New Jersey Libertarian Party Open Government Advocacy Project

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

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

2013   2012   2011   2010   2009   2008   2007   2006   2005   2004

Recent issues:

Secretary of State OPMA Guidelines

Published in 1992, the Department of State's "Guidelines on the Open Public Meetings Law" still contains relevant information that ca be used to persuade and educate public bodies. For example, page 15 confirms that public meeting minutes must be disclosed when they are prepared, not when they are approved by the public body.
 

Ethics Complaint against Lawrence and Commercial Township officials

April 22, 2013 Thomas H. Neff, Chair Local Finance Board 101 S Broad St ? PO Box 803 Trenton, NJ 08625-0803 (via e-mail only to thomas.neff@dca.state.nj.us) Dear Mr. Neff: I intend this letter to be my complaint against a total of six (6) Local Government Officers in the Townships of Lawrence and Commercial in Cumberland County. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 5:35-1.1(b), following are the required elements of the complaint: 1. State the point of the Local Government Ethics Law alleged to be violated. N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(c) states that "no local government officer or employee shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others" 2. State the name(s) and title(s) of the parties involved in the action and against whom the complaint is filed. Complainant John Paff and the New Jersey Libertarian Party The following six individuals who served on the Commercial Township and Lawrence Township Committees in 2008: George W. Garrison (Commercial) Fletcher Jamison (Commercial) William Riggin (Commercial) Thomas Sheppard (Lawrence) Elmer Bowman (Lawrence) Joseph Miletta (Lawrence) 3. Set forth in detail the pertinent facts surrounding the alleged violative action. By way of background, P.L. 2007, c. 29, which became effective on January 1, 2008, was reform legislation "designed to ensure the system serves career public employees rather than political appointees" and to "cut out the entrenched core of abuse that has been corrupting our pension and benefits systems from within." (See Governor Corzine's press release, on-line here, issued when he signed the legislation into law). One of the components of the new law, N.J.S.A. 43:15A-7.2, excluded professional services contractors, such as municipal lawyers, architects and engineers from enrolling in the state's PERS pension system. Yet, according to an August 23, 2010 letter (on-line here) from the New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits, both Commercial and Lawrence Townships maintained special job titles (Lawrence Township used "Property Administrator" and Commercial Township used "Property Manager" and "Tax Lien Manager") and awarded those position in 2008 to Thomas E. Seeley, Esq., who served (and still serves) as Township Attorney for Townships. The Division found that both Townships had engaged in a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the newly enacted pension reforms. Indeed, the Division's letter, in reference to Lawrence Township, stated that "the Division concludes that the position of 'Property Administrator' is a position designed to disguise your true relationship, thereby facilitating your continued membership in the PERS." According to the minutes of the Commercial Township Committee's August 21, 2008 public meeting (the relevant pages are on-line here), Township Administrator Judson Moore candidly admitted that the "Property Manager" position was being awarded to Mr. Seeley in direct response to the legislation to ensure that Mr. Seeley remained enrolled in the pension system." ("Mr. Moore said part of it is due to new ordinance mandated by the state Determining Positions Eligible for the Defined Contribution Retirement Program. This is a new form of pension plan for certain municipal employees. Solicitors cannot be paid 'other expenses' and a salary, it either has to be by salary or by other expenses. What this does is take his salary and other expenses figures which were already allocated in the budget and placing it under one category, which is his salary for pension purposes." In sum, we assert that these elected officials acted with an intent to provide Mr. Seeley with an unwarranted financial benefit by creating a subterfuge designed to circumvent the pension reform legislation. Accordingly, we believe that these officials should be penalized. 4. Indicate whether the complaint concerns the complainant in any way and what, if any, relationship the complainant has to the subject of the complaint. Complainant has no interest in or relationship to this complaint greater than any other citizen or organization who wishes for all government officers and employees to comply fully with the Local Government Ethics Law. 5. Indicate any other action previously taken in an attempt to resolve the issue and indicate whether the issue is the subject of pending litigation elsewhere. No other action has been taken previously in an attempt to resolve this issue and this issue is not the subject of any pending litigation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I ask that you please acknowledge your receipt of this complaint within 30 days. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 Voice: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 e-mail: paff@pobox.com
 

Dover pays $75,000 to settle suit for negligence in police chase that resulted in death of 23-year-old motorcyclist

On March 2, 2012, the Town of Dover (Morris County) agreed to pay $75,000 to the mother of a twenty-three year old man who was killed in a motor vehicle collision when he was allegedly fleeting police. In her suit, Kara Seitz, mother of the late Alan J. Seitz, said that on August 14, 2007, her son, who was operating a motorcyle, was leading police from various municipalities on a high speed chase. She claims that Dover Police Officer Michael Pier, after hearing about the chase on his radio, disregarded a stop sign and "drove his motor vehicle directly in front of [Seitz's] motorcyle causing the death of [Seitz]." Also named in the suit was Dover Police Chief Harold Valentine. The case is captioned Seitz v. Dover Police Officer Michael Pier et al, New Jersey Superior Court, Docket No. MRS-L-2441-09 and Seitz's attorney was George T. Daggett of Sparta. Case documents are on-line here. None of Seitz's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Dover or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Dover or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Seitz $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Dover pays $185,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On September 28, 2011, the Town of Dover (Morris County) agreed to pay $185,000 to a man who sued members of the Dover Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Steven Echevarria said that on April 11, 2008 he was arrested without probable cause by Officers Joe Camacho and Paul Wilkes. He claimed that after his arrest, Office Camacho removed him from his cell "took him to a back area within the police department where he unlawfully and physically assaulted" Echevarria "inflicting serious personal injuries upon him." The case is captioned Echevarria v. Camacho, New Jersey Superior Court, Morris County, Docket No. MRS-L-1806-09 and Echevarria's attorney was Joel I. Rachmiel of Springfield. Case documents are on-line here. None of Echevarria's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $185,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Dover or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Dover or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Echevarria $185,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

IA Complaint against Newark Police officer

Police Accountability Project of the New Jersey Libertarian Party P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 April 17, 2013 Lt. Antonio M. Domingues, Internal Affairs Unit Newark Police Department 247 16th Avenue Newark, NJ 07103 (via e-mail to dominguesa@ci.newark.nj.us) Dear Lt. Domingues: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and ask that you accept this e-mail as our Internal Affairs complaint. We would like your agency to investigate whether Officer Vernon Bradbury and other personnel employed by your agency acted in accordance with department policy and the law regarding a motor vehicle stop and arrest on May 13, 2011. According to the Appellate Division's decision in State v. Long, Docket No. A-1857-12T3 (on-line here), Bradbury testified that when he pulled over Nelson Long for speeding, drugs "fell to the ground" when Long exited the vehicle. Bradbury said that an ensuing pat-down turned up more drugs in Long's sweatpants pocket. At a court hearing, the Hon. Verna G. Leath, J.S.C., said that Bradbury's testimony "simply does not make sense." She found that the motor vehicle stop was "more than pre-textual" and that "in fact there was no motor vehicle traffic violation at all that would have justified a stop." She further found that Bradbury's claim that the drugs fell to the ground "was not credible." Accordingly, she suppressed all the drugs found as having been unlawfully obtained, i.e. "fruit of the poisonous tree." Judge Leath, in essence, found that Officer Bradbury fabricated his justification to stop Long's vehicle. And, she strongly suggested that Bradbury lied about the drugs falling to the ground and that he instead found the drugs only after an illegal search. We know nothing more about this incident than that which is reported in the Appellate Division's decision. We file this complaint solely on the strength of Judge Leath's finding that Bradbury did not testify truthfully. The Internal Affairs unit, however, can obtain the evidence, including Bradbury's testimony, upon which Judge Leath made her determination. Further, you can interview Bradbury, Long and any other witnesses to discern what really occurred. Accordingly, we call on you to conduct a full investigation of this matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
 

Stafford IA closing letter

 

Massell and Thompson

 

Irvingon pays $15,000 to settle police warrantless entry suit

On January 13, 2010, the Township of Irvingon (Essex County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a Clinton Avenue couple who sued the Irvingon Police Department because an officer entered the wife's bedroom without a warrant while she was "undressing and in a state of nakedness." In their suit, Sandra Holmes-Stuckey and her husband Hazel Stuckey, Jr. said that on July 10, 2009, Officer Rashaan D. Sampson (also spelled "Samson") illegally entered her bedroon and observed her in a state of undress. Sandra sued for a violation of her constitutional rights and Hazel sued because he was "deprived of his wife's services and consortium." The case is captioned Holmes-Stuckey v. Irvingon, Federal Case No. 2:11-cv-00018 and Holmes-Stuckey's attorney was Otto J. Scerbo of Jersey City. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Holmes-Stuckey's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Irvingon or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Irvingon or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Holmes-Stuckey and her husband $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Do public contracts need to include a maximum amount?

April 9, 2013 Thomas H. Neff, Chair Local Finance Board 101 S Broad St ? PO Box 803 Trenton, NJ 08625-0803 Tom.Neff@dca.state.nj.us RE: Contracts lacking a "not to exceed" amount. Dear Mr. Neff: A colleague of mine, by way of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, obtained copies of the Pollution Control Financing Authority of Warren County's contract for legal services with Governor Florio's present law firm, Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt & Felder, LLC. Copies of the contract and the December 19, 2012 resolution that awarded it are on-line here. The contract calls for the Florio law firm to bill the Authority at $150 per hour. But, neither the contract nor the authorizing resolution places any "not to exceed" limitation on the amount that can be paid out under the contract during the annual term. Does the Local Public Contracts Law permit public bodies to enter into contracts with no predetermined maximum amount? Please advise. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 Voice: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 e-mail: paff@pobox.com
 

IA Complaint against Paterson officers determined "unfounded"

On May 27, 2011, the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project filed an Internal Affairs (IA) complaint against Detectives Carlos Charon and Florence Ackerman of the Paterson (Passaic County) Police Department. By way of a two-sentence letter dated March 29, 2013 (on-line here) Detective Sergeant Manuel Hernandez "concluded that the allegation was not sustained." According to the Attorney General's Internal Affairs Guidelines, this means that "the investigation and a review of all information failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation." I have written back to Detective Sergeant Hernandez asking him to provide me with a more substantive and detailed response. My letter is on-line here. The matter arose out of the Appellate Division's May 26, 2011 decision in State v. Anyoli R. Gonzalez, Docket No. A-0962-07T1, which is on-line here. The decision indicates that Defendant Gonzalez, during his interview with Charon and Ackerman unequivocally requested an attorney. Yet, Charon and Ackerman, "essentially changed the subject by asking whether he wanted to continue with his statement." This line of follow-up questioning, according to the court, improperly "placed the burden on [Gonzalez] to reassert his right to counsel." The court ultimately court suppressed Gonzalez's videotaped interview because of the Detectives' improper questioning. Further, Charon changed Gonzalez's unequivocal request for lawyer, which was in Spanish, to a request for a lawyer "later." Thus, it appears that Charon, perhaps intentionally, attempted to alter the record of what was said to mislead the court.
 

How much is the PCFA's Director's annual salary?

How much is the PCFA's Director's annual salary? April 9, 2013 Robert Davenport, Chairman and members of the Board of the Pollution Control Financing Authority of Warren County P.O. Box 587 Oxford, NJ 07863 via e-mail only to jwilliams@pcfawc.com Dear Chairman Davenport and Board members: As you can see from the subject line of this e-mail, I am interested in learning the answer to what should be a fairly straightforward question: How much does James J. Williams get paid as the Authority's Director of Operations? A colleague of mine has been working on obtaining an answer since February. First, she submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for the contract between Williams and the Authority. She received a February 22, 2013 letter from the Authority advising that the Authority has no such contract. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/OPRA.htm Next, she submitted an OPRA request for "any resolutions or writings that set forth the basis for [Williams'] compensation." In response, she received twenty pages of records consisting of the Authority's regular and executive meeting minutes. I have put those twenty pages on-line here for your ready reference and my analysis of them follows: The April 9, 2008 executive session minutes indicate that Williams was awarded a "salary approval of $96,000." No regular meeting minutes regarding this salary were provided. Page 2 of the March 11, 2009 regular meeting minutes indicate that "2009 Salaries . . . will be discussed in Executive Session." Page 3 of those minutes indicate that Williams' salary was indeed discussed behind closed doors and that the following motion was unanimously approved in public: "Mr. Williams' salary was motioned for approval by Mr. Accetturo, seconded by Mr. Yanoff." Note, however, that the amount of his salary was not set forth in the motion. The only reference to salaries in the April 28, 2010 regular meeting minutes is Mr. Yanoff's successful motion, on page 3, "to approve pay increases of 2% across the board." This informs the public that Williams, among others, received in 2010 102% of what he had been paid in 2009. This information, of course, is of little utility since actual amount Williams was paid in 2009 remains undisclosed. Page 5 of the February 23, 2011 regular meeting minutes indicates that Williams received "what basically works out to be a 5% increase . . . for exemplary job performance." Again, however, the base amount to which this percentage increase applies was not disclosed. The February 23, 2011 executive meeting minutes reveal nothing more than that "job titles and salaries" were the sole discussion item during that one hour and three minute closed door meeting. But, fortunately, DataUniverse shows that Williams' 2011 salary was $106,968. http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=DATA Since they don't mention Williams' salary, it's not clear why the June 27, 2012 regular meeting minutes were provided. The only reference to salaries is Mr. Mach's motion, on page 3, to approve a 1.5% increase for all non-salaried employees. Since Williams is evidently on salary, this motion apparently does not apply to him. It's more than a bit distressing that the Authority doesn't have records that plainly set out important facts such as the salaries of top officials. Needed are public meeting minutes that contain resolutions such as "Resolved, that the salary of Director of Operations James J. Williams shall be $120,000 for the 2013 calendar year." Such would enable interested members of the public to easily obtain information about the Authority's operations. Do you agree with me that plainer, clearer resolutions would be in the public's interest? If so, will you agree to discuss this e-mail with the Board at its April 22, 2013 meeting? If you do elect to discuss this e-mail at the meeting, I would also ask that you discuss the Board's apparent policy of discussing and deciding Mr. Williams' salary during executive session. While I understand why the Board may want to privately and candidly discuss Mr. Williams' performance outside of his presence, I note that both the April 9, 2008 and February 23, 2011 executive session minutes show that Mr. Williams attended these closed-door meetings. Thus, the only people who were kept in the dark about Mr. Williams' salary were citizens and taxpayers--those for whom the Open Public Meetings Act was designed to inform. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/OPMA.htm A dose of transparency would, in my view, be especially good medicine for the PCFA given the controversy that has surrounded it lately. See, e.g. "Warren County Pollution Control Financing Authority investigation labeled 'whitewash' by whistleblower," Express-Times, August 5, 2012 and "Warren County landfill looks to recoup $116,565 stolen by clerk," Express-Times, March 28, 2012. http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2012/08/pollution_control_financing_au_12.html http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2012/03/post_47.html Although OPRA doesn't require the Authority to create records that do not exist, would you extend the courtesy of creating and sending me a record that lists Mr. Williams' annual compensation (i.e., the amount reported on his W-2 form) for each year beginning in 2008 and ending with what is projected for 2013? Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 Voice: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 e-mail: paff@pobox.com
 

Why was Ronald C. Aron, who serves as both an Oaklyn Borough Councilman and a Haddon Township Police Officer, busted from sergeant to patrol officer?

According to his Financial Disclosure Statement, Oaklyn Borough (Camden County) Councilman Ronald C. Aron also serves as a Police Sergeant in nearby Haddon Township. A lawsuit and settlement agreement that I received by way of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request shows that a March 23, 2010 administrative hearing found that Aron had violated police department regulations. Aron challenged the discipline in an April 5, 2010 lawsuit (Aron v. Township of Haddon, Docket No. CAM-L-1759-10) and then appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (Aron v. Township of Haddon, Docket No. A-4407-10T4). In November 2012, Aron settled his lawsuit and appeal with the Township and agreed to: a) plead guilty to "conduct detrimental to the good order of the police department," b) accept a 10 day unpaid, disciplinary suspension, c) forfeit 80 hours of accrued sick time and d) accept a "one year demotion from the rank of sergeant to patrol officer." Haddon officials have been mum on the nature of the conduct that landed Aron in disciplinary hot water. I am attempting to learn those details because I think that Oaklyn voters need to know should Aron decide to run for reelection. But, Haddon officials will likely hold to their position that the privacy interests of a disciplined police officer who also serves an elected official outweigh the public's right to know. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Atlantic City Councilman

 

Tinton Falls Internal Affairs Complaint

Police Accountability Project of the New Jersey Libertarian Party P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 March 19, 2013 Hon. Gary Baldwin, Council President Borough of Tinton Falls 556 Tinton Ave Tinton Falls, NJ, 07724 gbaldwin@tintonfalls.com RE: Police Internal Affairs Complaint Dear Council President Baldwin: Introduction: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and intend this e-mail to be our Internal Affairs Complaint against "Officer Schuler" (presumably Officer Joseph M. Schuler) of the Tinton Falls Police Department. I realize that I am supposed to file such complaints with the Tinton Falls Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit, but the police department's Internet site provides no information on internal affairs complaints nor does it identify the internal affairs contact person. Accordingly, I am sending my complaint to you. Would you please a) forward this e-mail to the proper person within the police department and b) encourage the police department to give the public, through its web site, at least basic information about its internal affairs unit or function? In its Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures Manual, the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) cites the importance of the internal affairs function, referring to it as "an important means of protecting the constitutional rights and civil liberties of the citizens of this State." (p. 3) Given the DCJ's stated view, I think that you will agree that internal affairs deserves at least a mention on the Borough's web site. http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcj/agguide/internalaffairs2000v1_2.pdf Nature of Complaint: According to the Appellate Division's decision in State v. Idivine Clark, Docket No. A-3977-10T4 (on-line here), motorist Idivine Clark was stopped for driving without a seatbelt and detained for a while because police smelled an odor of raw marijuana coming from Clark's car. After Clark refused to consent to a search of the vehicle, the vehicle was impounded until a search warrant was obtained approximately two days later. Although Clark was not arrested on the day of the stop, Officer Schuler conducted a warrantless search and seized $866 in cash he found on Clarks's person. In deciding Clark's motion to suppress the $866, Judge Daniel M. Waldman and a two-judge Appellate panel both found no justification for Schuler's search of Clark and seizure of the cash. The only possible justification I can find for Schuler's warrantless search is if he patted Clark down to ensure his own personal safety, felt a bulge or protrusion and mistakenly believed it was a weapon. But, it doesn't seem likely that $866 in cash, especially if it was in large denominations, would create enough of a bulge to warrant any further search. Accordingly, we would like for the internal affairs unit to investigate the factual circumstances upon which Schuler based his decision to search and determine if it was reasonable. If you find that Schuler's search was unreasonable and that he, despite having received adequate training and direction regarding warrantless searches, elected to ignore his training, we ask that you discipline him. Otherwise, we ask that your department review and, if necessary, supplement your training requirements in this area of the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party Police Accountability Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875-5424 Phone: 732-873-1251 - Fax: 908-325-0129 Email: paff@pobox.com
 

Jackson pays $95,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On March 8, 2013, the Township of Jackson (Ocean County) agreed to pay $95,000 to a local man who sued members of the Jackson Police Department for allegedly assaulting and using excessive force against him. In his suit, Anthony Ball said that on January 27, 2010 he pulled into a WaWa gas station because his car was critically low on fuel. While moving the traffic cones that blocked his way to the pump, Officer Jeremy Felder ordered him to drive a different path that did not require him to move the traffic cones. Ball allegedly "explained that his car would run out of gas if he had to drive to the other store entrance." Upon hearing this, Felder, along with Officers Arthur Salisbury and Kevin Chesney allegedly pushed Ball "onto the concrete parking lot and assaulted him without justification and with excessive force." Ball also claimed that the officers misrepresented the facts in order to bring false criminal charges against him. Also named in the suit was Jackson Police Chief Matthew D. Kunz. The case is captioned Ball v. Jackson, Federal Case No. 3:10-cv-04254 and Ball's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Ball's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $95,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Jackson or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Jackson or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ball $95,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Paterson pays $25,000 to settle police excessive force suit filed by take-out restaurant owner and son.

