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
 

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.