captioned Lam v. Passaic County et al, Case No. 2:08-cv-05598-JAG-MCA. Lam's lawyer was Peter L. Quan of New York, NY. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line at None of Lam's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $4,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the City or any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that Paterson and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Lam and her lawyer $4,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Paterson's 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 Paterson 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.
 

Legislative Committee to consider decreasing copy costs

On Monday, November 30, 2009, 2 p.m., the New Jersey Assembly State Government Committee will hold a hearing on Assembly Bill A1095 which seeks to lower the cost of paper copies to "up to $0.10 per letter size page or smaller, and up to $0.15 per legal size page or larger." Currently, the Open Public Records Act appears to allow government agencies to charge up to $0.75 per page for the first ten pages; $0.50 per page for the eleventh through twentieth page and $0.25 per page for each page over twenty. The hearing will be held in Committee Room 13 on the 4th Floor of the State House Annex, Trenton. A1095, which has an identical bill in the Senate, S1646, is on-line at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A1500/1095_I1.PDF The primary sponsors of the Assembly bill (A1095) are Joe Cryan (D), Upendra Chivicula (D) and Linda Greenstein (D). Co-sponsors are Jack Connors (D), Joan Quigley (D), Joan Voss (D), Ruben Ramos Jr. (D), Samuel Thompson (R), Amy Handlin (R), Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D) and Gordon Johnson (D). The primary sponsors of the Senate bill (S1646) are Loretta Weinberg (D) and Tom Kean Jr. (R).
 

West Deptford Township pays $24,000 to woman who claims police used excessive force

On October 26, 2009, Andrea Damiani of Wenonah, New Jersey, accepted $24,000 as full settlement of her excessive force claim against the Township of West Deptford, the City of Woodbury (both in Gloucester County) and members of their municipal police departments. The entire $24,000 was paid by West Deptford and nothing was paid by Woodbury. Damiani's civil lawsuit, filed August 14, 2008, arose out an August 12, 2005 traffic stop that occurred while Damiani was travelling south on Route 45 in West Deptford Township. She claims that during the stop, West Deptford Police Corporal Stephen Meduri and Officers Michael S. Franks and Michael Cramer, along with Woodbury Police Officer William Palese, using "grossly excessive, unnecessary force" pulled her out of her vehicle cause "serious injury" to her left wrist as well as emotional distress. The case is captioned Damiani v. West Deptford et al, Case No. 01:07-cv-02884-JEI-AMD. Damiani's lawyers were Randy P. Catalano and F. Michael Daily, Jr. both of Westmont. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line None of Damiani's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $24,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by either the Township or any of the police officers. All that is known for sure is that West Deptford and its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Damiani and her lawyers $24,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps West Deptford's 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 West Deptford 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.
 

Lumberton Township settles OPMA suit

I recently settled a pro se civil suit against the Lumberton Township (Burlington County) Committee demanding that it give the public more prompt access to the nonexempt portions of its executive session minutes. My lawsuit and the settlement agreement are on-line and following is an article that appeared in today's Burlington County Times.
 

Lady Liberty Academy Charter School

The Lady Liberty Academy Charter School's Board of Trustees appears to be out of compliance with the Sen. Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act. I have written to the Board in an attempt to bring it into better compliance.
 

Stratford Borough pays $75,000 to embattled Borough Clerk

On July 29, 2009, John D. Keenan, Jr., the Borough Clerk of Stratford Borough (Camden County) accepted $75,000 as full settlement of his claim that the Borough improperly attempted to cut his pay and remove him from his position as Borough Clerk. Keenan's civil lawsuit, filed in June 2007, alleges that Mayor Thomas D. Angelucci and the Borough Council "set on a course to retaliate against [him] based upon his political views and affiliations." Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Mayor and Council cut Keenan's salary by over $10,000 and brought charges against him for sending "partisan" e-mails which expressed "political views and affiliations which were at odds with the majority of the Borough governing body." Keenan's suit further alleges that Mayor Angelucci threatened him with "the harshest political response" and that Council met in executive session to discuss consequences against Keenan without having first given him a "Rice" notice (i.e. advance written notice to public employees whose rights could be adversely affected advising them of their right to force the matter to be discussed at a public meeting). The case is captioned Keenan v. Borough of Stratford, et al, Case No. CAM-L-3861-07. Keenan's lawyer was Michelle J. Douglass of Northfield. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line The settlement agreement contains a provision requiring both Keenan and the Borough from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Fortunately, however, such "confidentiality clauses" do not trump the public's right to know under the Open Public Records Act. None of Keenan's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Borough of any of the officers or employees. All that is known for sure is that Stratford, and perhaps its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that they would rather pay Keenan and his lawyer $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps Stratford's 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 Stratford 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.
 

 

2008

2008 issues will be added here as they are indexed and abstracted.
 

2007

2007 issues have been relocated to OGTFarchive.org.
 

2006

2006 issues have been relocated to OGTFarchive.org.
 

2005

2005 issues have been relocated to OGTFarchive.org.
 

2004

2004 issues have been relocated to OGTFarchive.org.
 

Upcoming Events | Meeting Minutes | OGTF | Bylaws | Webmail | Back | LPCNJ Home

Return to Top of Page

For comments and suggestions, click here
New Jersey Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project. February 18, 2010.
URL: http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/
Copyright © 2004-2009 Libertarian Party of Central New Jersey
Site provisioning by The Web Warren.