 

Camden County Ethics Board

 

Jersey City IA

 

Vineland Internal Affairs

Police Accountability Project of the New Jersey Libertarian Party P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 March 19, 2013 Sergeant Leonard Wolf, Internal Affairs Unit Vineland City Police Department 111 N. Sixth Street Vineland, NJ 08360 (via e-mail to lwolf@vinelandcity.org) Dear Sergeant Wolf: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and ask that you accept this letter as our Internal Affairs complaint. We would like your agency to investigate whether Officer Louis J. Plantania and other personnel employed by your agency acted in accordance with department policy and the law regarding a warrantless search of a motor vehicle on May 25, 2011. According to the Appellate Division's decision in State v. Perry Wilcox, Docket No. A-4578-11T4 (on-line here), Plantania located a handgun while he was inside a suspect's car without having first obtained a warrant. The trial court suppressed the gun as the fruit of an invalid search and the Appellate Division affirmed. If Plantania, despite having received adequate training and direction regarding warrantless searches, elected to ignore his training, we ask that you discipline him. Otherwise, we ask that your department review and supplement your training requirements in this area of the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party Police Accountability Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875-5424 Phone: 732-873-1251 - Fax: 908-325-0129 Email: paff@pobox.com
 

Readington Ordinance

 

Mangold IA complaint

 

Internal Affairs Complaint against Howell Township (Monmouth County)

March 16, 2013 Captain Andrew Kudrick, Jr. Office of Internal Affairs Howell Township Police Department 300 Old Tavern Road Howell, N.J. 07731. Via E-mail to akudrick@howellpolice.org Dear Captain Kudrick: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and seek an Internal Affairs investigation into the circumstances surrounding a March 22, 2011 arrest of Larry Basko arrest on West Third Street. The primary Howell officer involved was Michael Pavlick. The facts regarding the arrest are contained in the Appellate Division's March 15, 2013 decision in State v. Basko, which is on-line here. A trial judge found that Pavlick's discovery of illegal drugs in Basko's van during a warrantless search could not be used as evidence against Basko. Even though Basko had consented to the search of his van, the trial judge found that Basko's consent was coerced by Pavlick. According to the decision, Basko initially refused to consent to the search but changed his mind after Pavlick threatened to "call a drug detector dog over" and that if the dog alerted to the presence of contraband, the police would impound the van and apply for a search warrant. We note that the tactic used by Pavlick--threatening to call in police dogs unless a motorist consents to a search--was referenced in the case of State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 645 (2002). In that case, New Jersey Supreme Court quoted the United States Supreme Court's statement--particularly apt here--that ??Consent? that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse.? Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 2388, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). As part of your investigation of matter, we ask that you determine whether or not Officer Pavlick, through his training, was taught to refrain from using coercive tactics to secure "consent" to warrantless searches. If he was so taught, we ask you to impose discipline upon him. Otherwise, we ask that you update your training to address this issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John Paff
 

Seaside Heights pays $75,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On December 20, 2012, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $75,000 to a Somerset County man who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for allegedly beating him. In his suit, Michael B. Lavelle of Branchburg said that May 16, 2009, he was walking back to a Seaside Heights house that he had rented for prom weekend. He said that he mistakenly tried to enter another house, apparently believing that it was the one he had rented. He alleged that Seaside Police Officers Shawn Heckler, Daniel Bloomquist, Kathleen Erdman, Lance DiFabio and Michael McCurdy "utilized excessive force in arresting [him] . . . causing a facial fracture, lacerations and abrasions." At the time the suit was filed, trespass, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges were pending against Lavelle. Also named in the suit were Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd, Detective Stephen Korman and Sergeants James Hans and Terrence Farley. The case is captioned Lavelle v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv-03016 and Lavelle's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Lavelle's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lavelle $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

ACD decision

 

Renna v. Union County, Docket No. L-1431-12 (August 6, 2012)

 

Lavallette Legal Invoices On-Line

As a courtesy to the public, I have uploaded the 2012 legal services bills submitted to the Borough of Lavallette (Ocean County) by Borough Attorney Eric M. Bernstein to the Internet. Give the large file size, I have uploaded two files, which you find here and here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 Voice: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 e-mail: paff@pobox.com
 

New Jersey pays $162,500 to settle Public Defender's malpractice claim

On January 25, 2013, the State of New Jersey agreed to pay $162,500 to a man who sued the Cape May County Office of Public Defender for legal malpractice. In his peition to file a late Tort Claim notice, John Rogers he was wrongfully convicted in 1999 for drug trafficking and spent 6 years in state prison. In 2007, the Appellate Division held that the public defender who represented him court, Erica Smith, provided him with ineffective legal counsel. After the Appellate Division reversed his conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial, Rogers claimed that the trial court dismissed all charges against him. The Appellate Division's October 23, 2007 decision, which details the ineffective lawyering that Rogers received, is on-line here. The case is captioned Rogers Cape May County Office of the Public Defender, et al, Docket No. CPM-L-480-09 and Rogers' attorney was Joseph C. Grassi of Wildwood. Case documents are on-line here. None of Rogers's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The $162,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by New Jersey, Erica Smith or any other official. All that is known for sure is that New Jersey, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Rogers $162,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Walp faces two petty disorderly persons charges

On February 21, 2013, Deborah Nelson filed disorderly conduct and harassment charges against Douglas Walp in the Franklin Township Municipal Court. The complaints, which are numbed 1808-S-2013-000104 and 1808-S-2013-000105, are on-line here. The text of the statutes that Walp allegedly violated is on-line here. The charges arise out of the same conduct that Nelson recently alleged against Walp in her civil complaint--i.e that he threatened to "put a bullet in her head and burn [the building in which she worked] down." According to Franklin Township Court Adminstrator Damaris Santiago, the matters will not be heard in Franklin Township but will be transferred to another area municipal court.
 

Lawrence pays $25,250.61 to settle police officer's New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) suit

On May 23, 2012, the Township of Lawrence (Mercer County) agreed to pay $25,250.61 to former Township police officer who claimed that the police department refused to promote him to police sergeant due to him being African-American. In his suit, John Glenn, who has served as a Lawrence Township office for 17 years, alleged that had he been promoted, he would have been the first African-American or other minority to attain the rank of sergeant or above. According to Glenn's complaint, Lawrence Township's police force of 67 had, as of 2005, only 7 African-American officers. As part of the settlement, the Township also agreed to cooperate in helping Glenn obtain a disability pension and retiree medical benefits from the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS). The case is captioned Glenn v. Lawrence Township Police Department, Federal Case No. 3:10-cv-03121 and Glenn's attorney was Daniel S. Sweetser of Lawrenceville. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Glenn's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $25,250.61 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Lawrence or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Lawrence or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Glenn $25,250.61 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Edison v. Firefighters Union

"Rainone said he didn?t file a required separate motion regarding Rule 11 because he wanted to save the township money." Yet, if you read page 8 of Judge Martini's January 31, 2013 opinion (see link below), it's pretty clear that the judge would have sanctioned the firefighters union by making it pay Edison's legal fees, had Rainone's office filed a proper motion. But, as Judge Martini noted, Edison's request for sanctions, filed by Rainone's office, "did not comply with any of the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 11(c)(2). For example, Defendants did not file a motion for sanctions separately from their motion to dismiss, and did not provide Plaintiffs with 21 days to withdraw the challenged claims." To me, it doesn't look like Rainone didn't file a sanction motion because he wanted to save Edison taxpayers money. Rather, it looks like Rainone's office did file a flawed application for attorneys fees that was denied because of Rainone's office's negligence in preparing it. In my opinion, Edison, could, if it had the political will, successfully sue Rainone's law firm for legal malpractice for negligently dropping the ball on the Rule 11 attorney fee application.
 

Pohatcong pays $15,000 to settle New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) suit

On November 26, 2012, the Township of Pohatcong (Warren County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a former Pohatcong Municipal Court employee who said he was harassed because he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). In his suit, Christopher Pugliese said that his boss, Court Administrator Cyndi Lehr, despite knowing of his ADHD diagnosis, "undertook a program of harassment against" him. According to the complaint, Lehr, in May or June 2010, "began to become snippy, short and condescending against" Pugliese. He claims that Lehr "would make a habit of 'chatting' and performing other non-work related activities" near his work station which, due to his ADHD, "proved a significant distraction" to him. When Pugliese complained, Lehr allegedly "laugh[ed] at [him] in a condescending way and simply continue the conduct." According to the complaint, Lehr, in August 2010, told Pugliese "I hope you don't start using this ADHD bullshit as some kind of excuse. If I would have known it was going to be this big a deal, 1 never would have hired you." Thereafter, according to the complaint, Lehr began to refer to Pugliese as her "dumbass deputy." Ultimately, Pugliese said that the Township Council, as Lehr's "cat's paw," refused to renew his contract thus ending his employment on or about July 19, 2011. The case is captioned Pugliese v. Pohatcong, Warren County Superior Court Docket No. WRN-L-386-11 and Pugliese's attorney was Kevin M. Costello of Mount Laurel. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Pugliese's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Pohatcong or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Pohatcong or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Pugliese $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Did Pohatcong Police retaliate against Sergeant Francesco "Frank" Pagano because Pagano reported Police Lieutenant Dean McBride for sexually assaulted two police officers?

From reading trial transcripts, it is clear that Pohatcong Township [Warren County] Police Sergeant Francesco "Frank" Pagano accused Lieutenant Dean McBride of "sexually touch[ing" two officers at headquarters. See the following excerpt from the March 13, 2012 trial transcripts in Pagano v. Township of Pohatcong, Docket No. WRN-L-63-11, pp. 143, 146 and 147. Attorney: Who do you believe was retaliating against you? Pagano: Lieutenant [Dean] McBride. Attorney: Why? Pagano: In the beginning of 2007, I was approached by two officers from my shift. They stated to me that while at headquarters they were sexually touched by Lieutenant McBride. I filed a report with the chief which he was away at the time down -- (Objection made and overruled) Pagano: I wanted to report it right away to Chief [Paul] Hager but he was away. So I waited until he came back. Since I wasn't -- I had to report it and the next level would be Lieutenant McBride. Above him was the chief. So I waited for the chief to come back from his class. In the meantime, a whole bunch of investigations started against me from that day on. And, it is also clear from those transcripts that Pagano believes that the reason for the retaliation, which culminated in criminal charges--of which he was ultimately exonerated--being brought against him, was his complaint against McBride. Questions remain. Among them: 1. Are Pagano's allegations against McBride true? 2. If so, why is McBride still employed by the Pohatcong Police? 3. If not, why wasn't Pagano charged with perjury (or at least sued civilly) for lying under oath about McBride? See, also, a related story here about the recently disclosed settlement agreement in which Pagano received $255,000 from Pohatcong Township.
 

Pohatcong Township, two weeks prior to OPRA lawsuit hearing, discloses its 2010 settlement agreement with former Police Sergeant.

On February 1, 2013, the Township of Pohatcong (Warren County) publicly released, for the first time, a copy of a December 2, 2010 settlement agreement the Township entered into with former Township Police Sergeant Francesco "Frank" Pagano. The settlement was one of the subjects of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) lawsuit that Somerset County resident Blanca Carroll filed against the Township in 2012 (Carroll v. Pohatcong, Docket No. WRN-L-412-12). Carroll's case is scheduled to be heard before Superior Court Judge Amy O'Connor in Belvidere on Friday, February 15, 2013. The settlement agreement, which is on-line here, reveals that Pagano was paid a total of $255,000--with $215,000 representing back pay and the remaining $40,000 "representing settlement of threatened litigation." In exchange, Pagano tendered a letter of resignation, which the Township agreed was a resignation "in good standing." In addition, the settlement agreement required the Township Police to "withdraw and dismiss all charges set forth in the Notice of Charges dated July 30, 2008 and November 8, 2010" as well as "any uncharged allegations of violations of rules and regulations presently under investigation or contemplated." Finally, and importantly, the settlement agreement specifically allowed Pagano to pursue additional financial claims against the Township "for attorney's fees related to his defense of the criminal indictment." Indeed, Pagano has pursued those attorney fees by way of a 2011 civil suit (Docket No. WRN-L-63-11) that was covered by a January 24, 2013 Express-Times article entitled "Testimony against ex-cop denied. Trial Over Legal Fees resumes for Frank Pagano, former Pohatcong Township police sergeant," by Andrew George. According to earlier Express-Times articles, Pagano was tried to a jury in September 2010 on charges of official misconduct, perjury and falsifying public records. The prosecution contended that Pagano lied about the circumstances surrounding his search of a vehicle during a January 2007 traffic stop. Pagano's criminal defense attorney, Jeff Garrigan, was reported to have said that the decision to prosecute Pagano was "a conspiracy by high-ranking Pohatcong Township police officers was the reason his client made inaccurate statements under oath." (Express-Times, September 16, 2010, "Report, video at odds in stop Defense Alleges Conspiracy against Pohatcong Twp. police Sgt. Frank Pagano as trial opens." by Sarah M. Wojcik.) The "conspiracy" appears to be connected to Pagano's sworn statements indicting that he had received reports from two officers that Pohatcong Lieutenant Dean McBride had "sexually touched" them at police headquarters. He claimed that the retaliation began after he submitted those reports to Pohatcong Police Chief Paul Hager. See a separate story on this matter here. After a five day trial, the jury cleared Pagano of all charges on September 28, 2010. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision. According to ¶ 10 the agreement, had Pagano breached confidentiality, he could be forced to repay $255,000 to the Township. Under ¶ 8, however, Pagano is apparently able to now "comment on the contents of [the] agreement]" since it has, by virtue of Carroll's suit, "become part of the public domain through a lawful request for its production."
 

LFB dismissed ethics complaint against badge-flashing Voorhees Deputy Mayor.

On January 22, 2013, Thomas H. Neff, chairman of the New Jersey Local Finance Board (LFB) notified me that my ethics complaint against Voorhees Township (Camden County) Deputy Mayor Mario DiNatale was dismissed by a 3 to 1 vote. (The LFB has six members, but only four were present at the January 9, 2013 meeting where the vote was taken.) http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/programs/lfb_docs/13agendas/agenda_01_09_2013.pdf http://www.voorheesnj.com/committee-members.php I had complained to the LFB on January 17, 2012 after reading a January 11, 2012 Courier Post article entitled "Abuse of badges may cost them badges" by Jeremy Rosen. The article reported that Berlin Township (Camden County) police officer Wayne Bonfiglio had stopped Deputy Mayor DiNatale on January 5, 2012 for having a rejected red inspection sticker and improperly tinted windows on his vehicle. http://www.app.com/article/BZ/20120112/NEWS99/301120013/Abuse-badges-may-cost-them-badges http://www.berlintwp.com/policedepartment.html According to a January 5, 2012 e-mail that Bonfiglio had sent to Voorhees Police Chief Keith Hummel, when the officer approached DiNatale's car, DiNatale held a police badge out the driver's side window. Bonfiglio, who "could not believe that a police officer would openly display his badge on a car stop in front of so may witnesses" asked DiNatale if he was a police officer. According to Bonfiglio, DiNatale "simply replied, 'Voorhees Township Police.'" Bonfiglio, who knew all the Voorhees police but didn't recognized DiNatale, challenged DiNatale's claim that he was a police officer. At that point, DiNatale explained that he was the Voorhees Deputy Mayor and had received a a police badge because served in a "liaison role" as the Township Committee's public safety director. According to Bonfiglio, he didn't issue DiNatale any summonses "out of respect for [Chief Hummel]. Rather, he told DiNatale to remove the tint from this windows and get his vehicle inspected. After reading the article, I concluded that DiNatale's actions constructed a violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(c), which states: "No local government officer or employee shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure unwarranted privileges or advantages for himself or others." I felt, and still feel, that flashing a police badge to get yourself out of a ticket falls squarely into the category of using one's official position to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage. Yet, the LFB decided to give DiNatale a pass because he sent an e-mail to Berlin Township Police Chief Joseph Jackson on January 16, 2012 (after the article was published in the Courier Post) "requesting that the appropriate tickets be issued to [him]." DiNatale's magnanimous gesture (i.e. deigning to accept a traffic summons, just like us common folk), in the LFB's eyes, warranted mercy. After receiving the LFB's dismissal letter, I submitted an OPRA request to Berlin Township for the correspondence back and forth between DiNatale and Berlin Police Chief Jackson, as well as copies of the traffic tickets that were ultimately issued to DiNatale. In response, I was given a copy of DiNatale's e-mail to Jackson and was told that no summonses against DiNatale were on file. I conclude from this that while DiNatale may have asked to be ticketed, he didn't actually receive any tickets. So, the way I understand the LFB's view of the ethics law, if a public official is caught trying to use his official position to beat a traffic ticket, he or she will be excused from an ethics complaint as long as he or she, after being caught, contritely asks for the ticket to be issues. It matters not, however, whether any tickets are actually issued against the public official. Rather, it's the thought that counts. My ethics complaint, Neff's dismissal letter, the Courier Post article, my OPRA request to Berlin and Berlin's response are all on-line here.
 

 

Sen. Loretta Weinberg to speak in New Brunswick on Feb. 6.

State Senator Loretta Weinberg, sponsor of legislation that will improve OPRA and OPMA, will be one of panelist in a discussion on "How has technology affected open government and where will it go from here." The panel discussion, which is free and is open to the public (light food will be served) will be held on Wednesday, February 6, 2013, 6:30 p.m., in the 4th Floor lecture hall at Rutgers University's Alexander Library, 169 College Ave, New Brunswick. For more information, click here.
 

A win, a loss and an adjournment in Belvidere yesterday

On Friday, February 1, 2013, Warren County Superior Court Judge Amy O'Connor ruled on two Open Public Records Act (OPRA) cases. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/OPRA.htm The plaintiff in both cases was represented by Walter M. Luers of Clinton. http://www.luerslaw.com/ Carroll v. Warren County Community College Foundation Docket no. WRN-L-385-12 At issue: Whether the Warren County Community College Foundation (WCCCF) is a government agency subject to OPRA. The WCCCF is a non-profit agency that is closely associated with the Warren County Community College (WCCC) and secures grants and donations to fund scholarships for WCCC students. Result: Judge O'Connor found that the WCCCF is a "public agency" as defined by OPRA. The chief reason for her ruling was that WCCC, under the WCCCF's bylaws, retains the right to approve or reject nominees to the WCCCF's board of trustees. This fact, along with others, caused Judge O'Connor to rule that "the Foundation, in essence, is an instrumentality of the College." Among the records the plaintiff requested were the minutes of the Foundation's Board of Trustee meetings. The WCCCF's attorney, Suzanne M. Marasco, said that although she had not seen the requested minutes, she felt that it was unfair for them to be publicly released because the WCCCF Board, at the time of those meetings, was operating under the assumption that the minutes would never be made public. Luers countered that the minutes should be treated like executive session minutes, i.e. they were presumed to be publicly disclosable, but that certain portions may need to be redacted to protect legitimate confidentiality and privacy concerns. O'Connor directed both attorneys to submit briefs on whether or not the minutes should be disclosed. http://www.hillwallack.com/web-content/attorneys/attorney_bios_marasco.html Carroll v. Phillipsburg Town Docket no. WRN-L-397-12 At issue: Plaintiff requested a machine readable computer file of the town's 2012 payroll report. The town offered to provide plaintiff, at no cost, with its report in PDF format, which, unlike a report provided in Excel, CSV or a delimited text file, is not easily searchable, sortable or capable of being filtered. According to the town, its third-party payroll administrator, ADP, assesses the town a $150 fee to produce the report in the requested machine readable format--which would need to be paid by the plaintiff in order to get the report in the format she desired. Result: PDF is a "meaningful medium" in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(d) and satisfied plaintiff's request, even though Plaintiff would have to retype the data contained in the report in order to create her own machine readable and manipulable file. Given this holding, the issue of whether the $150 fee was excessive was not reached. Carroll v. Pohatcong Township Docket no. WRN-L-413-12 At issue: In a sworn statement, Francesco Pagano, a former Township police officer testified that a police lieutenant "sexually assault[ed] two officers at work." Is the report and other records related to this alleged assault subject to disclosure under OPRA or the common law? Also, is the written agreement that Pagano and Pohatcong entered into at the time of his separation from employment disclosable as a public record? Result: Hearing postponed until February 15, 2013.
 

Deptford EMT sues for sexual harassment and retaliation

On December 26, 2012, Dawn Law, an Emergency Medical Technician employed by Deptford Township (Gloucester County) sued the Township under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (Law v. Township of Deptford, Docket No. GLO-L-1890-12, a copy of which is on-line here.) Law, who has worked as a Deptford EMT since 2000, claimed that EMT Deputy Chief David Snyder sent her a text message on October 2, 2012 "propositioning her to engage in a sexual relationship." Law claimed that the invitation was "unanticipated, unwelcomed and unappreciated." Snyder then allegedly tried to meet with Law for a matter not related to work. Thereafter, Law claimed she was afraid that she might be forced to work shifts alone with Snyder. After reporting Snyder's advances to Chief Tom Newman, Snyder was allegedly given a choice between resigning immediately or being suspended pending an investigation. Then, a few days later, Law was ordered to meet with Deptford Township Solicitor Doug Long. According to the complaint, Long told Law that "he had conducted a preliminary investigation and decided that the relationship between plaintiff and Mr. Snyder was consensual." Long allegedly then gave Law a choice between resigning and receiving a check for unpaid sick and vacation time or to "fight Mr. Long and be suspended for 30 days and then terminated." Law claims that neither she nor her partner, Paul Reyes, were intereviewed during Long's alleged investigation. After declining Long's offer to resign, Law claims that she was suspended from duty from October 25, 2012 to November 19, 2012. Law, who is represented by Kevin Costello, Esq. of Mount Laurel, claims entitlement to damages and attorney fees. Law's allegations are only that--allegations. Nothing has been proven and no negative inferences should be drawn against Law, Snyder, Long or anyone else.
 

Francis v. Camden Board of Education, CAM-L-207-13

Francis v. Camden Board of Education, CAM-L-207-13
 

Absecon Police Officer April Kolakowski: Repeat victim or a troublemaker?

