A New Expense in Trenton Threatens to Gut the Open Public Records Act

State Sen. Paul Sarlo (D Bergen and Passaic) is sponsoring a bill that would gut the state's Open Public Records Act, eliminating some of the most important provisions of the law. The law, typically described as OPRA, gives citizens rights to access public info and assists them comprehend how their government functions.

The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee will examine the expense, S-2930, at a public hearing at 10 a.m. on Monday, March 11 in Committee Room 4 on the 1st flooring of the State House Annex in Trenton. Members of the public can comment and participate in, and can also contact Senators who serve on the committee. Sarlo chairs the committee, and Sen. Linda Greenstein (D-Middlesex) is the co-chair of the committee.

" Any great faith attempt at reform would have included all stakeholders. Far, none of the stakeholders that I have called this evening were mindful of the new legislation," Lawyer Walter Luers

Deputy Senate Majority Leader Paul Sarlo
" It's shocking that the Legislature has actually chosen to begin Sunshine Week by putting forth yet another devastating costs to gut OPRA," Lawyer C.J. Griffin stated. "There is nothing pro-transparency in this expense-- every provision that is added or modified substantially undermines the general public's right to info and makes it much harder, if not impossible, for reporters to do their tasks. This bill brings us darkness, not sunlight."

Attorney Walter Luers, president of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government explained that the bill was introduced on March 4, and will already be heard by the Senate Budget And Appropriations Committee on March 11.

" Any excellent faith attempt at reform would have involved all stakeholders. Up until now, none of the stakeholders that I have actually contacted this night knew the brand-new legislation," Luers said. "While we, again, would invite the opportunity to participate in good-faith discussions on significant reform, this is not how the Senate must tackle it."

Major provisions of the bill:

• The costs guts fee-shifting by making it discretionary, not compulsory, which will make it difficult for requestors who are rejected records to discover lawyers to represent them to combat records rejections from companies that don't follow the law and wrongfully deny access to public records.



• The bill would make any "draft" private, which experts say makes it ripe for abuse.



• The expense exempts all email logs and call logs.



• The expense makes it much harder to request emails since a "particular topic" and "restricted and discrete period" need to be supplied, and the requestor must identify the particular individual (not a job title, for instance) whose email must be searched. That implies the requestor should understand the names of individuals included at the general public company.



• Records custodians can deny any request if the firm believes it might result in "harassment," which is vague and subjective.



• The expense excuses all metadata.



• A "job force" would be produced to study cops records, and the job force would be stacked with law enforcement and government agents.



• The costs exempts e-mail addresses, home addresses, and pet license details.



• The expense mandates the use of an OPRA demand form, including one more obstacle to acquiring records. Presently, citizens can email demands without utilizing a main type.


This suggests if a custodian is away from work, those days don't count in terms of the timeframe for responding to requests. As it already stands, the majority of custodians regularly request one or 2 extensions to produce records.


• Records custodians will no longer need to give requestors files in the format the requestors want anymore. You might desire a file sent out to you via email, and the custodian could insist on providing you a paper copy rather.



• You can not ask for a record if it connects to present litigation versus a public company or if it is duplicative of a discovery request. Legal representatives say this impacts their ability to do work for their customers.


If they have to evaluate it for Daniel's Law compliance,
• Records custodians can take 14 days to fill a demand. Daniel's Law forbids the disclosure of home addresses for public officials.



• The costs would remove the incentive to adhere to OPRA due to the fact that it withdraws the individual liability of records custodians for willful violations of the statute. Rather, the company and hence the taxpayers would pay the fine.



• The expense also substantially restricts "business" requests.

" Every arrangement that is added or changed significantly weakens the public's right to info and makes it much harder, if not impossible, for press reporters to do their jobs. This expense brings us darkness, not sunshine." Legal Representative C.J. Griffin

Luers stated the provision of the expense that needs a records custodian to reject gain access to "when the public company has reason to believe that disclosure of such individual information might result in harassment, undesirable solicitation, identity theft, or opportunities for other criminal acts" would open the floodgates to rejections of gain access to of all sort of records since it's theoretically possible to misuse any information or information.

The costs would reverse a landmark case, Paff v. Galloway, by removing access to email logs. It would broaden OPRA's privacy provision to need records custodians to secure from public gain access to "info that might fairly cause disclosure of a person's personal info."

" Might" is a terribly thin reed on which to perch a brand name new exception to access," Luers said.

Republished Courtesy of The Jersey Vindicator

Krystal Knapp is the founder and executive director of The Jersey Vindicator. A homeowner of the Princeton area for more than 3 decades, she was an investigative reporter at The Trenton Times prior to launching the hyperlocal news outlet Planet Princeton. She has actually won various awards for her reporting utilizing public records.

Support our work

As an independent publication, we rely on contributions from readers like you to money our journalism.

One-time

Month-to-month

One-time

$ 25.

$ 50.

$ 75.

Other.

Donation amount.

$.

Month-to-month.

$ 2.99.

$ 5.99.

$ 9.99.

Other.

Contribution quantity.

$.

Thanks for your contribution!

Contribute Now.