According to a December 28, 2012 Press of Atlantic City article ("Police Officer sues Absecon, alleges procedural violation," by Derek Harper), Absecon Police Officer April M. Kolakowski filed suit against the City of Absecon seeking to overturn disciplinary penalties imposed upon her. Kolakowski's lawsuit, which was filed by Attorney John C. Eastlack of Cherry Hill, is captioned Kolakowski v.; City of Absecon, Docket No. ATL-L-7953-12 and is available on-line here. According to her suit, Kolakowski (formerly April Van Daley) started with the Absecon Police Department in 2003 as a dispatcher and became a patrol officer in 2008. She alleges that disciplinary charges were filed against her on September 29, 2009 but that she wasn't afforded a hearing until June 1, 2012. Kolakowski's lawsuit does not mention the nature of the charges against her or the discipline imposed. The Press article, however, states that the disciplinary charges arose out an "encounter" Kolakowski had with Absecon Emergency Services Chief Rich Hudson after a tenant at a local motel allegedly received inadequate medical care. This is the third time Kolakowski has employed the courts to resolve disputes. The 2001 Lawsuit: In 2001, she filed a lawsuit against Somers Point Police Chief Orville F. Mathis and others alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. (Van Daley v. Richard Cohen Associates, et al, Docket No. ATL-L-1262-01) In this suit, Kolakowski, who was hired in March 1999, alleged that since she was the first and only female officer at the time, male police officials conspired to have her removed from the department. They accomplished this, she said, through humiliation, the filing of bogus disciplinary charges and requiring her to undergo a "fitness for duty psychological evaluation." She claimed that the evaluation was not genuine but a pretext to allow officials to documented fabrications that would support their quest to have her fired. Kolakowski said that senior police officers John Divel and Salvatore Armenia, "abused the [supervisory] authority" they had over her "so as to discriminate against [her]." For example, Divel, her squad supervisor, allegedly demonstrated a "sexist attitude" toward her, "deliberately humiliat[ed] [her] on the radio" and required her to follow rules to which no male officer was required to follow. Armenia, she claimed, told her "that if she had to utilize the restroom facilities while on duty, she must expressly ask permission to do so and could do so only in the police department." Her suit further alleged that Chief Mathis ordered her to go to the "fitness for duty psychological evaluation" which was conducted by Richard Cohen, Ph.D. During those sessions, Cohen allegedly asked Kolakowski about "intimate sexual details of her life," including whether she ever "made out" with Divel. She claimed that Mathis "hand-picked" Cohen as the evaluator because he knew "that he would willingly shape his opinion or testimony so as to provide the maximum harm to [Kolakowski's] position." Kolakowski's suit, which was filed by Cherry Hill attorney Clifford L. Van Syoc, settled on September 23, 2013 for $180,000. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. (Mathis, who was born in 1942, retired in 2007 and is collecting an $87,349 annual pension. Divel, who was born in 1959, retired in 2011 and is collecting a $62,314 annual pension. Armenia became chief in 2007 after Mathis retired. He since retired effective December 31, 2011. In 2011 he collected an annual salary of $142,948.) The 2005 Lawsuit: On October 4, 2005, Kolakowski filed a lawsuit against the City of Absecon alleging that the City, despite promises to the contrary, refused to give her a position as a police officer because of the earlier lawsuit she filed against Somers Point. (This lawsuit was captioned Van Daley v. City of Absecon, et al, Docket No. ATL-L-6532-05.) In the 2005 suit, Kolakowski alleged that Absecon hired her as a police dispatcher in August of 2003 after she had "resigned in good standing" from the Somers Point Police Department. After a year as working as a dispatcher, she applied for an opening as a full time Absecon Police Officer. She alleges that Police Chief Charles J. Smith told her that she was "just edged out" by another candidate. Yet, Smith, according to the lawsuit, refused to show Kolakowski the list of the candidates' rankings. Thereafter, she applied for another police officer position. This time, she alleged that she was promised the position. But, she alleged, Sergeant David Risley and "Henchy" (presumably Officer Robert Henchy), after speaking with a Somers Point officer, determined that Kolakowski was a "troublemaker" and that it would be "a mistake" to hire her. Ultimately, Joyce H. Lee, an Asian female, was hired instead of Kolakowski even though she was allegedly not qualified for the position. Kolakowski's suit settled on March 5, 2008. Kolakowski received $40,000 for "emotional distress" and her attorney, Clifford L. Van Syoc, received $55,000. Kolakowski was also allowed to become a Probationary Police Officer and was given a one-month paid leave of absence "as an expression of good faith" so that she could be "fully prepared for the Police Academy." The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. (Chief Smith retired at age 53 in 2008, and at the time of this retirement, he was given a 18.9 increase in his pay and his pension, which brought his salary to $104,698 and his pension to $51,342. He was also given a check for $281,874 for unused sick, vacation and personal time. David Risley, who made $92,592 in 2011, became Absecon's police chief in March 2012 after former chief Joseph J. Cowan abruptly retired on February 1, 2012 at age 48. Before his retirement, Cowan made $128,700 in 2011. Robert Henchy retired in 2011, at age 48, at a final salary of $93,676. He will receive an annual pension of $60,889. Joyce Lee was promoted to sergeant in April 2012, and made $81,543 in 2011.)
 

Parking Authority v. Frischkorn

 

Wrightstown Mayor, wife again cleared of ethics charge.

On July 10, 2012, I blogged about the New Jersey Local Finance Board (LFB) clearing Wrightstown (Burlington County) Mayor Thomas Harper and his wife Mary Karen Harper of violating the Local Government Ethic Law (LGEL). I had filed a complaint against the Harpers because they, while members of Local Land Use Board, both testified on April 14, 2009 in support of a land use application that a) was pending before the same land use board upon which they served, and b) concerned a property that was adjacent to their residence. I argued that even through they recused themselves from the land use hearing, it was still inappropriate for them to testify in support of their neighbor's application in their capacity as private citizens. http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2012/07/wrightstown-mayor-wife-cleared-of.html On July 24, 2012, two weeks after the LFB dismissed my complaint, the New Jersey Libertarian Party and I filed another complaint against the Harpers based on the same set of facts, plus one more: That Mrs. Harper had received, the year prior to her testimony, in excess of $2,000 from one of the "partner and clients" of the applicant. I felt that Mrs. Harper testifying in support of an applicant after having recently having been on the applicant's "partner's or client's" payroll constituted a clear violation of the LGEL. The LFB, however, disagreed. In his January 18, 2013 letter, LFB Chairman Thomas H. Neff held that public officials are "not prohibited from representing themselves in negotiations or proceedings concerning their own interests" and that such "[s]elf-representation is permitted under the [LGEL] regardless of whether Mrs. Harper is an employee of a company that is allegedly a 'partner and client' of the applicant." Accordingly, the LFB dismissed the complaint as "having no reasonable factual basis for violation of the Local Government Ethics Law." The Libertarian Party's complaint and the Local Finance Board's dismissal letter are on-line here. We hope that publication of this matter will help local government officers better determine the contours of the Local Government Ethics Law. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Bibi Stewart Garvin aka Bibi Taylor Separation from Town of Dover

 

North Plainfield pays $5,000 in a no-injury, police misconduct case.

I recently read a July 19, 2011 decision by United State District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson in Maria Broadnax's civil lawsuit against the Borough of South Plainfield and patrol officer Ryan Mote. At issue was the legality of Mote sticking his fingers in the pocket of Broadnax's jeans during a December 11, 2008 traffic stop for driving a car with tinted windows on Route 22. Broadnax had claimed that Mote violated her Fourth Amendment rights by momentarily sticking his fingers, up to his knuckles, in the pocket of her tight bluejeans before she withdrew from the officer causing his fingers to slip back out. In October 2011, a few months after North Plainfield lost its motion for summary judgment, it settled the case by paying Broadnax and her lawyer $5,000. The opinion and settlement are on-line here. In deciding the summary judgment motion, the court drew a distinction between an officer patting down the exterior of someone's clothing and actually sticking his hand in the person's pocket. Exterior pat-downs, which are less intrusive, are sometimes needed to ensure that the officer is not confronting an armed person. But, as Judge Wolfson observed, "it is unlikely that an officer could reasonably suspect that a weapon was hidden in a pocket in a pair of tight jeans." Thus, Mote's failure to first ascertain, either visually or by way of an exterior pat-down, a bulge or protrusion in Broadnax's pocket that suggested the presence of a weapon, transformed the entry of his fingers into Broadnax's pocket to a Fourth Amendment violation. I suspect that North Plainfield settled not because it was worried that Broadnax would be able to prove extensive damages--all she apparently suffered was the indignity of having her Fourth Amendment rights violated. My suspicion is that North Plainfield made a business decision to settle in order to avoid the high legal costs that a trial of this matter would have incurred. If Ms. Broadnax's constitutional rights were violated, I can't blame her for seeking vindication from the courts. After all, that's exactly what courts are supposed to do. The problem, both in this case and more generally, is that the costs of litigation almost always force police departments to settle lawsuits regardless of the legal merits of the plaintiffs' claims or the seriousness of injuries suffered. This signals to some attorneys that they don't really need to "win" cases in order to make money. Rather, they need only to have enough contested facts in the record to survive the police department's summary judgment or dismissal motion. Thereafter, the high cost of trial pretty much always drives the case to settlement which results in both the plaintiffs and the lawyers receiving a sum, perhaps a small one, from the police. As undesirable as this is, the alternatives (e.g. "losers pay" statutes, restricting access to the courts, etc.) would be worse. Yet, there ought to be better and more efficient ways to adjudicate the claims of citizens who claim that the police violated their rights.
 

Union City pays $106,500 to settle police beatdown suit

On February 24, 2012, the City of Union City (Hudson County) agreed to pay $106,500 to a local man who sued members of the Union City Police Department for allegedly beating him. In his suit, Jean Peguero said that on May 23, 2009, he was walking his dog when approached by Union City Police Officers Alex Ruperto, Jose Castillo and Damien DiFazio and Sergeants Dominick DePinto and John Dowling. According to the complaint, the officers had fifteen minutes earlier told a friend that they were looking for Peguero and "were going to punch [him] in the face when they saw [him]." After surrounding Peguero, the officers reportedly told him to tie his dog to a fence and then assaulted him. According to the lawsuit, Ruperto punched Peguero in the mouth, "knocking his head back where it struck a concrete column." DePinto and DiFazio then reportedly continued the beating Peguero while he was on the ground. Also named in the suit were Union City Police Chief Charles Everett and Sergeant M. Mico. The case is captioned Peguero v. Union City, Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-01768 and Peguero's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms or even the fact that the settlement exists. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Peguero's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $106,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Union City or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Union City or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Peguero $106,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bibi Taylor Separation from City of Plainfield

 

Warren Prosecutor: My "generalized interest" insufficient to identify officers who took county owned generators.

I had recently requested records from the Warren County Prosecutor that would identify the Warren County jail officers who took county-owned generators for their personal use in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Today, I received a polite brush-off from Assistant Prosecutor Tara J. Kirkendall. My records request and Kirkendall's response are on-line here. Kirkendall disclosed that her office's Major Crimes Unit initiated an investigation into this matter on November 19, 2012 and opened up Investigation Case Number IN12-096. Kirkendall was also good enough to identify thirteen documents within the file that she said could not be released, mainly because they are claimed to be covered by the Open Public Records Act's (OPRA) "criminal investigatory record" exception. She did, however, disclose two documents--an "Investigative Closeout Review" and Prosecutor Richard T. Burke's December 21, 2012 letter informing Sheriff David Gallant that there was "insufficient evidence to continue [his] investigation at this time." The accused officer's name, however, was redacted from both records. As to my right to documents under the common law right of access, Assistant Prosecutor Kirkendall advised me: As you are aware, under the common law, the right to examine documents rests upon a showing of some personal or particular interest in the material sought, balanced against the public's interest in the confidentiality of the material. You indicate that you are a "citizen keenly interested in openness and transparency in all parts of New Jersey" and you believe that the individuals involved should be "publicly identified". As no criminal charges were filed and the matter was handled as an internal affairs/personnel matter, the public's interest in the confidentiality of the material is not outweighed by your generalized interest in the documents under the common law. I am considering litigating this matter.
 

Repealed Loitering Ordinances - NJLP Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project

The New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project ("the Project") seeks to get New Jersey municipalities to repeal loitering ordinances that should have been--but were not--repealed when the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice was enacted in 1979. The Project has successfully had loitering ordinances repealed in a number of municipalities. This report details the issue and the Project's results.
 

Older issues:

2012

Vote on Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

 

Somers Point

Tina Lalena, Municipal Division Manager Atlantic County Superior Court 4997 Unami Blvd Mays Landing, NJ 08330 (via e-mail only to tina.lalena@judiciary.state.nj.us) Dear Ms. Lalena: From researching records of the Somers Point Municipal Court, I have discovered that the court, on April 17, 2012, accepted a guilty plea to a violation of of a municipal code provision that repealed in 1991. On-line here is the summons/complaint issued in State v. Showell, 2011-SC-5252. Following the summons/complaint is a "request of approve plea agreement" form. The summons/complaint and the plea agreement form indicate that Showell, who was charged with pled guilty to Ordinance "3 of 1973" for "causing annoyance and alarm by loitering in the area of Route 52 and Route 559 while highly intoxicated." She was assessed a $106 fine and $33 in court costs. On-line here is "Ordinance 3 of 1973" which I received from Somers Point Municipal Clerk Carol Degrassi. On-line here is "Ordinance 6 of 1991" which was a major codification of the Somers Point City Code. On-line here is part of an e-mail thread with Clerk Degrassi in which she states that Ordinance "3 of 1973" "does not appear in the current code book," and "it appears that Ordinance No. 3 of 1973 was repealed when the City adopted the recodification in 1991." Thus, it appears that Showell was, in 2012, assessed a total of $139 for violating a code provision that had been repealed more than twenty years earlier. On-line here are the first three pages of the Somers Point Municipal Court's Local Offense List. As you can see, it contains several ordinances that were passed prior to the 1991 codification (e.g. "Ord 11 of 1960" prohibiting "false ID."). By virtue of their inclusion on the Local Offense List, any of these code provisions could be enforced, similar to the manner that "3 of 1973" was enforced against Showell. I believe that the following three things need to happen, and I ask for your assistance: 1. Remove "3 of 1973" from the Local Offense List and inform the Somers Point Police Department to immediately stop enforcing it. 2. Have the Somers Point City Attorney review each of the entries on the City's Local Offense List and remove all of those which are no longer in force. 3. Refund Showell the $106 that she paid for violating a repealed code section. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc. Mayor and Council, City of Somers Point (via e-mail to the City Clerk at CDegrassi@spgov.org)
 

Improper Downgrading in Tenafly Municipal Court

December 27, 2012 Annmarie Cozzi, Esq. Senior Assistant Prosecutor via e-mail only to ACozzi@BCPO.NET RE: Improper Downgrading in Tenafly Municipal Court Dear Ms. Cozzi: On March 9, 2010, you were kind enough to respond to my February 23, 2010 letter complaining that the Bogota municipal prosecutor was downgrading statutory charges to municipal code violations in a manner prohibited by the Attorney General's November 18, 1998 Directive. For your ready reference, I have placed both my letter and your response on-line here and here. A similar problem is present in the Tenafly Municipal Court, as shown by the four pages related to State v. David Li, which are on-line here. The first page shows that Li was, sometime prior to June 20, 2012 (probably June 12, 2012) charged under Complaint-Summons No. 0261-S-2012-00067 with being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10B) and defiant trespassing (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3B(2)), both of which are statutory offenses. The second page shows that the CDS violation was, on August 15, 2012, resolved by way of a Conditional Discharge application while the defiant trespass charge was amended, at the prosecutor's request, to a violation of Tenafly Code Sec. 3-14.1. The third and fourth pages are both sides of Summons-Complaint No. 0261-SC-005585, which was issued to Mr. Li on August 15, 2012--the same day that his plea agreement was negotiated. That summons shows that Mr. Li was charged with violating Tenafly Code Sec. 3-14.1 on June 12, 2012 and assessed fines and costs of $139. Tenafly Code Sec. 3-14.1 states: http://clerkshq.com/default.ashx?clientsite=Tenafly-nj Breach of Peace: No person shall conduct himself/herself upon the street or in private places within the Borough in a manner contrary to the provisions of Title 2A of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice. (Ord. No. 937 § 2; New) The thrust of the code provision, which was apparently written prior to the codification of the Criminal Code in Title 2C, is to make any violation of the State's penal code also a violation of Tenafly's municipal code. Taken to its extreme, Tenafly's code section purports to make murder, which is prohibited by N.J.S.A 2C:11-3, to also constitute a municipal code violation. I cannot imagine a more blatant example of a preempted local code provision than one which attempts to shoehorn New Jersey's entire penal code within a single ordinance prohibition. I hope that you will agree, without further elaboration by me, that Sec. 3-14.1 is clearly preempted and that downgrading statutory provisions to it violates the Attorney General's directive. So that you don't think that Li is an isolated example, I've placed on-line here showing the Tenafly Municipal Court's similar treatment of State v. Orero. Would you please let me know if you will tell Tenafly's prosecutor to stop violating the Attorney General's directive? Thank you. cc. Mayor and Council, Borough of Tenafly via e-mail to the Borough Clerk at laportela@tenafly.net Hon. Roy F. McGeady, P.J.M.C., Bergen County Municipal Court Presiding Judge via e-mail to Roy.Mcgeady@judiciary.state.nj.us Hon. Allen M. Bell, J.M.C., Tenafly Municipal Court via e-mail to abell@jacobsandbell.com Mark Fierro, Esq. Municipal Prosecutor via e-mail to mfierro@fierrolawnj.com
 

Local Prosecutor and Public Defender Financial Filing Requirements

By statute (N.J.S.A. 2B:25-4 and 2B:24-3), every New Jersey municipal court must have at least one municipal prosecutor and at least one municipal public defender. Since these positions are common to almost every municipality in the state, one would think that question of whether the holders of these offices are "local government officers" who are required by the New Jersey Local Government Ethics Law (LGEL) to file an annual "Financial Disclosure Statement" has long ago been settled. Unfortunately, there is still confusion regarding the prosecutors' and public defenders' filing requirements, which is distressing since the LGEL became effective on May 21, 1999--over twenty years ago. Simply put, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect most towns to be on the same page as to what the law requires after that law has been in existence for over twenty years. But, if you submit an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, as I did with Morris Township (Morris County), seeking the Financial Disclosure Statements filed by the prosecutors and public defenders, don't be surprised if you are told, as I was, that the prosecutor and defender are exempt from the filing requirement because the Attorney General, in 1991, deemed them to be "court personnel" who are not required to file. But, the Attorney General Opinion Letter that these towns invariably rely upon, AO-91-0096, contains a very important footnote on page 6 stating that "a municipal court prosecutor and a municipal court public defender are not considered part of the judicial branch of government." In other words, while municipal court judges and administrators are exempted by the Opinion Letter from the filing requirement, prosecutors and defenders are not. When I first realized, in 2008, that the majority of municipal governments had not read AO-91-0096 correctly, I wrote to the Local Finance Board within the Division of Local Government Services and suggested that "there shouldn't be such uncertainty over this rather straightforward issue" and invited the Board to "clearly decide the question and to publicly disseminate its decision so that municipal clerks and prosecutors around New Jersey can be properly guided." My August 21, 2008 letter to the Board, which is available here, has never received a response. Accordingly, more than four years later, I am still slugging it out--one municipality at a time--over the issue of whether prosecutors and public defenders are required to file. I frequently find cases like Morris Township, where the officials genuinely are confused by the ambiguity in the law and, after reading my correspondence, decided that I was right and required their prosecutor and public defender to make their financial filings. And, I don't mean to impugn Morris Township officials by this posting as they were simply abiding by the vague and incomplete information that the state gave them and are probably as frustrated as I am over state agencies' inability or unwillingness to clarify the policies that the agencies expect the municipalities to enforce. My letter to Morris Township and the Township's response are on-line here. What does concerns me, however, is that it shouldn't be so difficult for a citizen who recognizes a general problem with the execution of a statute to get the agency in charge of that statute to resolve the problem. All the Local Finance Board would need to do is issue a simple bulletin (or Local Finance Notice) to each municipality in the state (the Board issues such notices regularly) advising them of the ambiguity and instructing the municipal ties on how to deal with it. And, while the filing or non-filing of a Financial Disclosure Statement by municipal prosecutors and defenders may not be the biggest problem confronting New Jersey, it does underscore a problem that plagues government agencies in New Jersey and beyond--a total lack of expectation for anything resembling excellence, or even competence, within many of the institutions that churn out the reams of the sometimes conflicting, and often vague, regulations that the rest of us are required to live under. I am sending a copy of this posting to the Local Finance Board, in hopes that they will deem it appropriate to issue the Local Finance Notice that would clarify this matter. In the meantime, I'll keep proceeding as I have--one town at a time.
 

Seaside Heights pays $10,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On December 17, 2012, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $10,000 to a Brick Township man who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for allegedly beating him. In his suit, Jason Billingham said that on March 20, 2010, he was waiting for his girlfriend outside of Club Karma when he was "without justification . . . punched, maced and beaten with police batons by" Seaside Police Officers Christopher Linnell, Joseph Fastige, Edward Pasieka and Christopher Diaz. Also named in the suit were Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd, Sergeant James Hans and Detective Stephen Korman. The case is captioned Billingham v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-00920 and Billingham's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Billingham's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Billingham $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Neptune pays $15,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On August 20, 2012, the Township of Neptune (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a local man who sued members of the Neptune Police Department for allegedly applying excessive force against him. In his suit, John Williams said that on May 9, 2011, he was home recuperating from a broken leg when Neptune police officers Marques Jamar Alston and Kristopher Daly knocked at his door. According to the lawsuit, Alston told Williams twice to "get up" and threw Williams' walker against a wall, breaking it. Alston allegedly pulled Williams out of his chair, threw him to the floor and arrested him. Alston reportedly stepped on Williams' laptop computer, breaking it, and also broke Williams' eyeglasses. According to the complaint, the impetus for the officers' visit to Williams' home was some harassing phone calls that Williams allegedly made to Jersey Shore Medical Center. Daly was named in the suit only because he failed to intervene when Alston alledgedly assaulted Williams. Also named in the suit was Neptune Police Chief Robert H. Adams. The case is captioned Williams v. Neptune, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-07405 and Williams's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Williams' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Neptune or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Neptune or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Williams $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Letter to Mr.Neff

December 23, 2012 Thomas Neff, Director Division of Local Government Services (via e-mail only) Dear Mr. Neff: As you are aware, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(a) requires local governments, each time they award a no-bid contract for professional services, to place a notice of the award in the local newspaper. The statute specifies that the notice shall contain "the nature, duration, service and amount of the contract." (Emphasis added). Unfortunately, many municipalities do not report "the amount" of the no-bid contracts they award and instead only advise the public, through the local paper, that the no-bid contracts, which would disclose the amount, are available for inspection at the government's office. An example of this is found in the January 13, 2011 public notice published in the Gloucester County Times by the Township of Deptford (on-line here). As you can see, the notice recites a number of no-bid contracts awarded to professionals, but does not disclose the "amount" of any of them. Since the statute requires the "amount" of each no-bid contract to be published, your office, without more, should be willing to enforce that requirement against entities, such as Deptford, that violate the rule. But, I would like to explain the practical difficulties that I--as well as others--face when this requirement is not obeyed. One of the professionals to which Deptford awarded a contract is Michael J. Silvanio, Esq., who was appointed on January 3, 2011 as Deptford's "conflict prosecutor." Yet, Silvanio, on October 14, 2010, contributed $500 to Deptford Township Democratic Executive Committee (see the Election Law Enforcement Commission report, on-line here). If Silvanio was awarded the contract under a "non fair and open process" (i.e. one without competitive proposals being received), then it would be legal for him to have made this contribution only if the amount of the awarded contract did not exceed $17,500. Thus, in order for me or others to know whether or not the so-called "Pay-to-Play" laws have been violated, we need to know "the amount" of each no-bid contract that is awarded. Since Deptford has not abided by the statutory requirement, anyone who wants to determine whether or not the law has been violated needs to submit an OPRA request to Deptford in order to learn the amount of Silviano's contract--something that we should be able to learn simply by reading the newspaper. Would the Division distribute a Local Finance Notice, or otherwise remind local governments of the statutory requirement to include "the amount" of each professional services contract they award within the legal notice published in the local newspaper? If not, would the Division at least remind Deptford of this responsibility? Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Phone: 732-873-1251 E-mail: paff@pobox.com cc. Hon. Paul Medany, Mayor and members of the Deptford Township Council (via e-mail to dzawadski@deptford-nj.org) 40A:11-5. Exceptions
 

Glassboro Conflict Public Defender2

 

Glassboro Conflict Public Defender

 

NJ Motor Vehicle Crash data on-line

At last night's New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) meeting, I learned that New Jersey keeps a comprehensive database of motor vehicle accident data on the Internet here. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/accident/ I'm posting this because some others might find it useful to know, for instance, how many school bus accidents occurred in a given county or town within a given year. I played with the data for a while to see if it might help me isolate accidents in which government vehicles were involved. Just for fun, I decided to see how many car accidents took place in Neptune Township (Monmouth County) during 2011 in which at least one of the vehicles was a police car. I found ten such accidents and have listed them in the PDF file I've placed on-line here. If I wanted to, I could now OPRA each of the accident reports to learn more about what exactly occurred in these accidents. I didn't need any special software to do this, I used a text editor, a text sorting program, both of which I got for free off the Internet, and Excel (which I already have) to format the PDF file. Without getting into too much detail, here are the basic steps I took: 1. Went to the above listed site and downloaded the "raw data" from Monmouth County in 2011. I downloaded two files, "Accident" and "Vehicle." 2. Using the "Vehicle Table" and "Accident Table" on the same site, I learned the various column positions within each file at which certain data fields began. 3. Also at the site, I looked up "County and Municipal Codes" and learned that Neptune Township's code is 1334. 4. I sorted the "Vehicle" file on columns 4-7. Then I opened up the "Vehicle" file in my text editor and deleted all the accidents that happened somewhere other than 1334 (Neptune Twp). This gave me a more manageable file to work with that contained only vehicles involved in accidents in Neptune Township. 5. I sorted the resulting file on columns 130-131, which is the two digit code for "Special Function Vehicles." This allowed me to filter for police cars ("02"), fire/rescue ("04"), ambulances ("05"), school buses ("09"), etc. 6. I then boiled the file down to just 10 entries in which police cars were involved. I then searched the "Accident" file for each of the unique "Police report number" from those 10 entries to get more information for the attached table. If I wanted, I could have searched the "Driver" file in the same manner and gotten other information, such as the drivers' dates of birth, whether summonses were issued, etc. There are probably better ways to do this, but this is what I can do with my limited computer skills.
 

Mt. Olive Retirement

 

Your tax dollars at work in Mount Olive Township

A big fish slipped through former Morris County Prosecutor Robert A. Bianchi's fingers today when the Appellate Division affirmed a lower court's dismissal of drug charges against 22-year old Joshua Chafee. The Appellate Division agreed with both a municipal and Superior Court judges' rulings that the duration of a police officer's May 26, 2011 "investigatory stop" of Chafee outside a Mount Olive convenience store was not justified. According to the appellate decision, Mount Olive Township Police Officer Joseph Abrusci, who is certified as a "drug recognition expert," saw Chafee enter the convenience store on May 26, 2011 and was immediately taken by "how red Chafee's eyes were." He also noted that Chafee "had a very nervous appearance" and moved around the store in a way that indicated that he "didn't want to have direct contact with" Abrusci. Abrusci noted however, that nothing in Chafee's speech or movement suggested that he was impaired by alcohol or drugs. Abrusci watched Chafee purchase rolling papers, walk across the parking lot and start his car. At that point, Abrusci approached the window of Chafee's car and demanded identification. Although Chafee was "very defensive," he gave Abrusci his ID which confirmed that he was old enough to legally buy the rolling papers. Abrusci then conducted three field sobriety tests and, according to Abrusci, Chafee's performance was "consistent with marijuana use." He arrested Chafee and, after a pat-down search revealed nothing illegal on his person, charged him with driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, failure to notify DMV of an address change and "being under the influence of marijuana." In municipal court, Chafee filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer's only plausible suspicion--that Chafee might not have been old enough to buy rolling papers--was dispelled when he was able to prove he was 22-years old. Thereafter, Chafee argued, the officer had no articulable rationale for continuing to detain him. The lower court judge, after listening to an audio tape of Chafee's interaction with Abrusci, found that Chafee's "speech was clear, and that it was not slurred and it was not slow." The judge found that Abrusci was acting on nothing more than a "subjective hunch" and and granted Chafee's motion to suppress. Bianchi's office twice appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower courts' decisions and found that "the officer's continued detention of defendant was based merely on his 'hunch' that he had used marijuana sometime prior to entering the store." Consider the public resources that were spent on this case: a prosecution in municipal court, an appeal to Superior Court and a further appeal to the Appellate Division. Also consider that Chafee, who apparently had done nothing more than have "red eyes" and an aversion to interacting with police officers, had to hire a lawyer, Edward J. Bilinkas, to defend him throughout this entire ordeal. The Appellate Division's decision is on-line here.
 

Somers Point Loitering

 

Neptune Township Dismisses Internal Affairs Complaint against Officer

By way of a December 5, 2012 letter, Lieutenant Michael J. Emmons of the Neptune Township Police Department dismissed an internal affairs complaint against Neptune Police Officer Leslie Borges. The complaint, which was filed on October 16, 2012 by the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project, was based on an October 16, 2012 written decision issued Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. In that case, the court suppressed evidence that Borges and other officers seized when they arrested a local man, James M. Height, for third-degree possession of Xanax. Regarding Borges' warrantless search of Height's apartment, the court held that ?there was no objectively reasonable basis for [him] to enter the apartment under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.? Yet, in his response to the Project's internal affairs Complaint, Lieutenant Emmons drew the opposite conclusion and stated that Borges and his fellow officers "were acting in good faith under the community caretaking doctrine in a very well documented, high crime, known drug distribution area." Apparently, a police officer who lacks an "objectively reasonable" basis for conducting a warrantless search will not be disciplined provided that he was "acting in good faith" while conducting the illegal search. The internal affairs complaint, dismissal letter and Appellate Division opinion are on-line here. The New Jersey Libertarian Party has reported on Officer Borges before, when he allegedly observed, but did not intervene in, an alleged case of excessive force being used against a Brick Township man. Neptune Township ultimately paid a $65,000 settlement to settle that matter. Details and case documents are on-line here. http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2010/06/neptune-township-pays-65000-to-settle.html
 

Unpublished trial court OPRA opinion

"Unpublished opinions" are not published in the law books and are not ordinarily written about in legal periodicals. Unless somebody puts them on-line and calls attention to them, they are likely not to be located by people who may want to search for them. I think that it's important that court opinions, even if they are not precedential, are easily accessible for future use. Rivera v. Bergen County Prosecutor's office Bergen County, Docket No. BER-L-4310-12 Hon. Peter E. Doyne, A.J.S.C. December 11, 2012 Click here for the opinion. Judge Doyne's opinion clearly and comprehensively explains the law regarding attorney fee awards to successful Open Public Records Act (OPRA) plaintiffs. Among the issues discussed are: a) paying a lawyer's full hourly rate for work that can be done by a secretary or paralegal, b) paying a lawyer's hourly rate for travelling back and forth to the courthouse, c) paying a lawyer for the time it takes to prepare the lawyer's fee application, d) reducing a lawyer's fee when he or she is less than 100% successful and e) paying a lawyer a "contingency fee enhancement" in addition to his or her regular hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours worked.
 

State: Parsippany Mayor's letter, on Township letterhead, asking judge for "leniency" was within ethical bounds.

In a November 21, 2012 letter, Local Finance Board Chairman Thomas H. Neff reported that Board cleared Parsippany Mayor James Barberio of ethical wrongdoing for writing a Superior Court judge a letter on Township letterhead asking for leniency for a friend's 26-year old son who was facing drug charges. In his letter, Neff noted that "Mayors have no direct statutory involvement with the selection of Superior Court judges or county prosecutors." Neff further stated that "elected officials do not, upon taking office, give up their right to support friends and neighbors that other community members may provide." After finding that Mayor's letter did not violate the Local Government Ethics Law, the Board "voted to dismiss the complaint as having no factual basis." The ethics matter was initiated by a January 19, 2012 complaint by John Paff, Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. Paff's complaint was based on two articles (here and here) that he had read in the Parsippany Patch. According to the articles, Barberio wrote to Superior Court Judge David H. Ironson on behalf of Daniel Moses, the son of Barberio's friend, who was facing sentencing after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute eight pounds of marijuana. According to the articles, the letter, which was written on Township letterhead, said "I hope the court will be as lenient as possible when sentencing Daniel ..." A member of the public criticized Barberio for using Township letterhead because the leniency request "does not represent the citizens of Parsippany." Also, according to the articles, an unnamed Morris County assistant prosecutor stated that the letter was inappropriate because the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department was involved in the investigation and prosecution of Moses. According to the articles, Township attorney John Inglesino wrote that questioning the appropriateness of the letter revealed a lack of knowledge regarding how the legal system works. Justin Marchetta, an associate in Inglesino's law firm, is quoted as saying that Mayor Barberio's letter was "legal, ethical and appropriate." The complaint and the Local Finance Board's determination are on-line here.
 

Manville

 

Court invalidates action taken at Development Board's special meeting

In a October 26, 2012 decision, Hunterdon County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Buchsbaum voided the findings and resolutions the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board made at its August 9, 2012 meeting. Buchsbaum faulted the Board's meeting notice which did not: a) inform the public "whether formal action may or may not be taken" and b) did not include the agenda of the meeting "to the extent known." Both of these requirements are set forth in N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d). In ruling on the agenda, Buchsbaum found that the Board's "agenda is not merely deficient -? it is nonexistent." The opinion in this case, Bailey v. Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Bd., 2012 WL 5830158, Docket No. HNT-L-354-12, is on-line here. Unfortunately, Buchsbaum did not award the pro se plaintiff, Marie Bailey, her costs resulting in her being reimbursed the $250 or so that she paid in filing fees to bring this action. In so ruling, Buchsbaum held that "[u]nlike the Open Public Records Act, OPMA provides no provision for attorney?s fees. Compare N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. Plaintiff cites to no rule which provides any basis for said reimbursement." With all due respect, I believe that the judge erred. I have been awarded costs in many of my pro se OPMA lawsuits under the authority of Gallo v. Salesian Soc., Inc., 290 N.J. Super. 616, 660 (App. Div. 1996) in which the Appellate Division stated: R 4:42-8(a) provides: ?Unless otherwise provided by law, these rules or court order, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party.? The judge here expressly found that plaintiff was a prevailing party. He should have awarded her costs ?as of course? under the rule.
 

OPMA suit filed in Hunterdon County

On November 8, 2012, a Pittstown woman, working without an attorney, filed an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) lawsuit against the Franklin Township (Hunterdon County) Land Use Board. A copy of the lawsuit, captioned Bailey v. Franklin Township Land Use Board, Docket No. HNT-L-617-12, is on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/OPMA.htm In her suit, Marie Bailey alleges that the Board notified only one newspaper, instead of the two required by N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d), of an upcoming special meeting. She also alleges that the Board violated the OPMA by not providing her with draft minutes of the special meetings when she requested them over a month after the meeting took place. The matter has been assigned to Hon. Peter A. Buchsbaum and there are currently no proceedings scheduled.
 

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Borough of Paramus, No. BER-L-2818-11 (Law Div. June 15, 2011)

 

Long Branch pays $80,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On September 14, 2012, the City of Long Branch (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $80,000 to two local residents who sued members of the Long Branch Police Department for allegedly beating them. In their suit, Michael Ribot and Cindy Tomaini said that on September 9, 2007, while they were at home, Long Branch Police Officers Ramon L. Camacho, Sam Yoo, Marshall Brown and Joseph Kennedy "knocked [them] to the ground, kicked, punched, beaten, and spayed [them] with mace." No further details are provided in the complaint. The case is captioned Ribot and Tomaini v. Camaco, et al, Monmouth County Superior Court, Docket No. MON-L-4356-09 and Ribot's and Tomaini's attorney was Frank S. Gaudio of Red Bank. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Ribot's and Tomaini's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $80,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Long Branch or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Long Branch or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ribot and Tomaini $80,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Municipal Court Transfers and dead-ending in the prosecutors office

 

Carroll v. Franklin Fire District 2

Fire District found to have violated Meetings Act, ordered to pay attorney fees On November 15, 2012, a Superior Court judge declared that the Franklin Township (Somerset County) Fire District No. 2 Board of Commissioners violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) by failing to prepare public work-session meeting minutes from April 13, 2011 through August 2, 2012. In Carroll v. Fire District No. 2, Docket No. SOM-L-1274-12, Assignment Judge Yolanda Ciccone declared that the Board's failure to prepare or produce these minutes violated the OPMA, but declined to order the Board to comply with the OPMA going forward. Ciccone also ordered the Fire District to give the plaintiff audio tapes it had on file for six of the meetings for which minutes were not produced, and held that the plaintiff was the "prevailing party" under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and ordered the Fire District to pay her court costs and attorney fees. A copy of Ciccone's order is on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey paff@pobox.com
 

Paff v. Atlantic County Alliance

 

Karim Arzadi

 

Lawnside IA policy

 

What to do if a public body disobeys a court order?

As regular readers know, I sue public bodies for violating the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and sometimes obtain a court order, either by settlement or the judge's adjudication, requiring the public body, going forward, to take better minutes, produce its meeting minutes more promptly or otherwise improve its OPMA compliance. But, what can a citizen-plaintiff do when a public body subject to such an order elects to disobey it? In February of 2008, I obtained a court order requiring the Lawnside Borough Council (Camden County), among other things, to record "reasonably comprehensive" executive session minutes that "contain an account and identification of matter discussed and action taken." I filed my suit because the Council's executive minutes were so terse and vague that they were useless. Background and case documents on my suit are available here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/Lawnside.html In December 2011, after learning that the Lawnside Council, despite the court order, was still recording vague and terse executive minutes, I wrote to the Borough Attorney, Morris Smith, and advised him that if the Council didn't make its minutes compliant with the court's 2008 order, I would take enforcement action against it. Unfortunately, the Lawnside Council's May 30, 2012 and June 6, 2012 minutes were still noncompliant, so attorney Walter M. Luers, on by behalf, filed a "Motion to Enforce Litigants' Rights" against the Borough. That motion and supporting documents are on-line here. The court rule that provides for such motions, fortunately, permits the court to make Lawnside pay my costs and attorney fees for filing and prosecuting this motion. While the award of costs and fees is within the court's discretion, I hope that the court does order the town to pay since that will encourage me and other OPMA plaintiffs to seek the court's assistance to ensure that the court's orders are followed. If, however, the court declines to make the town pay my costs, that will burden successful OPMA plaintiffs with the costs of enforcement, thus allowing public bodies to more easily ignore court orders. Unless Lawnside and I come to a mutually acceptable agreement, the hearing on my motion will be heard in Camden on Friday, December 21, 2012. The hearing, of course, is open to the public, but those who wish to attend are cautioned to telephone the court at 856- 379-2234 the day before the hearing to make sure that it hasn't been postponed or cancelled. Refer to Paff v. Lawnside, Docket No. CAM-L-7027-06.
 

Essex County pays $45,000 of a $280,000 settlement to settle police/security guard false arrest/excessive force suit

On September 4, 2012, the County of Essex agreed to pay $45,000 to a Germantown, Maryland couple who sued a Sheriff officer, a Newark Police officer for allegedly beating them and arresting them without probable cause. In their suit, Morgann Schultz and Lya Barbosa, who are husband and wife, said that they attended a New Year's Eve party at the Robert Treat Hotel at 50 Park Place in Newark on December 31, 2008. They claimed that they had booked a room at the hotel so that "they could celebrate the coming of the New Year responsibly and safely." The couple claimed that at about 3:30 a.m., they were in a hotel elevator with several friends "singing and chanting in Portuguese, dancing and blowing noise makers," when Ronald Rumsby and Bazeek Burgess (also referred to as Bazyt Bergus), who were employed, respectively, as an Essex County Sheriff's officer and a Newark Police officer, and who also worked as hotel security, entered the elevator. According to the complaint, both Rumsby and Burgess were wearing civilian clothes that bore no indication of their status as hotel security or law enforcement officers. As the elevator began to move, Burgess asked the crowd in the elevator to quiet down. In response, Schultz "responded by tooting a noise maker that he obtained from the hotel party. Schultz admits that his response was "a juvenile act and a bit obnoxious." The couple alleged that Rumsby said "Give me that f***ing thing," as he tried to forcible take the noise maker from Schultz. In response, Schultz demanded to see a "f***ing badge." At this point, the complaint alleges, Burgess and Rumsby "began to assault" Schultz and, when Barbosa stepped in to help, Rumsby "grabbed [her] forcefully about the arms and threw her out of the elevator." Rumsby then allegedly "pulled out a gun [and] pistol whipped Plaintiff Morgann Schultz about the head and face." The two officers allegedly pushed Schultz back into the elevator and struck him "with their fists, knees and feet." Schultz claimed to receive "six facial bone fractures, including two nasal bone fractures and various right eye orbital fracture." He also claims to have suffered a concussion, breathing difficulties and blurred vision in his right eye." Barbosa claimed to receive bruises on her head, arms and body. The couple alleged that Rumsby and Burgess filed "false criminal complaints" against them, which were later dismissed, but which required Schultz to spend 4 days in jail. The case is captioned Schultz and Barbosa v. Ronald Rumsby et al, Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-6570 and Schultz's and Barbosa's attorney was Raoul Bustillo of Jersey City. Case documents are on-line here. In addition to the $45,000 paid by Essex County, the other defendants (e.g. the Robert Treat Hotel) paid the couple $235,000. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Schultz and Barbosa's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $110,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Essex or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Essex or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Schultz and Barbosa $110,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Pleasantville pays $20,146.77 to settle retaliation suit brought former police officer.

Pleasantville pays $20,146.77 to settle retaliation suit brought former police officer. On September 14, 2012, the City of Pleasantville (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $20,146.77 to a former city police officer who sued members of the Pleasantville Police Department for allegedly retaliating against him with false disciplinary charges for not supporting a mayoral candidate. In his suit, Charles Oglesby said Police Chief Duane Comeaux, Captain Jose Ruiz, Sergeant Danny Adcock, Mayor Ralph Peterson, City Council President Jesse Tweedle and City Administrator Marvin Hopkins brought false disciplinary charges against him because he refused Ruiz's demand to get the Masons and the local PBA, with which Oglesby was affiliated, to give their "support . . . for the Mayoral Candidate Len Green." Yet, according to an April 27, 2010 article in the Press of Atlantic City, Oglesby pleaded guilty to stealing money from a suspect and falsifying police reports to cover up the crime. The case is captioned Oglesby v. Pleasantville, Atlantic County Superior Court Docket No. ATL-L-1015-10 and Oglesby's attorney was David R. Castellani of Northfield. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Oglesby's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $20,146.77 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Pleasantville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Pleasantville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Oglesby $20,146.77 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Willingboro pays $25,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On September 12, 2012, the Township of Willingboro (Burlington County) agreed to pay $25,000 to a local man who sued a Willingboro police officer for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Jullian D. Booker (also referred to as Jullian F. Booker) said that on April 2, 2009 he was riding in a car driven by Sylvester Williams when it was pulled over by Willingboro Police Officer Sean Malone. He said that Malone, accompanied by a police dog, pointed a gun at Booker's head and screamed "Get the f**k out of the car." After pulling Booker out of the car, Malone allegedly threw Booker onto the concrete pavement, punched him several times in the head and screamed "if you f**king move I'll have my f**king dog bite your f**king face off." He claims that Malone's punches caused his lip, which was between the concrete and his teeth, to receive a massive gash. He claims that he was charged with resisting arrest and eluding an officer but that both charges were later dismissed. The case is captioned Booker v. Willingboro, Federal Case No. 1:10-cv-04886 and Booker's attorney was Robert H. Bembry, III of Philadelphia. Case documents are on-line here. None of Booker's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $25,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Willingboro or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Willingboro or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Booker $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Greenwich pays $123,000 to settle minor's sexual assault claim against fire chief

On October 8, 2012, the Township of Greenwich (Cumberland County) and the Greenwich Township Fire Department agreed to pay $123,000 to a local couple and daughter who claimed that the daughter was sexually assaulted and otherwise mistreated by officials of the local volunteer fire department and that neither the fire department nor the Township took corrective action. In their two lawsuits, John and Patricia Newton, parents of Jordan Newton, said that in September 2007, when Jordan was nearly sixteen years old, Fire Chief Wade MacFarland asked them whether Jordan would be interested in becoming a volunteer firefighter. According to the lawsuit, MacFarland said that Jordan was needed to complete and file various fire reports with the State and that he and other officials at the department would be her guardians. Jordan, who had been home schooled and "had not been exposed . . . to many social settings involving a number of adults," reported to the department and started completing the reports under MacFarland's direction. Jordan claimed that she began meeting with MacFarland on a number of occasions when she and MacFarland were the only ones present. After her seventeenth birthday, Jordan became certified as an EMT and started responding to fire calls under the command of EMS Unit Captain Laurie Larue MacFarland, who was then Wade MacFarland's wife. According to the lawsuits, at about the same time, Wade MacFarland called Jordan to the firehouse and subjected her to "flirting and increased attention . . . including, among other things, back rubs being administered . . . when others were not present." Chief MacFarland, who was in his early to mid thirties, allegedly also promised Jordan that he would marry her and "she would be groomed by him to become the first and youngest female fire chief in the State of New Jersey." Wade MacFarland allegedly "soon engaged himself in a sexual relationship with [Jordan] while she was a minor and while he served in a direct supervisory capacity to her as the Chief of the Defendant Greenwich Fire Department." Jordan's parents learned about the alleged relationship in November 2010 and immediately demanded that the fire department investigate. Fire Captain Matthew Elwell, who knew about the alleged relationship, reportly encouraged other fire officers to "look the other way." After not getting anywhere with the fire department, Jordan's parents sought help from the Greenwich Township Committee but were allegedly "rebuffed in their request." Also named in the suits were Mayor Theodore Keifer; William Reinhart, who served on the Township Committee as well as president of the fire department; Charles Reinhart and Misty Reinhart who, respectively, served as deputy chief and as an active member in the fire department. The settled cases are captioned Newton v. Greenwich Township, Federal Case No. 1:12-cv-00238 and Newton v. MacFarland, Federal Case No. 1:12-cv-00237. In addition to the $123,000 pay out, the settlement agreement also requires the fire department to amend its bylaws to require a) that a junior firefighter must be at least 18 years old and b) prevent departmental disciplinary matters from being decided by relatives of the accused. Further, the agreement requires the department to adopt a sexual harassment policy and confirms that both Wade MacFarland and Charles Reinhart, by unanimous votes, were dismissed from the fire department on June 30, 2011. Finally, the settlement agreement prevents MacFarland from ever holding a position with the Township or the fire department and prevents Reinhart from holding such a position unless "the full record of this matter" as well as "the findings of Hearing Officer, J. Fred Coldren, in the matter of City of Bridgeton v. Charles Reinhart" are taken into consideration. A third lawsuit, filed by Jordan Newton against Charles Reinhart and bearing Superior Court Docket No. CUM-L-1060-11, is not being dismissed as part of the settlement. According to a December 1, 2011 article in the News of Cumberland County, this lawsuit alleged that Charles Reinhart ?forced [Jordan], against her will, to engage in sexual intercourse with him and forced her to perform fellatio upon him.? In her suit, Jordan claimed that this incident took place at Reinhart's home where Jordan ?had been house sitting and dog sitting for Defendant Charles Reinhart and his wife when they would take trips.? According to the article, Reinhart encouraged Jordan to take a nap in the master bedroom and then sexually assaulted her approximately one hour after she fell asleep fully clothed. She further alleged that Reinhart later asked her to meet him at the parking lot of the Bridgeton Hospital but that Reinhart attempted to sexually assault her again after she entered his vehicle. Newton's attorney was John P. Morris of Bridgeton. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Newton family's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $123,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Greenwich or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Greenwich or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Newton family $123,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Sergeant Brian Ficarra

October 19, 2012 Internal Affairs Unit Attn: Lieutenant Scott Wheeler Hackettstown Police Department 215 West Stiger St. Hackettstown, N.J. 07840 (via e-mail only to hpd27@hackettstownpd.net) RE: Sergeant Brian Ficarra Dear Lieutenant Wheeler: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and ask that you accept this letter as an Internal Affairs complaint. We would like your agency to investigate whether Sergeant Brian Ficarra and other personnel employed by your agency acted in accordance with department policy and the law regarding their October 26, 2008 arrest of Richard Sabatino. According to the Appellate Division's decision in State v. Richard Sabatino, Docket No. A-0565-09T4), Sergeant (then Patrolman) Ficarra stopped a vehicle driven by Mr. Sabatino's friend, who picked up a stumbling and apparently intoxicated Mr. Sabatino, to take him home. He then arrested Mr. Sabatino for "disorderly conduct, being under the influence," took him to local hospital where he searched him and found two bags of suspected heroin. The Appellate Division found that Ficcara did not have probable cause to arrest Sabatino and that the bags of heroin needed to be "suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree." The court also found that Ficcara was not authorized to arrest Sabatino for not wearing a seat belt or for jaywalking. Particularly disturbing is Ficcara's excuse for not issuing Sabatino summonses for jaywalking and not wearing a seatbelt, as opposed to arresting him. According the the opinion, Ficcara testified that he didn't have a summons book with him. As noted in a footnote at page 16 of the opinion, Ficcara "could have taken defendant's address and identifying information and mailed a summons after [he] retrieved a summons form." Ficcara's improper conduct resulted in the Appellate Division suppressing the fruits of his search and will almost certainly lead to Sabatino's acquittal and possibly expose the Hackettstown to a civil suit. In addition to determining whether rules or laws may have been violated, we ask that you determine if there were training and policy failures within your agency as they relate to this incident. Please acknowledge your receipt of this complaint, investigate and notify us of the outcome. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party Police Accountability Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875-5424 Phone: 732-873-1251 - Fax: 908-325-0129 Email: paff@pobox.com cc: Chief James A. Macaulay (via e-mail only to hpd29@hackettstownpd.net
 

Bober Pension Leter to Sen. Smith--response

 

Belmar pays $7,500 to settle police excessive force suit

On October 10, 2012, the Borough of Belmar (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Bradley Beach man who sued members of the Belmar Police Department for allegedly beating and choking him. In his suit, Jason Bernardinello said that on July 25, 2009, when he was 19 years old, he and some friends were riding their bicycles on Ocean Avenue at about 10 p.m. He said that Special Officer whose name was stated in the lawsuit as "Sean Bowers" (but who is presumably Shawn Bowens or perhaps Sean Bowens) grabbed one of his friends' bicycles, tackled the friend from behind, "slammed [him] violently" and handcuffed him. Thereafter, while Bernardinello was allegedly having a "civil discussion" with another office, Bowens reportedly screamed "Get the f**k out of here" to him. Bernardinello claimed that when he tried to "respectfully and calmly respond," Bowens grabbed his throat and started choking him and shoved his head into a light pole. He claims that four other officers jumped on him and "pummeled him while he lay, defenseless on the ground, punching him in the face and the groin while bystanders pleaded with the special cops to stop the beating." Bernardinello further claims that he was detained at police headquarters for two hours and the officer on desk duty, who "was highly intoxicated," refused to let his parents see him. The case is captioned Bernardinello v. Belmar, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-0413 and Bernardinello's attorney was Dan A. Druz of Belmar. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Bernardinello's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Belmar or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Belmar or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Bernardinello $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Winslow Board of Education pays $32,400 to settle IDEA attorney fee claim.

On September 12, 2012, the Winslow Township (Camden County) Board of Education agreed to pay $32,400 to a not-for-profit law firm that successfully represented a 12-year0old disabled student in an action under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In his suit, the twelve year old Sicklerville student, identified only by his initials "P.B.," who had been diagnosed with "Autism Spectrum Disorder with features closely aligned to Asperger's Syndrome" wanted to continue to attend Yale Academy, in Cherry Hill, while the school district wanted him to attend its own in-district class for disabled students. After several hearings before the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law, including a due process trial that spanned six days, Administrative Law Judge Patricia M. Kerins concluded "that Winslow has failed to provide P.B. with a free appropriate public education . . . [and the school board's] program is not individualized to P.B.'s unique needs and is not designed to provide him with meaningful educational benefit." Thereafter, the law firm representing P.B. sued the Winslow school board for $31,935 it said that it earned in attorney fees for representing P.B. in the litigation. Specifically, the firm claimed $150 per hour for 212.9 hours spent on the case. After further litigation, the law firms fees rose to $36,000, but the firm agreed, in order to settle the case, to take 90% of that amount, which is $32,400. The case is captioned P.B. v. Winslow Township Board of Education, Federal Case No. 1:12-cv-01225 and P.B.'s attorneys were Sean M. Benoit and W. Emmett Dwyer of Disability Rights New Jersey of Trenton. Case documents are on-line here. None of P.B.'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $32,400 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Winslow or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Winslow or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay P.B. $32,400 than take the matter to trial. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Internal Affairs Complaint - Neptune Police

October 16, 2012 Internal Affairs Unit Neptune Township Police Department 25 Neptune Blvd. Neptune, NJ 07753 (via e-mail only to radams@neptunetownship.org) RE: Patrolman Leslie Borges Dear Sir or Madam: I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project and ask that you accept this letter as an Internal Affairs complaint. We would like your agency to investigate whether Patrolman Leslie Borges and other personnel employed by your agency acted in accordance with department policy and the law regarding their January 19, 2010 warrantless entry into James M. Height?s residence. According to the Appellate Division's decision in State v. James M. Height, Docket No. A-0024-11T2), Patrolman Borges entered a residence, without a warrant and with his service revolver drawn, when ?there was no objectively reasonable basis for [him] to enter the apartment under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.? His illegal entry into the apartment resulted in the Appellate Division suppressing the fruits of his search and will almost certainly result in Height?s acquittal and possibly expose the Township of Neptune to a civil suit. In addition to determining whether rules or laws may have been violated, we ask that you determine if there were training and policy failures within your agency as they relate to this incident. Please acknowledge your receipt of this complaint, investigate and notify us of the outcome. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party Police Accountability Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875-5424 Phone: 732-873-1251 - Fax: 908-325-0129 Email: paff@pobox.com
 

Sourth Orange Loitering

 

South Orange Ordinance

Robin R. Kline, Village Clerk via e-mail only to rkline@southorange.org Dear Ms. Kline: When we spoke on the telephone a week or so ago, we discussed the Village's present plan to recodify its ordinances and, in the process, weed out those which are preempted or otherwise unenforceable. Since then, I have made a records request to the South Orange Municipal Court and have received, among other records that I have yet to review carefully, Summons No. 0719-SC-030336, which I've placed on-line here. As you can see, this summons charged Anthony I. Watson from Newark, an 18-year old man, with making "offensive remarks" contrary to Village Ord. 113-8. Watson was either found guilty or pled guilty and was assessed $108 in fines and costs. For the reasons set forth below, I believe that Ord. 113-8 is preempted by state law. If I am right, the police should stop enforcing this code provision immediately, without waiting for the recodification process to be completed. In order to determine whether or not I am right, I ask that the Mayor ask Village Counsel Steven Rother to make a legal determination as to the provision's validity. Ord. 113-8 states: Offensive remarks or gestures. A. No person in or on a vehicle on the streets or other public or quasi-public places shall make offensive, obscene or lewd remarks or gestures to any person on the public streets, sidewalks or other public or quasi-public open places. B. No person on the public streets, sidewalks or other public or quasi-public places shall make any offensive, obscene or lewd remarks or gestures to any person. Yet, the same type of conduct is regulated by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(b), a section within New Jersey's Disorderly Conduct code. This statutory provision states: Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present. Instructive is the Appellate Division's published opinion in State v. Paserchia, 356 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 2003). Carl Paserchia, after drinking in a bar, was cursing and yelling while staggering down a West Orange public sidewalk. He got into an argument with some police officers and told them to "go f--k yourself." He was arrested and charged with a West Orange ordinance that stated: No person shall disturb, by any violent, abusive, loud or threatening language, or disorderly or indecent behavior of any kind, any lawful congregation or assembly of any kind or description in any place or building within the Township. After being convicted in both the municipal court and Superior Court, Law Division, Paserchia appealed. The Appellate Division found that Chapter 33 of the State Criminal Code "reveals a policy to comprehensively address street behavior and other conduct in public places which may disturb citizens and disrupt peaceful society." Id. at 466. The court went on to find that the state's Disorderly Conduct statute "is equally applicable to the conduct sought to be prohibited by the West Orange ordinance. Indeed, other than arguing that the ordinance does not require purposeful activity by the defendant, the municipality does not explain how the statute does not address municipal concerns regarding unruly behavior in public places." Ibid. Further, the court noted that West Orange's ordinance contained a "lesser standard of culpability . . . due to the omission of purposeful conduct as required by [the Disorderly Conduct statute]." Citing its earlier decision in State v. Felder, 329 N.J.Super. 471, 475 (App. Div. 2000), the Court found that the inconsistency between the ordinance's and the statute's culpability standards "only underscores the point that the Code and the local ordinance deal with the same criminal conduct in a different manner, and consequently the ordinance is preempted." Similar to West Orange's code, South Orange's Ord. 113-8 does not require purposeful conduct by the actor and, unlike the statute, it does not require the reviewing court to consider "the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance." Further, South Orange does not appear to have any "unique local concerns" that warrant special, more stringent street conduct regulations than the Disorderly Conduct statute provides. Please let me know Mr. Rother's determination in this matter. Also, if the Village finds that Ord. 113-8 is preempted, will the Municipal Court reimburse Defendant Watson his fine and costs? Very truly yours,
 

Wayne pays $220,000 to settle zoning and discrimination lawsuit

On August 23, 2012, the Township of Wayne (Passaic County) agreed to pay $220,000 to a local car wash/quick lube center and its owner. In its lawsuit, the car wash, Wayne Auto Spa, which advertises itself as being "environmentally responsible" (http://www.wayneautospa.com/) claimed that the Township "unlawfully targeted [its] efforts to install a wind powered electric system on its premises. The Auto Spa's owner, Robert Burke of Morristown, alleged that Wayne officials subjected him to "invidious discrimination" because of "his outspoken advocacy for the wind energy system." Burke alleged that he was the campaign manager for William Brennan, who challenged Council incumbent and Planning Board member Paul Margiotta in an election. He claimed that his support of Brennan resulted in the Council and Planning Board taking action to "impede, frustrate and prohibit the Wayne Auto Spa application for approval of a proposed wind energy system." Burke claimed that Joseph Connolly of Wayne, who is a retired Bergen County Sheriff's Officer, opposed his wind energy proposal and threatened him. Specifically, Burke claimed that Connolly e-mailed him that "I will come back and see you about this. I expect you to get the point this time around." Burke also claimed that Connolly came to the Auto Spa, flashed his Sheriff's badge and told him "I will kick your ass" unless he stopped pursuing his wind energy application. The threats, he claimed, were not investigated by the Wayne Police Department or the Passaic County Prosecuor's Office despite his repeated requests. Burke further claimed that the Wayne Police Department "began stopping patrons of Wayne Auto Spa who were making or attempting to make left turns," which Burke said are legal, into his business. This, according to Burke, was the police department's attempt to imtimidate and harass his customers. During an October 20, 2011, "sealed settlment conference" before U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson, Burke and Wayne Auto Spa agreed to a) accept $220,000 as a settlement amount, b) not disclose the amount of the settlement to anyone, c) not disparage Wayne or its officials and d) to not file any more Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests regarding any matters relating to his lawsuit. The settlement was made contigent upon the failure of a legal challenge to Burke's application to the Planning Board for permission to install his wind turbine system. The transcript from the October 20, 2011 conference, together with a transcript of another conference held on October 24, 2011, are on-line here. Fortunately, however, confidentiality provisions, such as the one agreed to in this case, do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. The case is captioned Burke v. Wayne, Federal Case No. 11-cv-1066 and Burke's attorney was, at least initially, R. William Potter of Princeton. Case lawsuit are on-line here and the settlement agreement is here. The resolution under which the Township Council accepted the settlement is on-line here. None of Burke's or Wayne Auto Spa's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $220,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Wayne or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Wayne or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Burke and Wayne Auto Spa $220,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Mello v. Washington, GLO-L-1403-12

 

State v. Mahedy disposition

 

Hackensack pays $67,500 to settle police officer's retaliation lawsuit

On May 15, 2012, the City of Hackensack (Bergen County) agreed to pay $67,500 to a Hackensack police officer, who also served in the New Jersey National Guard, who claimed that he was retaliated against for not supporting candidates favored by Police Chief C. Kenneth Zisa and for claiming benefits under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). In his suit, Alexander Lopez-Arenas accused Chief Zisa of "using his office of Chief of Police . . . to extort monies from police officers to support his candidacies" as well as the candidacies of others, favored by Zisa, who ran for public office or for positions within the local Policemen's Benevolent Association. He claimed that police officers "who did not financially support Zisa's [preferred] candidates . . . were retaliated against." Lopez-Arenas said that from the time he was hired in 2003, Sergeant Anthony Trezza told him "that if he wanted things to work out for him on the job that it was in his best interest to contribute to Chief Zisa's electoral campaigns. In effect if he wanted to proceed up the ranks he needed to contribute." He also claims that while on duty, he and other officers were "compelled to travel around the City . . . removing campaign signs of Zisa opponents and replacing them with those supportive of Defendant Zisa." He claimed that in 2004 and again in 2008, he was called up to serve in active duty in Cuba and Iraq. Yet, when he returned and tried to claim his benefits he was due under the USERRA, he was allegedly demoted to "a walking post." When he complained to Lieutenant John Heinemann, he was allegedly told that he shouldn't "push the issue." He also claimed that he used to date a female Hackensack police officer and that this officer, after a breakup, started dating Deputy Chief Frank Zisa, who is Chief Zisa's brother. Lopez-Arenas said that Frank Zisa ordered him to stay away from his girlfriend and that Lopez-Arenas "understood that even the slightest breach of this order would result in retaliation in the workplace." Also named in the suit were Trezza, Heinemann and Frank Zisa. The case is captioned Lopez-Arenas v. Hackensack, Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-02668 and Lopez-Arenas's attorney was Robert B. Woodruff of Morristown. Case documents are on-line here. None of Lopez-Arenas's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $67,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Hackensack or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Hackensack or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lopez-Arenas $67,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

More on Edison BOE matter

 

Letter to Edison School Board regarding Redactions

Judith M. Cox Edison Board of Education via e-mail only to judith.cox@edison.k12.nj.us Dear Ms. Cox: As you are aware, I recently submitted a request for records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access for the assault and battery lawsuit against the Edison Township Board of Education bearing Docket No. MID-L-1637-11. This morning, you responded to my request with a redacted version of the civil complaint, which I've placed on-line here. I see that you have redacted the plaintiffs' names and addresses, apparently because you felt that the minor's identity should be kept confidential. Yet, when I queried the Superior Court's computerized index of civil lawsuits, I quickly learned that the plaintiffs in the matter are Bingyang Ji and Shuxing Ji. I have uploaded a screen shot from the database here. I challenge the Board's redactions, essentially because they suppress information that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have already elected to disclose. Had the plaintiffs wished to remain anonymous, they could have, if permitted by the rules of court, used pseudonyms in their filings instead of their real names. Since the plaintiffs themselves have chosen (or, perhaps, were required by court rules) to identify themselves in their lawsuit, what possible interest could the Edison Board of Education have in redacting their identities when responding to my OPRA request? I consider the Board's redactions a violation of OPRA. Unless I receive an unredacted version of the civil complaint by Friday, October 12, 2012, I will consider litigating the matter. Sincerely,
 

Northern Valley Board of Education

To: Northern Valley Board of Education Cc: Business Administrator October 8, 2012 Dear President Chan and Board Members: In response to my recent request for the school board's June 2012 Executive Session minutes, I received a faxed response which I've placed on-line here. These minutes are deficient in several respects, and I ask that you review them with the Board attorney to see if your minutes-keeping, as well as the resolutions that the board uses to go into executive session comply with N.J.S.A 10:4-13 and 14, as construed by the courts. Of particular concern is the Board's discussion, at its June 11, 2012, 8:40 p.m. closed meeting concerning "the OPRA request process and the need to review each request." This appears to be a general discussion and not tied to any particular item of pending or anticipated litigation. Thus, this discussion does not appear to be covered by any of the N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b) exceptions, thus making it improper for discussion outside of the public's view. Please note that citizens, such as myself, are permitted to sue public bodies for injunctive relief when there is a pattern of non-compliance with the Meetings Act. Please be on notice that unless you conform your procedure, this violation may constitute the first documented instance of a pattern upon which future litigation may be based. Very truly yours,
 

Thomas E. Seeley's 2010 letter from the PERS pension system

Of possible interest to Cumberland County residents, particularly those in Greenwich, Lawrence and Commercial, is the August 23, 2010 letter from Division of Pensions and Benefits that I recently received in response to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request. That correspondence is on-line here. It shows that Lawrence Township, after it was required to by statute, stopped reporting Mr. Seeley's salary as Township Solicitor to the Division of Pensions and Benefits on December 31, 2007. Yet, the letter goes on to say that Lawrence then appointed Mr. Seeley as "Property Administrator" and began, in 2008, reporting Mr. Seeley's salary as "Property Administrator" to the Division of Pensions and Benefits. The Division found that "that the position of 'Property Administrator' is a position designed to disguise [Seeley's] true relationship, thereby facilitating [his] continued membership in the PERS" pension system. Accordingly, the Division ruled that Mr. Seeley was "not eligible to continue enrollment on the basis of this position engagement by Lawrence Township for the years 2008 and following." The letter shows that Mr. Seeley received similar treatment in Commercial Township, where he was also paid, starting in 2008, as a "Property Manager." The Division similar ruled that Mr. Seeley, as "Property Manager" wasn't eligible to participate in the PERS pension for the years of 2008 and following. Further, the Division disqualified $33,000 that Mr. Seeley had received for acting as Commercial's "Tax Lien Manager" in 2007 from his pension calculation.
 

Renna v. Union County, Docket No. L-1431-12 (August 6, 2012)

 

The Port Authority is not subject to OPRA

Today, October 4, 2012, the Appellate Division ruled that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not subject to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). In its ten-page opinion, available here, the court found that since the Authority was created jointly by both New York and New Jersey, it is not subject to the statutory law of only one state. This decision, of course, is not good for open government. The Port Authority recently denied me access to the settlement agreement arising out of Hannah Shostack v. Port Authority, Federal Case No. 2:11-cv-00177. Shostack, who used to work for the Authority, was fired "without notice or cause" on August 11, 2010. While the Port Authority told her that her position was being eliminated, Shostack claimed in her lawsuit, which is available on-line here, that the real reason she was fired was because "she is not affiliated with the Republican Party and/or the administration of Republican Governor Chris Christie." In her lawsuit, Shostack alleged that her supervisor "Chris Russell informed her that the decision to discharge her came straight from Governor Christie's office and there was nothing he could do to save her job." Her suit claims that at about the same time she was fired, several other employees who were not affiliated with the Republican Party were also fired. New Jersey Courts have held that disclosure of lawsuit settlement agreements serves the public interest. Burnett v. County of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506, 517 (App. Div. 2010) ("We find the public interest in settlements to be a significant one, since such settlements may provide valuable information regarding the conduct of governmental officials and the condition of government property.") Yet, the Port Authority's records custodian, Daniel D. Duffy, in his September 5, 2012 denial letter, claimed that the settlement agreement was "exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (3) of the [Port Authority's Freedom of Information] Code" which exempts sensitive records that "are compiled for public safety, law enforcement or official investigatory (internal or external) purposes." This is clearly erroneous, but according to the Authority's FOIA code, Duffy's decisions are "final." http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/foi-code.pdf Knowing the amount of money that Shostack received in her lawsuit settlement for is especially important because she alleges, in essence, that the Port Authority is filled with political patronage jobs that the sitting governor can award to his supporters and cronies. If Shostack received, say, a $500,000 settlement, the public could reasonably discern that there was some truth to her allegations. If she received, however, $10,000, the public could reasonably disregard her claims as nothing more than sour grapes. Unfortunately, the Port Authority doesn't want the public to know the settlement information and New Jersey courts, in today's ruling, have upheld the Port Authority's ability keep the public in the dark.
 

Borough places OPRA requestor in the cross-hairs.

On October 1, 2012, the Borough of Pine Hill (Camden County) asked a federal judge to allow it to seek civil damages from an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requestor who obtained records that led to an invasion of privacy lawsuit currently pending against the Borough. The documents relating to this matter are on-line here. According to the court filings, in October 2011, Gloucester City resident John Schmidt submitted an OPRA request to the Borough of Pine Hill seeking documents relating to a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against the Borough by a Borough employee. While Schmidt's request was for motions and briefs filed in the lawsuit, Pine Hill provided him with some documents that were not within the scope of his request that contained "confidential and private information" which the employee claims was "intentionally released [by the Borough] to embarrass and cast [the employee] and his family in a poor light." The records the Borough disclosed to Schmidt allegedly contained the employee's children's social security numbers, information suggesting that the employee's wife abused prescription medication and that acts of domestic violence occurred at the employee's residence. In its October 1, 2012 filing, the Borough contends that its release of this confidential information to Schmidt was "inadvertent" and that Schmidt "intentionally disclosed and transmitted that information to others, including a newspaper reporter." Accordingly, the Borough wants to bring Schmidt in as a defendant in the lawsuit so that he is forced to contribute to any monetary damages that the Borough may be required to pay as a result of the employee's family invasion of privacy lawsuit. In other words, Pine Hill is seeking to make Schmidt financially liable for allegedly redistributing of information that the Borough itself had no right to disclose. Pine Hill's bid to bring Schmidt into the lawsuit will be determined at a November 5, 2012 court hearing.
 

Bober Pension Leter to Sen. Smith

 

Unpublished Trial Court Decision

 

NJDEP pays $22,500 to settle employment discrimination suit

On August 22, 2012, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) agreed to pay $22,500 to a Lambertville woman who claimed that NJDEP officials discriminated against her based on her gender and displayed hostility toward her. In her suit, Martha Goodwin said NJDEP Bureau Chief, Robert Soboleski, and Section Chief, Donald Kakas, created a hostile work environment for her from 2006 through 2009. She alleged "a general pattern of adverse actions and undermining female employees." She claimed that employee Thomas Gryzmski, who allegedly "had a reputation of causing havoc wherever he worked in the NJDEP" did not like have a female supervisor and would begin "loud soliloquies" and "loud tirades" in front of others but that Soboleski and Kakas "never told him to stop." The alleged hostility culminated on February 24, 2009 when Soboleski allegedly told a co-worker about Goodwin that "that f***ing c**t is dead meat. Her days are numbered." She alleged that the conduct to which she was subject caused her to suffer depression and that her attempts to be reassigned to another bureau were not honored. The case is captioned Goodwin v. NJDEP, Federal Case No. 11-cv-4236 and Goodwin represented herself in the lawsuit. Case documents are on-line here. None of Goodwin's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $22,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by NJDEP or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that NJDEP or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Goodwin $22,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Buena Borough Administrator calls it quits

After only two months on the job, Buena Borough Administrator E. James Dubois has called it quits. In his September 27, 2012 resignation letter he cites an "atmosphere of distrust" and "stress [that] has begun to affect me personally," among the reasons for his resignation.
 

Paff v. Lawrence (Mercer)

 

Tasiopoulos v. Greenwich

 

Greenwich pays $25,000 to settle police whistleblower case

On September 23, 2011, the Township of Greenwich (Warren County) agreed to pay $25,000 to a former Township police officer who sued the Greenwich Police Chief for allegedly retaliating against him and creating a hostile work environment. In his suit, Christopher T. Tasiopoulos said that Chief Richard J. Guzzo retaliated against him after he reported that Lieutenant Arthur J. Morrow "had made intentional and fraudulent misrepresentations" in official police department documents concerning Tasiopoulos and his fellow officers. Tasiopoulos claims that prior to reporting Morrow he "received excellent performance evaluations." After reporting Morrow, however, he claims that he was removed from his position as a K-9 handler, was denied overtime hours and was subjected to "several petty and unfounded Internal Affairs investigations" against him. He also claims that he was ordered to not speak with the Mayor or Township Committee members, which violated his right to free speech. The case is captioned Tasiopoulos v. Township of Greenwich, Warren County Superior Court Docket No. WRN-L-109-09 and Tasiopoulos's attorney was John F. McDonnell of Washington. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Tasiopoulos's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $25,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Greenwich or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Greenwich or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Tasiopoulos $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Manville Borough: Did Richard Armstrong break the law?

After the Borough Council's September 10, 2012 meeting, I observed a heated discussion between two meeting attendees regarding whether the Borough Administration and the Manville Police Department acted appropriately by not charging Recreation Director Richard Armstrong with a municipal ordinance or statutory offense for consuming alcohol on school grounds during a May 19, 2012 softball tournament. The relevant police report is on-line at http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2012/2012243uf//ManvilleReport.pdf One of the gentlemen was distressed that Mayor Corradino had expressed during the meeting that Armstrong's suspension from employment, which caused him to lose about a $1,000 in pay, was sufficient punishment. The attendee felt that Armstrong, in addition to the administrative suspension, ought to have also faced criminal consequences. The other gentlemen said that the Manville Police Chief had stated at a previous meeting that Armstrong's conduct did not violate any laws or ordinances. Thus, he argued, the police could not have charged Armstrong with an offense even if they wanted to. After the meeting, I submitted two Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests to Manville Borough seeking to find out whether Armstrong's alleged misconduct, i.e. being intoxicated in public "to the point of being passed out" * "with a beer in his hand" violated the law. Today, I received responses to my OPRA requests and have placed them on-line here. From reading the responses, I conclude that: 1. Section 2 of Manville Borough Ord. No. 396 makes it unlawful for a person to "consume intoxicating beverages on any public street, sidewalk, thoroughfare or within the confines of any park or playground within the limits of the Borough of Manville without a permit to do so from the proper municipal authorities of the Borough." Since Armstrong's alleged drinking arguably took place in a "park or playground," it would appear that his alleged activity violated the ordinance. Section 43 of the same ordinance subjects violators to a fine of up to $200 and/or up to ninety days in the county jail. 2. On August 25, 2012 at 8:48 p.m., two local men were charged by Manville police officer Nickolas Franzoso with "consumption of alcohol in public." The men, however, were not charged under Section 2 of Borough Ord. No. 396. Rather they were charged under another ordinance that prohibits consumption of alcohol in non-licensed public places where live entertainment is offered. Regardless, it appears that Manville police have recently enforced alcohol consumption violations against others. If anyone feels that Mr. Armstrong has not already been punished severely enough may wish to consider filing a citizen complaint against him in the Manville Municipal Court in accordance with New Jersey Court Rule 7:2-2(a)(1). My reading of Caldwell Terrace Apartments, Inc. v. Borough of Caldwell Tp., 224 N.J. Super. 588, 596 (App. Div. 1988) leads me to believe that such a complaint can be filed up to a year after the violation. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 Voice: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 e-mail: paff@pobox.com
 

Buena pays $375,000 to settle police officer's whistleblower suit

On December 15, 2009, the Borough of Buena (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $375,000 to a borough police officer who alleged that she was harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment after she had reported that a police sergeant was stealing taxpayer dollars by falsifying time sheets. In her suit, Stacy L. Steudle said that in 2007, she became aware that Buena Police Sergeant Lawrence Petrillo "was falsifying time records by indicating that he had worked on days and/or during times when he had not worked." She claims that after she reported the matter to Chief Douglas E. Adams, Adams communicated to Petrillo that "we have a rat." Steudle further alleges that Petrillo told her that Chief Adams had said that he was was "pissed" at her for starting "drama in the department." Thereafter, she claims that she was retaliated against and treated differently than other officers. The case is captioned Steudle v. Buena, Atlantic County Superior Court, Docket No. L-833-08 and Steudle's attorney was Eileen Oakes Muskett of Atlantic City. Case documents are on-line here. None of Steudle's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $375,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Buena or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Buena or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Steudle $375,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bellville Lawsuit

 

Nutley 2011 Salaries in Excel file

 

Illegal Dumping in Borough Dumpster: Police report on-line

Post 783 alleged that the Borough Administration "illegally" dumped trash in a Borough owed dumpster. After reading that post, we submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to Wallington for the police report related to the alleged incident. As a public service, we have placed a redacted version of the police report on-line here: Note that the redactions, which we applied (because the Borough Clerk did not) are a) the name of the juvenile who was allegedly a passenger in the vehicle that was used to haul the dumped material and b) the license plate number of the vehicle. We note that the person charged, Matt Kruk, Jr. of 244 Mount Pleasant Avenue, bears the same last name as Thomas Kruk, who is, according to DataUniverse.com, a Wallington police officer who earned $109.536 in 2011 and Jennifer Kruk, an employee of the Wallington Board of Education who earned $50,158 in 2011. Also noteworthy is Roman Kruk, who apparently serves on the Borough Council. Are these people related to defendant Matt Kruk? Is there any evidence, one way or the other, showing whether Borough Administrator Witold Baginski permitted Kruk to dump private garbage in a Borough dumpster? Is there any evidence of the source of the garbage? John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey paff@pobox.com
 

Dunellen Towing

 

Atlantic City pays $2,500 to settle police assault suit

On May 16, 2012, the City of Atlantic City (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $2,500 to a local man who sued members of the Atlantic City Police Department for allegedly assaulting him. In his suit,Benjamin Demby said that on April 23, 2009, he was at 1401 Memorial Drive, Atlantic City when he was assaulted by Officer Brent Dooley and/or Brian Hambrecht. The lawsuit is very vague and gives no other information about the alleged assault. The case is captioned Demby v. Atlantic City, Federal Civil No. 1:11-cv-1881 and Demby's attorney was Jeffrey M. Sheppard of Absecon. Case documents are on-line here. None of Demby's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $2,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Atlantic City or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Atlantic City or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Demby $2,500 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.
 

Union County pays $16,070.61 to Plaintiff's lawyer in OPRA case

On September 1, 2012, I posted a blog entry regarding a successful lawsuit by Cranford resident Tina Renna against the County of Union. http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2012/09/unpublished-trial-couirt-opinion.html At issue was the county's refusal to provide Renna with the home addresses of citizens who voluntarily signed up for a government newsletter. I noted in that entry that the County had appealed the trial judge's order to both the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court. Thereafter, I submitted a request for records relating to how much money, in total, the County paid in legal fees to both its own lawyer and Ms. Renna's lawyer. The county advised me that since its attorney handled the matter "in-house" it paid no legal fees beyond the attorney's regular salary. However, the County did disclose that it paid a total of $16,070.61 in attorney fees and costs to Walter M. Luers, who was Ms. Renna's attorney. The documents the County provided, which are on-line here, show that Mr. Luers was paid $7,064 in costs and fees for winning the case at the trial level, of which he refunded $859.35 after the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's enhancement of his fee. Mr. Luers was then paid $8,317.71 and $1,548.25 for defending Mr. Renna's success in the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court, respectively.
 

Edison pays $27,500 to settle police excessive force and malicious prosecution suit

On July 16, 2012, the Township of Edison (Middlesex County) agreed to pay $27,500 to a man who sued members of the Edison Police Department for allegedly beating him and maliciously prosecuting him. In his suit, Taleb Ahmed said that on September 11, 2007 he "was falsely arrested, violently assaulted and brutally beaten, hit with a weapon, pushed into the ground, and held in jail by" Edison police officers Theodore Hamer, Michael Dotro, Peter Conforte and Sergeant Jason Gerba. He claims that he was charged with obstruction of justice and resisting arrest, but that the Grand Jury returned a "no bill" when the Township sought an indictment against him. The case is captioned Ahmed v. Edison, Federal Case No. 2:08-cv-00066 and Ahmed's attorney was Nicholas Martino of Marlboro. Case documents are on-line here. None of Ahmed's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $27,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Edison or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Edison or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ahmed $27,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Township defends its tax-challenged municipal attorney

On July 18, 2012, I wrote to Mayor Elmer "Skip" Bowman and the Lawrence Township (Cumberland County) Committee about their municipal attorney, Thomas E. Seeley, Esq., having hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal tax liens docketed against him. I made my inquiry after learning that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had served notices of levy seizing the money that the Township owed Mr. Seeley for his legal services. I asked the Mayor and Committee three questions: 1. Why the Township was still paying Mr. Seeley's law firm thousands of dollars even though the levy documents apparently demanded that all of Mr. Seeley's income be given to the IRS. 2. Which lawyer (hopefully not Mr. Seeley), if any, advised the Township on how to handle the levy. 3. Why the Township elected to retain a lawyer who has so many legal and tax problems when many other lawyers don't have these problems. On September 10, 2012, I received the Township's response which focused mainly on my third question. The Township stated that it is happy with Mr. Seeley's services and feels that his personal financial issues aren't relevant to his service to the Township. As for my first question, the Township stated only that they felt that they were correctly paying Mr. Seeley and the IRS. And, the Township didn't respond at all to my second question. My correspondence with Lawrence Township is on-line here. The tax levies themselves are on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2012/2012200YP/20120718111734.pdf John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Seaside Heights pays $62,500 to settle police assault/excessive force suit

On August 9, 2012, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $62,500 to a Manahawkin man who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for allegedly beating him and applying handcuffs too tightly. In his suit, Joseph Alfieri said that on either April 26th or April 27, 2009 he was assaulted by his live-in girlfriend. The girlfriend, who was allegedly arrested by Seaside Heights Officer Elijah Bryant, returned to the residence the next and demanded her car keys. Alfieri alleged that when he told his girlfriend to leave and return the following day, Bryant, along with fellow officers John Clarizio and John Dudas entered the apartment without his consent and proceeded to assault him. Alfieri claims that he was "maced, choked, kicked and [that police applied inordinate pressure in handcuffing [him.]" Also named in the suit were Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd, Stephen Korman and James Hans. The case is captioned Alfieri v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-00919 and Alfieri's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Alfieri's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $62,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Alfieri $62,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Matawan pays $7,500 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On April 9, 2012, the Borough of Matawan (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Neptune man who sued members of the Matawan Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Anthony Gray said that on October 5, 2009, he was walking down the street on crutches when Matawan Police Officer James Alston allegedly "pulled his vehicle up to house in the neighborhood in reckless fashion, nearly sideswiping a young man on a bicycle." Officer Alston, who Gray claims was intoxicated and "was often intoxicated in public during police/citizen encounters" allegedly yelled and cursed at neighbors who asked him why he almost hit the bicyclist. When other officers arrived at the scene, they allegedly ignored Alston's instructions to arrest Gray. Alston then reportedly told Gray that he was under arrest and when Gray asked why, Alston allegedly told him to "shut the f**k up." During the arrest, Alston allegedly flicked a lit cigarette butt down Gray's shirt in order to provoke him. The case is captioned Gray v. Matawan, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-05508 and Gray's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Gray's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Matawan or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Matawan or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Gray $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Newark pays $300,000 to taxicab company that alleged licensing discrimination

On June 7, 2012, the City of Newark (Essex County) agreed to pay $300,000 to a taxicab company who sued the City and its Taxicab and Limousine Commission for unfairly applying its licensing laws against it. In its suit, Jacob's Limousine Transportation, Inc. said Newark "thwarted and rejected" its efforts to get licenses so that it could lawfully operate taxicabs in the city. Despite the trouble that the city allegedly gave to it, Jacob's Limousine claims that city officials "have allowed numerous other autocab, limousine, and livery services companies to operate in and on Newark's streets and highways without complying with, and in blatant violation of, the requirements of the Newark Code for the operation and licensing of autocab, limousine, and livery services companies to operate in and on Newark's streets and highways." In addition to the $300,000 payment, Newark also agreed to permit Jacob's Limousine to "register, license, and operate up to 150 vehicles" until August 31, 2014. The case is captioned Jacob's Limousine v. Newark, Federal Case No. 09-cv-6331 and Jacob's Limousine's attorney was Jeffrey Kantowitz of Florham Park. Case documents are on-line here. None of Jacob's Limousine's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $300,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Newark or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Newark or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Jacob's Limousine $300,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Warren County pays $140,000 to settle trespass and invasion of privacy claim against deputy sheriff.

In November 2011, the County of Warren agreed to pay $140,000 to a Blairstown woman who sued an employee of the Warren County Sheriff's Office for allegedly breaking a lock to enter her home and frightening the minor daughter who was home alone at the time. In her suit, Sylvia Zika said that on January 28, 2008, her minor daughter was home in their secluded, rural house when she observed Anthony DiLauri, who is employed by the Warren County Sheriff's Office, approach the house in an unmarked car. Unknown to the daughter was that DiLauri was at the house in order to serve legal papers. She claims that because she was alone and did not recognize DiLauri, she went into the house through the garage and locked the garage door behind her. Zika alleges that DiLauri, who didn't identify himself as a sheriff's officer, pounded on the door and demanded entry. Fearing for her safety, the daughter called 911 and reported a break in. DiLauri allegedly broke the lock on the door and entered the house and put the legal papers he intended to serve on a table. When Blairstown police responded to the daughter's 911 call, DiLauri allegedly falsely told them that he had "served the paperwork without incident." The recordings of Zika's daughter's 911 calls as well as photographs that Blairstown police took of the broken door were "subsequently lost" or "deleted." The case is captioned Zika v. Warren County, New Jersey Superior Court Docket No. WRN-L-114-9 and Zika's attorney was Walter M. Luers of Clinton. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Zika's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $140,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Warren or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Warren or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Zika $140,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Federal court rebuffs Cape May drug arrestee's civil rights lawsuit.

In a May 5, 2010 article, Herald staff writer Joe Hart reported that the Superior Court, Appellate Division ordered a new trial for Craig Young, who was convicted and sentenced to 8 years for peddling cocaine. In reversing Young's conviction, the appeals court faulted officials at of the Cape May County Prosecutor's office for their conduct during the trial. Young's trial was held before Judge Raymond Batten. Detectives Kevin McLaughlin and Paul Skill testified on behalf of the state and Assistant Prosecutor Saverio Carrocia prosecuted the case. Hart's article is at http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/court+house/drugs/62087-appeals+court+orders+new+trial+convicted+drug+dealer Today, I located an August 13, 2012 order from federal court Judge Joseph E. Irenas. According to the order, the Cape May Prosecutor decided to not retry Young for the cocaine sale charge, released him from jail on June 11, 2010 and formally withdrew the charges against him on September 24, 2010. Young, and his wife, Natalee Lewis Young, thereafter sued McLaughlin, Skill and Carrocia, along with Prosecutor Robert Taylor, First Assistant J. David Meyer, Chief Assistant Robert Johnson, Sr., and Detectives Eugene Taylor, Lynne Frame, Ken Super and Michael Emmer for civil rights violations. In their suit, the Youngs alleged that McLaughlin and Skill fabricated their testimony and that Defendant Assistant Prosecutor Saverio Carrocia withheld evidence. Judge Irenas, however, dismissed the Youngs' complaint because "officers who testify in criminal trials enjoy absolute immunity for false testimony." Irenas also dismissed the lawsuit because Young could not "establish the absence of probable cause for his arrest or the favorable termination element of his malicious prosecution claim." The mere fact that the prosecutor elected to not retry Young, Irenas found, "does not reflect Young?s innocence of the underlying charge, but rather could be a reasoned exercise of prosecutorial discretion on how to use limited judicial resources." Judge Irenas' decision is on-line here: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey http://njlp.org
 

Ocean Board of Social Services pays $50,000 to settle breach of contract case.

On May 2, 2012, the Ocean County Board of Social Services (OCBSS) agreed to pay $50,000 to a vendor who successfully bid on a two year contract to provide local and long-distance telephone service to three PBX phone systems at the OCBSS' Lakewood, Toms River and Manahawkin offices. In its suit, Data Networking Services (DNS), a telecommunications service provider out of Tinton Falls, bid on the OCBBS's publicly advertised request for proposal. According to the suit, Larry Perlberg, who is the lawyer for the OCBSS, was the project manager even though he had "stated he did not understand telecommunications words and their meanings." Accordingly, he hired Robert E. Hammond of Hammond Consulting Group, LLC of Wall Township as a "go between" between Perlberg and DNS. According to the complaint, Hammond, at a design review meeting allegedly rejected DNS' design, which employed fiber optic cabling, as "non traditional" and insisted that DNS amend its design to "match exactly the OCBSS existing voice network technology [which was] over 30 years old." Hammond allegedly required DNS to use "traditional copper circuits" which the suit characterizes as "absurd and wasteful." DNS also alleged that the OCBBS already had some fiber optic cabling in place but prevented DNS from using that cabling by "falsely claim{ing that they] were dedicated to the local computer network." While the specifics in the complaint are technical and difficult to understand, DNS alleges, generally, that OCBSS and Hammond deliberately sabotaged its attempts to fulfill the contract and then breached the contract by replacing DNS with a different vendor. The case is captioned Business Automation Technologies d/b/a Data Network Service v. Ocean County Board of Social Services, et al, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-6453 and DNS's attorney was Walter M. Luers of Clinton. Case documents are on-line here. As part of the settlement, Hammond also paid DNS $5,000. None of DNS's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $50,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the OCBSS or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the OCBSS or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay DNS $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Renna v. Union County UNN-L-2589-10

 

Manville Recreation Department drinking at softball game

 

JOPRA to Somerville regarding disappeared files

 

New Brunswick and the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office pay $120,000 to settle excessive force suit

On July 17, 2012, the City of New Brunswick and the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office (Middlesex County) agreed to pay a total of $120,000 to two local men who sued members of the New Brunswick Police Department and the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office for allegedly beating them and requiring them to sit for two hours in a cold room while handcuffed and sitting in their underwear. According to the settlement agreement, New Brunswick paid $95,000 and the prosecutor's office paid $25,000. In their suit, Jake Kostman and Kareem Najjar claimed that at about 4:30 a.m. on December 10, 2010, they were sleeping in their apartment when New Brunswick Police Detective Miguel Chang, Detective Drew Weiss, Detective Robert Bogdanski, Police Officer Keith Walcott and Sergeant Scott Gould, while dressed in civilian clothes, unlawfully entered their bedroom and accosted them. According to the suit, Najjar and Kostman were "punched in the head" and "beaten about the face head and body with fists and feet." Kostman further claimed that after he was handcuffed and lying on this stomach, police still stomped and kicked him. Both 19-year-olds were taken the main floor of the building and were alledgedly forced to sit in their underwear on the couch in front of police and others who lived in the house. They alleged that since the front door had been kicked in by police, they had to sit in the cold for two houurs while police refused their requests to clothe themselves. When they were shivering in their underwear, one of the police officers allegedly said "I'm feeling pretty warm, I don't know about you guys." According to Kostman and Najjar, the officers taunted them and the other occupants in the house with the insults such as "faggot" and "fat slob." One tenant of Korean decent was reportedly told that "damn Koreans breed with the damn Japanese and those were the ones that bombed pearl harbor." The police alledgedly searched the men's basement apartment without a warrant, found nothing and neither man was "charged with any crime and both were eventually released." Also named in the suit were Lieutenant Daniel J. Muntone, and Investigator Donald S. Carruth of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, The case is captioned Kostman and Najjar v. New Brunswick and the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-00756 and Kostman's and Najjar's attorney was Bryan Konoski of New York. Case documents are on-line here. None of the pair's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $120,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by New Brunswick, Middlesex County or any of their officials. All that is known for sure is that New Brunswick and the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office or their insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Kostman and Najjar $120,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Little Egg Harbor pays $15,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On June 15, 2012, the Township of Little Egg Harbor (Ocean County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a diabetic heart transplant patient who sued members of the Township's Police Department for allegedly forcefully throwing him on the ground and putting handcuffs on him too tightly. In his suit, Ciro Esposito said that he was in a local Rite Aid Pharmacy on December 28, 2007 to pick up a prescription. A dispute arose between the pharmacist and Esposito and Esposito "insisted that the pharmacist call the police." Officers Eric Nelson and Kevin Hogan, who allegedly knew of Esposito's medical condition, arrived at the scene and allegedly "forcibly grabbed [Esposito] by the arm and roughly escorted him out of the premises" where Esposito claims that the officers "threw him to the ground in an excessively forceful manner, striking his face on the floor." He said that the officers handcuffed him "with such force that his arms and wrists were bruised." Also named in the suit were Little Egg Harbor Police Chief Mark Siino. The case is captioned Esposito v. Little Egg Harbor, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-03725 and Esposito's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Esposito's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Little Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Little Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Esposito $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Milltown court questioned on varying outcomes for marijuna defendants

August 21, 2012 Hon. Karl R. Meyertons, Judge Milltown Municipal Court 39 Washington Avenue Milltown, NJ 08850-1219 RE: State v. Jamie, S-2011-000332 State v. Kenneth, S-2012-000030 Dear Judge Meyertons: I write both individually and in my capacity as Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project. I write today to find out if you can help us make sense of why your court treats some marijuana defendants differently than others. Before getting to this question, I need to clarify two issues. First, the Libertarian Party doesn't believe that the conduct for which Jamie and Kenneth were charged--possession of marijuana--ought to be against the law. Indeed, Libertarians oppose this country's failed drug prohibition and believe that re-legalizing the currently banned substances would make our streets safer (FN: See our policy on drug prohibition at http://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence). Second, the New Jersey Libertarian Party has for years been trying to get municipal courts around the state to cease downgrading statutory charges to violations of preempted and/or unconstitutional ordinances. Not only do such downgrades violate a 1998 Attorney General directive, but they also subvert the criminal justice system for the reasons explained in our February 27, 2012 letter to the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office regarding improper downgrades in the Dunellen Municipal Court (FN: The letter is on-line at http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2012/2012058iO//DunellenMCLetter.pdf) The bottom line is that many, or perhaps most, municipalities keep one or more preempted ordinances on their books, usually "loitering," "peace and good order" or "disorderly conduct" codes, to which the municipal court prosecutors and judges downgrade statutory offenses in order to entice defendants to plead guilty. As more fully explained in our letter regarding Dunellen, these plea bargains keep the defendants from getting criminal histories or paying into the state's Violent Crimes Compensation or Safe Neighborhood funds. The pleas also benefit the municipalities by providing a lucrative revenue stream and easing the prosecutor's and judge's workloads by decreasing the number of contested matters resulting in trials. For the purpose of such downgrades, Milltown uses Borough Ordinance 983 (FN: I've placed the text of that ordinance on-line here) and, through researching dozens of cases heard by the court in March through May 2012, many statutory charges are pled down to "BO 983" violations(FN: I've uploaded five random cases on-line here that charge statutory offenses ranging from shoplifting to hindering apprehension and all of them were pled down to BO 983 and between $280 and $530 was assessed to each defendant. I have dozens more similar examples and will send them to you if you like). Now, to the question at hand. The Milltown Court, despite the Attorney General's 1998 Directive, pleads statutory charges down to BO 983, presumably to maximize the amount of revenue received and to minimize the number of hours of work for the judge and the prosecutor. And, while we will try complaining to the Middlesex Prosecutor, we don't expect much help given that he wouldn't even acknowledge our February 27, 2012 letter regarding Dunellen. We understand and grudgingly accept that despite the Attorney General's directive and the public policy considerations, Milltown is likely to continue downgrading statutory violations to BO 983 violations. What we don't understand however, is why different marijuana defendants get different outcomes. Specifically, why did Jamie (See pages 1 to 3 of the attached exhibits) who was charged with having "under 50 grams of marijuana folded in a piece of paper" receive a conditional discharge and pay $833 in fines, assessments and costs while Kenneth, who was charged with possession "of over 50 grams of marijuana" get to plead to BO 983 and pay fines and costs of $780? One would think that the defendant who possesses more than 50 grams of marijuana would get a harsher penalty than the one who possessed less than 50 grams. Even though the amounts of money paid are similar, the consequences of a conditional discharge are much more severe than the ordinance violation. First, the Conditional Discharge Statute (FN:I have placed it on-line here), can only be used once by a defendant. So, if Jamie re-offends, she'll face the statutory penalties. Yet, if Kenneth re-offends, he will still be eligible for a conditional discharge. Second, Jamie will be under "supervisory treatment" during her six month probationary term. During that time she may have to submit to multiple random urine tests and other requirements imposed by the program's administrator. Kenneth, however, having paid his $780, is free to go about his business with no further responsibilities. Third, the Conditional Discharge Statute subjects Jamie to a driver license suspension of between six months and two years "unless the court finds compelling circumstances warranting an exception." Kenneth, however, doesn't have to deal with a driver license suspension. Can you give us some sense as to why Kenneth received the plea bargain while Jamie was treated so much more harshly? For the sake of fairness and consistency, if the Milltown Municipal Court is not willing to stop the downgrading process altogether, would at least give every defendant charged with a statutory offense with a BO 983 violation? As it is, it appears that the court has no set policy on how it dispenses plea bargains and that the process is completely arbitrary. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project cc. Mayor and Council Kenneth Jamie
 

Millville pays $12,500 to settle police defamation and "intentional infliction of emotional distress" suit.

On July 25, 2012, the City of Millville (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $12,500 to a city man who sued his neighbor, a Millville police officer, for allegedly defaming him and causing him emotional distress. In his suit, Paul Vidro said that he and police officer Julio Pumarejo were neighbors who were on friendly terms. According to Vidro, Pumarejo's attitude changed when he suspected that someone in the neighborhood had called the City to report junk, unregistered vehicles in front and along side of Pumarejo's home. Pumarejo allegedly said that if he found out who reported him to the city, he would make that person's life "miserable." After an abruptly terminated conversation with Vidro, Pumarejo reportedly believed that Vidro was the person who called in the complaint. But, according to Vidro, a realtor who listed a nearby house actually made the complaint. According to Vidro's complaint, matters became worse after Pumarejo stopped by Vidro's local business and asked for some "under the table" side work while he was on disability from the police department. Vidro claims that Pumarejo "became short" and "non-sociable" after he refused to provide him with "under the table" work. Thereafter, Vidro claimed that his wife, based on information received from Pumarejo, angrily accused him of having a sexual affair with a neighbor. When Vidro spoke to the neighbor's husband, he was allegedly told that Pumarejo had told the husband the same thing and that his statement was causing him marital difficulties. According to Vidro, the neighbor's problems with Pumarejo started after the neighbor called in a noise complaint against Pumarejo. Vidro claimed that Pumarejo's allegation about the extra-marital affair was false and defamatory. A few months later, Vidro reportedly receiving a reckless driving summons in the mail. The complaining witness was Pumarejo. He claimed that Pumarejo fabricated the offense, which allegedly occurred in front of Pumarejo's house, in order to harass him. He alleges that he was found not guilty of the violation and filed an internal affairs complaint that resulted in Pumarejo being disciplined. Also named in the suit were Millville Police Chief Thomas Haas. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. The case is captioned Vidro v. Millville, Cumberland County Superior Court Docket No. L-564-11 and Vidro's attorney was Louis Charles Shapiro of Vineland. Case documents are on-line here. None of Vidro's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $12,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Millville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Millville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Vidro $12,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Stratford Letter to Auditor

 

Lawrence pays $104,689.22 to settle police officer's back pay lawsuit

On June 7, 2012, the Township of Lawrence (Mercer County) agreed to pay $104,689.22 to a Township police officer who sued the Township for back pay for the time he was out of work waiting for a favorable disposition of criminal charges brought against him. In his suit, Todd Sparks said that he was suspended without pay on March 16, 2010 after having been charged with third degree theft by deception. The indictment against him was dismissed on April 26, 2011. During his period of suspension, Sparks claims that he is due back salary, vacation days, uniform allowance and other benefits he would have received had he not been suspended. The case is captioned Sparks v. Lawrence, Mercer County Superior Court Docket No. L-1746-11 and Sparks's attorney was Christopher A. Gray of Marlton. Case documents are on-line here. None of Sparks's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $104,689.22 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Lawrence or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Lawrence or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Sparks $104,689.22 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Gannett v. Raritan

 

Jones v. Deptford

 

Camden Board of Education pays $500,000 to students who were forced to eat on cafeteria floor

On July 30, 2012, the Camden City Board of Education (Camden County) agreed to pay $500,000 to seven Hispanic, fifth graders who were students at the Sumner Elementary School. The seven students claimed that Vice Principal Theresa Brown forced them to "eat lunch on the floor of the cafeteria without trays" as punishment for one student spilling a jug of water. According to the lawsuit, Brown allegedly threatened the children with further punishment if they told anyone about the punishment. Each of the seven students will receive $71,428.57, less their share of their attorney fees to be calculated by the court. On October 23, 2009, the Board settled with Jose L. Rivera, the students' teacher, who claimed that he was retaliated against for bringing public attention to the cafeteria punishment. More on that settlement is available here. http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2011/02/camden-school-board-pays-75000-to.html The students' case is captioned J.G., et al v. City of Camden Board of Education, Federal Case No. 1:10-cv-01047 and seven students' attorney was Alan B. Schorr of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. None of students' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement implies that the $500,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Camden Board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Camden Board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay seven students $500,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Brick pays $275,000 to settle police shooting suit

On July 16, 2012, the Township of Brick (Ocean County) agreed to pay $275,000 to a local man who sued members of the Brick Police Department for allegedly unnecessarily shooting him in the hip. In his suit, Salim Cofi said that on January 8, 2009, he was in a Waterside Garden Apartment when Brick Police Sergeant Terrance Covert shot him in the hip, causing a fractured femur. Cofi claims to have been unarmed at the time. He further claims that after being shot, police handcuffed him and "then conversed among themselves for an extended period of time before transport to the hospital was arranged." Cofi claimed that he was arrested for cocaine possession but ended up taking a guilty plea to a disorderly persons violation, which required only the payment of fines and costs and not jail time or probation. Also named in the suit were Lieutenant Frank Docherty, Sergeant Todd Friedman, Investigators Kristopher Demarco, Michael Pluta, and Kenneth Hess and Patrolman Lawrence Petrola. The case is captioned Cofi v. Brick Township, Federal Case No. 3:2011-cv-00087 and Cofi's attorney was Jeffrey S. Arons of South Orange. Case documents are on-line here. None of Cofi's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $275,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Brick or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Brick or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Cofi $275,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Phillipsburg Camera Ordinance Proposed

 

Belleville Library Board Member Given Pass on $300 Ethics Fine

The Local Finance Board conceded today (August 10, 2012) that the Board, in the past (and "under a prior administration"), did not always follow "standard procedures for pursuing fines for penalty enforcement." Accordingly, a $300 fine levied in 2007 against a member of the Bellville (Essex County) Library Board of Trustees was never enforce and, apparently, will not now be enforced. On December 4, 2007, the Local Finance Board (LFB) issued a Notice of Violation against Michael Perrone who, despite being a Local Government Officer, failed or refused to file his Financial Disclosure Statements for 2004 and 2005. The Notice levied a $300 fine against Perrone. On July 24, 2012, I submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request to the Division of Local Government Services (LGS) within the Department of Community Affairs for records proving that Perrone either paid the fine or the LFB took enforcement action against him. On July 31, 2012, I received a response from LGS records custodian Colleen Kelly informing me that no documents existed that were responsive to my request. On August 2, 2012, I submitted a follow up OPRA request to see whether the fine against Perrone was abated or if some other legitimate reason existed for the state's failure to collect it. On August 10, 2012, I received Kelly's response confirming that the fine was never paid, collected or abated. The response included an explanation from LGS Director Thomas H. Neff which, in essence, conceded that the matter slipped through the cracks. Mr. Neff assured me, however, that his agency has "since rectified" this lapse in enforcement proceedings. Perrone's Notice of Violation and the OPRA requests and responses are on-line here.
 

Ex-wife of Cranford Police Chief still on State Health Benefits Program

I received an inquiry from a member of the public who was concerned that Cranford (Union County) Police Chief Eric Mason's wife was still enrolled in the New Jersey State Employee Health Plan despite having been divorced from Mason for two years. In response to my OPRA request, Division of Pensions and Benefits Assistant Director David J. Pointer, in an August 9, 2012 letter, advised me that since Maryanne Del Negro-Mason's divorce from Chief Mason was "limited" as opposed to "absolute," Maryanne "is still entitled to coverage as a 'dependant' in the State Health Benefits Program." Mr. Pointer's correspondence to me is on-line at John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Clayton and Elk pay $20,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On June 25, 2012, the Borough of Clayton and Township of Elk (Gloucester County) agreed to pay $20,000 to a Clayton man who sued members of the Clayton and Elk Police Departments for allegedly arresting him on fabricated charges and for applying excessive force to him. In his suit, Murray Celestine said that on April 8, 2008, he and his girlfriend, Marlena Hunsinger, who had just had an argument, were sitting on their front porch talking calmly. Clayton Police Officer Michael J. Foley, Jr. then arrived. According to the lawsuit, Celestine and Foley walked out into the back yard where Celestine told Foley that "every was fine at that time." Foley then allegedly had Celestine put his hands on van that was parked in the driveway so that Foley could frisk him. Meanwhile, Elk Township Officer Michael Bielski allegedly came into the back yard and "began putting black gloves on both of this hands." After Celestine expressed that Bielski's actions made him uncomfortable, Bielski, at Foley's request, allegedly went into the front yard. During the frisk, Celestine said that he started to turn to his right in order to talk to Foley. At this point, Foley allegedly grabbed Celestine's right wrist and told him he was under arrest for domestic violence. During the arrest, Foley allegedly pushed Celestine "so hard that Mr. Celestine's hand snapped the antenna off" the van that he was leaning against. Celestine claims that Foley put him in a "bear hug" and "slammed him to the ground" resulting in Celestine breaking his wrist and Foley dislocating his shoulder. This event was allegedly followed by Bielski jumping on top of Celestine, pushing his face into the ground and hitting him with his right fist. Elk Officer Joseph Pierson then handcuffed Celestine. Ather Clayton Police Sergeant John Dick filed an allegedly "false criminal charges against" him, Celestine spent the night in the Gloucester County Jail. Celestine claims that he was diagnosed at a hospital with "a concussion, wrist fracture and lumbar strain." The case is captioned Celestine v. Foley, et al, Federal Case No. 1:10-cv-01775 and Celestine's attorney was George R. Szymanski of Laurel Springs. Case documents are on-line here. None of Celestine's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $20,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Clayton or Elk or any of their officials. All that is known for sure is that Clayton and Elk or their insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Celestine $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Passaic County pays $49,000 to mother for death of her son.

On July 13, 2012, the County of Passaic agreed to pay $49,000 to a woman whose son died in jail after allegedly not receiving needed medical treatment. In her suit, Anita Jackson said that her son, John E. Jackson, died on March 15, 2007 while in custody at the Passaic County Jail. She claims that her son became "extremely ill while incarcerated" but, despite numerous requested for treatment, "the nurse employed by the Passaic County Jail took no action." Also named in the suit was the United States Marshal Service. The Marshall Service, however, is not named in the settlement agreement and may have settled separately with Jackson. The case is captioned Jackson v. County of Passaic, Federal Case No. 2:09-cv-01134 and Jackson's attorney was Shannon Garrahan of Oradell. Case documents are on-line here. None of Jackson's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $49,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Passaic or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Passaic or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Jackson $49,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Lebanon squad OPMA case

 

HNT-L-232-10

 

West Orange Board of Education

MKENNEY@woboe.org OPRA request Dear Mr. Kenney: Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: I am told that one of the reports for which the Board believes a $150 charge is justified is the "Gross Pay Report" an example of which is on-line here: This report is simply a listing of employees' names with each employee's corresponding gross pay for a specified period of time. It just doesn't seem right to me that a public agency should be able to assess a $150 "special service charge" for producing such a simple and fundamental report. I've consulted the Division of Archives and Records Management's records retention schedule M700105-001 which is on-line here: http://www.nj.gov/treasury/revenue/rms/pdf/m700105_001.pdf The 13th page of the schedule lists, as "Records Series # 0024-0001" a "Payroll Records and Reports File" which is described as follows: "Payroll Records and Reports File Includes: payroll summaries, payroll stubs, overtime slips, payroll trial balances, payroll printouts, payroll/personnel notices, summer payment plan, agency payroll accounts, and payroll reports including: distribution by account, noncontracted pay lists, payroll deduction summaries and register, base pay and extra compensation, deduction registers, direct deposits, posted payroll, check register, social security, TPAF, PERS, State and Federal Income Tax deduction, and health insurance." Suppose, for example, that a citizen wanted to know how much each Board employee made, in gross salary, during 2011. It would seem that one or more of the records in the Board's "Payroll Records and Reports File" would contain the information requested. For example, it appears that the "payroll printouts" and the "payroll deduction summaries and register," which are records that the Board is required to maintain for seven years, might satisfy the citizen's inquiry. In order to test my theory, I am requesting (see below) a record or records showing how much money each Board employee made, in gross salary, during 2011. Unfortunately, I don't much about the exact contents of the payroll records that the Board is required to keep, so it's difficult for me to determine exactly which records that are kept in the Board's "Payroll Records and Reports File" to request. But, I do know that the New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) "is designed both to promote prompt access to government records and to encourage requestors and agencies to work together toward that end by accommodating one another." Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 78 (2008). In fulfillment of the Supreme Court's mandate, would you please fulfill my request below by sending me whatever payroll records the Board maintains to help me accomplish my goal of learning the 2011 gross salary of each Board employee? I hope to accomplish this in a manner that is least expensive and cumbersome for both me and the Board. Records requested: A record, or if necessary, multiple records showing how much money each Board employee made, in gross salary, during 2011. Thank you. John Paff
 

Special Service Charge for reports prepared by private vendors

I recently learned that the West Orange Board of Education assesses OPRA requestors a $150 special service charge for each payroll report requested under the Open Public Record Act (OPRA). According to a July 31, 2012 e-mail from ADP, the payroll vendor (available here), the company apparently does charge the Board $150 for each report prepared. It's difficult to criticize the Board for simply passing a vendor's actual charge for fulfilling a request along to a requestor. Indeed, such seems to be expressly authorized by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(d). Yet, $150 seems like a lot of money for what appears to be a simple act of having an ADP employee push a key and produce a payroll report. Also, it strikes me that public agencies, many of which have an innate disposition toward suppressing public information, cannot be relied upon to vigorously negotiate for low access fees with the private vendors with which they contract out their services. Indeed, it is likely that some ornery agencies might even secretly work to intentionally put excessive charges in their vendors' service contracts for the exact purpose of dissuading citizens from gathering critical government records. This is the first time I've encountered this particular problem and am not clear, short of legislation, how to resolve it. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Essex County pays $30,000 to settle jail guard assault case

On June 18, 2012, the County of Essex agreed to pay $30,000 to a Irvington man who sued the County's correctional facility and several corrections officers for allegedly assaulting him. In his suit, Lester Seeley said that on December 15, 2007 Essex County Corrections Officers Jermaine Baptiste, Bruce Moore, Danny Smith and Fuquan Countryman repeatedly assaulted him "deliberately, maliciously and with willful indifference." No further details are contained in the lawsuit. Seeley also named Essex County Sheriff Armando B. Fontoura in the suit. The case is captioned Seeley v. Essex, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-04717 and Seeley's attorney was Kevin C. Corriston of Hackensack. Case documents are on-line here. None of Seeley's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $30,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Essex or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Essex or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Seeley $30,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Acquittal of NJ State Trooper who wrecked his car and had alcohol on his breath

On July 27, 2012, the Press of Atlantic City reported on Jason Dare, a New Jersey State Trooper, being acquitted of drunk driving and refusal to take an Alcotest after an early morning, single car crash in Hamilton Township, Atlantic County. The article is on-line here. I requested records regarding the incident from the Hamilton Police and Municipal Court and placed the following records on-line: Motor Vehicle Crash Report Summonses issued--"not guilty" verdicts entered for each. Captain Petuskey's Incident Report Sergeant Gehring's Incident Report Officer Esposito's Incident Report Officer Lee's Incident Report Officer Rudolph's Incident Report According to Gehring's report, Dare's brother, Nicholas, serves as a Hamilton Township Officer. Also, Gehring reports that Dare used profanity, slurred his words and had a "strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath." According to Petuskey's report, he had telephoned Hamilton Township municipal Judge H. Robert Switzer, who told Petuskey that he could not forcibly take blood from Dare at the hospital. While it's not entirely clear, Switzer's decision appears to find some support in the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2001 Decision in State v. Ravotto, 169 N.J. 227, which is on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project
 

State Supremes Rule on Sunshine Act

On July 25, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) case that may have significant, long-term implications and may identify aspects of the OPMA that may need to be clarified by the New Jersey Legislature. In McGovern v. Rutgers, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed to reverse the Appellate Division's February 18, 2011 ruling on the case. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division decisions are on-line here. The highlights of the Supreme Court's ruling are: Sequencing: The Appellate Division had found that it violates the OPMA for a public body to open a public meeting, then immediately go into closed session for an indeterminate period, followed by another public session. The Appellate Division found that members of the public who arrived at the meeting when they believed the closed session might end "run of the risk of important business being conducted" prior to their arrival. This, according to the Appellate Division, "deter[s] the very public participation that Act is designed to promote." The Supreme Court, however, held that "a public body must be afforded discretion in determining the most advantageous and efficacious manner of proceeding through its agenda items . . . and that [absent proof of bad motive] courts should not interfere with a body's exercise of its discretion." Specificity of Meeting Notices and of Closed Session Resolutions: In the resolution it passed before going into its September 10, 2008 closed session, the Rutgers Board of Governors gave a fairly detailed description of the topics it was going to privately discuss. But, the notice that the Board issued to publicly announce its September 10, 2008 special meeting said only that the Board would "act on a resolution to meet in immediate closed session to discuss matters falling within contract negotiation and attorney-client privilege.? The Appellate Division did not distinguish the OPMA's requirements for advertising a special meeting (N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)) from the specificity required in closed session resolutions (N.J.S.A. 10:4-13(a)). The court's failure to make this distinction caused it to erroneously conclude that "notice of the September 10, 2008 special meeting was inadequate, and ran afoul of N.J.S.A. 10:4?13, because it did nothing more than track the statutory exceptions upon which the Board relied." The Supreme Court held that the Board's N.J.S.A. 10:4-13(a) resolution, which stated that it would "discuss matters [of] contract negotiations for sports naming rights of athletic and stadium construction; employment of personnel and terms and conditions of employment; and pending litigation, investigations, and matters falling within the attorney-client privilege with respect to these subjects" was "entirely adequate to meet the requirement of [the OPMA]." The Supreme Court, however, found that the Board's notice of the public meeting fell short of N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)'s requirement that the meeting's agenda, ?to the extent known,? be disclosed because "by the time this notice was prepared and published, more was known about the extent of the proposed agenda than what was conveyed by the generic references to 'contract negotiation and attorney-client privilege.'? Discussing matters in private that ought to be discussed in public. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division that a closed session discussion that drifted into "potentially significant policy issues" violated the OPMA. The Supreme Court warned public bodies to "be vigilant during closed sessions to ensure that they do not stray from the defined, circumscribed issues that may be addressed in a closed session." But, as explained below, the Court declined to remedy the violation because the board took no action and there was no evidence of a pattern of noncompliance. Citizen-Plaintiff's Remedy when OPMA is violated The Appellate Division found that the Board violated OPMA and directed the trial court to formulate "an appropriate remedy." The Supreme Court held that a citizen is not entitled to injunctive relief under N.J.S.A. 10:4-16 unless ?a pattern of noncompliance has been demonstrated.? And, the Court held that a citizen is not entitled to relief under N.J.S.A. 10:4-15 unless action is taken. Even though the Supreme Court found that the Board violated OPRA, it also found that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any remedy because "the record fails to disclose a repeated pattern of OPMA violations."
 

August 7, 2012 trial for Hamilton deputy mayor who claims that police set him up

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, the Hon John Rauh, J.S.C. will hear Hamilton Township (Atlantic County) Deputy Mayor Charles Cain's appeal of his February 9, 2012 convictions for drunk driving and refusal of an Alcotest. The hearing will take place at 12:30 p.m. at the Cape May County Courthouse in Cape May Court House. At issue is Cain's claim that Hamilton officers targeted him for the DUI stop in retaliation for his announcement of police layoffs necessitated by a budget crisis. In his brief, Cain stated that Hamilton Patrolman Peter Burns and supervisor, Sergeant Christopher Gehring targeted him in order to send him "a very clear message about laying off eleven Hamilton Township police officers." Cain's and the state's appeal briefs are on-line here: The press and public is welcome to attend the August 7th hearing but should call Judge Rauh's secretary, Anne M. Vandegrift, at 609-465-1000, the day prior to ensure that the hearing has not been postponed.
 

Lakewood school board pays $225,000 and "costs of the lawsuit" to two employees who sued for discrimination and retaliation.

On May 10, 2012, the Lakewood Board of Education (Ocean County) entered into two separate settlement agreements that resolved a federal lawsuit that was jointly brought by Board employees Dean Richburg and Tammy Mitchell. In the suit, Richburg claimed that he moved to New Jersey from Maryland in March 2010 to work as the Lakewood school board's Director of Counseling. Richburg, an African-American, claimed that he, unlike other directors, had an office at the high school instead of at the school district's main office. He alleged that the office he was assigned to was more of a storage facility that he was forced to enter through the offices of other employees. Richburg alleged that this was discriminatory because other employees with an title lower than his had their own private offices. He particularly claimed that high school principal Tina Yulie would invade his privacy by entering his office during staff meetings. When he complained about Yulie to Superintendent Lydia Silva, Richburg claimed that Yulie excluded him from critical planning meetings. When he spoke out about the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected, he claimed that "Lakewood orchestrated a false accusation of unprofessional conduct." Specifically, Richburg alleged that he was falsely accused by Vice Principal Todd Pazilla of making "homosexual advances towards him." He further claimed that the school board, at a subsequent meeting, required him to submit to an evaluation by psychiatrist David J. Gallina who concluded that Richburg was unfit for employment because he suffered from ?adjustment disorder and occupational stress?. Based on Gallina's report, the Board reportedly fired Richburg after he refused the Board's request to resign. Special Education teacher Tammy Mitchell, the other plaintiff in the lawsuit, alleged that she was repeatedly rebuffed when she applied for a promotion to assistant principal. Mitchell attributed these rejections to her being a female, African American. Mitchell also claimed that school board attorney Michael I. Inzelbuch, Esq. "continually blocked" her promotion efforts because she had sued him for legal malpractice for allegedly failing "to timely file" a federal claim that she had against a federal prison in Fort Dix, New Jersey. In settlement of Richburg's claims, the Board agreed to pay him "the costs of the lawsuit," with no further specification of the amount of those costs, together with $5,340 for his unused vacation days. To settle Mitchell's claims, the Board agreed to pay her $225,000 and to place her on "a paid administrative leave through the end of her annual employment contract for the 2011-2012 school year" together with unused vacation time. The case is captioned Richburg and Mitchell v. Lakewood Board of Education, et al, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-00774 and the plaintiffs' attorney was Michael A. Nelson of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreements both contain a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from disclosing the settlement terms, or even the settlement's or the lawsuit's existence, to anyone. Mitchell's agreement characterizes the settlement as "a private, unpublished settlement" and calls for her to pay $30,000 in damages to the Board if she discloses its existence. Fortunately, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of the plaintiffs' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the payments do not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Lakewood school board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Lakewood or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the plaintiffs approximately a quarter million dollars than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Englewood Cliffs school board settles OPMA suit

On March 12, 2012, I filed an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) lawsuit against the Englewood Cliffs (Bergen County) Board of Education. The lawsuit is on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2012/2012076Aw//ECBEOComplaint.pdf After I filed a motion for summary judgment (my brief is on-line here), the Board indicated that it wanted to settle the case. On June 22, 2012, I entered into a settlement agreement under which the school board agreed to improve its Open Public Meetings Act compliance and reimburse me $250 for my filing fees and miscellaneous costs. The Consent Judgment, which specifies the terms of compliance, is on-line here. The Board was represented by Fogarty & Hara, which represents several school districts in the Bergen County area, including Cliffside Park, Secaucus and Haledon. If you reside in a school district represented by the Fogarty & Hara firm, you may wish to compare your board's OPMA compliance to that required under the Consent Judgment. If your board is out of compliance in a manner similar to that remedied by the Consent Judgment, it should not be too difficult to convince the board to voluntarily adopt the standard set forth in the Consent Judgment, given that your board's own lawyer had already approved of and recommended that standard.
 

Timothy Scaffidi ethics matter

L.U.M.S. Consultants
 

Local Government Ethics enforcement in New Jersey

The majority of New Jersey counties and the vast majority of New Jersey municipalities have not created their own local ethics boards. In those counties and municipalities, the Local Government Ethics Law http://nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/programs/ethics_docs/lgethics.pdf, which prohibits certain types of financial dealings by local government officials and their families, is enforced by the Local Finance Board (LFB) within the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. (A listing of the counties and municipalities that have established their own ethics boards is here. http://nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/programs/ethics_docs/localbds.pdf) Over the years, I have put some effort into tracking the cases that the LFB handles. This endeavor is more complicated than it might first appear because the LFB's policy is not to release any information on any case, including the identities or towns of the officials under investigation, until the case is completed and because it often take a year or two--and sometimes several years--before cases are completed. The only way I've found to keep track of the LFB's cases is to periodically submit an OPRA request for a roster of all cases, ordered by docket number. Such a roster, which I OPRA'd in February 2009 (and converted to an Excel file) is on-line here. Another, which I OPRA'd only a week or so ago, is on-line here. By comparing the two lists, one can identify cases that have resolved since the older roster was prepared. By comparing the two lists, one can determine, for example, that LFB Docket No. 2007-002, which was filed on January 4, 2007 against Secaucus Councilman (now Mayor) Michael Gonnelli http://www.secaucusnj.org/Officials/Official.aspx?id=4 by Robert Kickey, who lost his council seat to Gonnelli in 2006. http://esecaucus.com/2009/04/gonnelli-to-mount-mayoral-campaign/ was resolved sometime between February 2009 and now. In order to find out what the case was about and whether or not the ethics charges against Mayor Gonnelli were dismissed or sustained, one could to submit an OPRA request to the LFB for "the 'notice of dismissal' 'notice of determination' notice of violation' or other closing letter sent to the complainant in LFB Docket No. 2007-002." (Such OPRA requests can be submitted on-line by accessing the "State Request Form" at http://www.state.nj.us/opra/ and then selecting "Community Affairs" and then "Division of Local Government Services.") Readers will note that there are cases from 2006 and 2007 which are still pending and for which no information is available. For example, Docket No. LFB-2006-011, filed in May of 2006, is still pending more than six years later in July 2012. For all we know, this complaint could be against a mayor or councilman who is up for reelection in 2012 or who was just reelected in 2011. One could argue that it's not good policy to keep voters in the dark for the better part of a decade about an ethics matter that might be relevant to how they cast their ballots. In any event, I hope that readers find this list, especially the most recent one, useful. Please look it over and see if an official from your town has been the subject of a closed ethics complaint. If so, consider submitting an OPRA request for the case documents to inform yourself, and perhaps your neighbors, of the ethics infraction alleged and the case's outcome.
 

Winning "Costs" in Superior Court

When I bring an action in Superior Court without a lawyer, I always try to get the other side to reimburse me for my "costs of court." But, which costs are considered reimbursable? A good example is my and Jose Delgado's Open Public Meetings Act case against the Camden Board of Education. After winning the case, Jose and I asked for a court order seeking reimbursement for the following items: $200.00 lawsuit filing fee paid the the Clerk of the Court. $30.00 filing fee for our Order to Show Cause application. $23.20 that we paid Staples for copying costs. $72.59 for me driving from my home in Somerset to Camden for a court hearing (i.e. 130.8 miles round trip at the IRS approved rate of $.555 per mile.) $9.00 for parking my car in Camden. $40.00 as a special fee, allowed by statute, to those who win a judgment in Superior Court. Thus, our total request was for $374.79. Our application was opposed by Lester E. Taylor, III, of Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Fader, LLC. which represented the Camden Board of Education. In his February 28, 2012 opposition (which likely cost the Board more in attorney fees to prepare than the cost award that it opposed), Taylor agreed with our requests for $200, $30 and $40, but argued that our requests for the copying, mileage and parking were "overreaching and lack[ing a] basis in law." I filed a reply to the Board's opposition. On March 22, 2012, Camden County Assignment Judge F.J. Fernandez-Vina granted Jose's and my request for $374.79. A copy of the court's order, as well as Jose's and my application, the Board's opposition and our reply are on-line here. (Incidentally, I did not become aware of the court's order until today, as the order was sent to temporary address to which I had requested the court to not send mail.)
 

Lawrence Township levied for attorney's back taxes

July 18, 2012 Township of Lawrence 357 Main Street Cedarville, NJ 08311 Attn: Hon. Elmer Skip Bowman, Mayor (via e-mail to elja47@aol.com) Hon. G. Erwin Sheppard, Deputy Mayor (via e-mail to erwin29@verizon.net) Hon. Joseph Miletta, Jr., Committeeman (via e-mail to jamiletta@msn.com) Gentlemen: I write both individually and on behalf of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project to inquire about certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax levies that have been served upon the Township that seek payment of back taxes owed by Township Solicitor Thomas E. Seeley. In order to track down a rumor that "Lawrence Township is paying the government instead of Mr. Seeley on account of back taxes" I stopped by the Municipal Building in Cedarville on July 13th and submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for a) "the most recent three checks that were paid out on account of Mr. Seeley's services" and b) "a copy of any court order or agreement that requires the check to be sent to a third party." Today, in response to my OPRA request, Township Clerk Ruth Dawson faxed me twelve (12) pages of responsive records, which I have placed on-line here. The first three pages are copies of checks showing that: a) The Township paid the Seeley Law Office $2,422.50 on June 7, 2012. b) The Township paid the IRS $684.53 on June 29, 2012 (the memo on the check states "941 for 07/08 940 for 2007"). c) The Township paid the Seeley Law Office $1,654.95 on July 5, 2012. The remaining nine pages are "Notices of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income" that were issued by the IRS between March 10, 2009 and May 6, 2011. These notices direct the Township of Lawrence to pay the IRS hundreds of thousands of dollars in Mr. Seeley's taxes that were evidently left unpaid by him during 2006 through 2009. While I am not familiar with taxation and tax levy issues, these records do raise some initial questions: 1. The IRS's May 6, 2011 levy notice instructs the Township "to turn over to us . . . this taxpayer's wages and salary that have been earned by not paid yet, as well as wages and salary earned in the future until this levy is released." This seems to require Lawrence Township to pay the IRS all of the money earned by Mr. Seeley. Yet, the checks that Clerk Dawson sent me show that Mr. Seeley's law firm is still getting paid thousands of dollars while the IRS is getting paid hundreds of dollars. Could you please explain how the Township is justifying still paying Mr. Seeley any amount of money while the levies are in force? 2. Has the Township sought or received any legal advice on how to process these levies? If so, has the Township contacted separate counsel since, obviously, Mr. Seeley, as Township Solicitor, cannot advise the Township on this matter? 3. Finally, while the Township Committee is certainly free to select any lawyer it wishes, some might question the wisdom of retaining an attorney who has allowed so many tax levies to be entered against him. What is so special about the quality of Mr. Seeley's legal services that causes the Township to continue to retain him, over other area attorneys? Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875 Phone: 732-873-1251 E-mail: paff@pobox.com
 

Appeals court, citing sunshine issues, reverses Waldwick zoning denial

On July 17, 2012, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed, on Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) grounds, the Waldwick Zoning Board's denial of an application to establish a "mini-mart" at a gas station. In their six page unpublished decision, the three judge panel found that "based on the limited record" before them, they could not rule out that the Zoning Board may have improperly discussed and decided the merits of the zoning application in a private (i.e. executive or closed) meeting instead of at a meeting to which the public was admitted. Since the trial judge, Hon. Joseph S. Conte, J.S.C., did not consider the applicant's OPMA arguments, the Appellate Division remanded that matter back to the lower court "to determine whether the resolution adopted by the Board should be nullified because the Board violated the OPMA." The Appellate Division's opinion is on-line here.
 

North Brunswick pays $30,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On October 31, 2011, the Township of North Brunswick (Middlesex County) agreed to pay $30,000 to a local couple who sued members of the North Brunswick Police Department for allegedly falsely arresting one of them and applying excessive force to both. In their suit, Natalya Yermakova and Michael Boksner said that on September 14, 2007, they were driving on Route 1 when North Brunswick Police Officer Myron O. Cox directed them to pull over into a parking lot. When Officer Cordell Harris approached the car, Boksner, who was the driver, asked him why he was pulled over. In response to Boksner's question, Harris allegedly responded because he was driving on the shoulder. When Boksner protested that he was merely following Cox's instruction, Harris allegedly threatened to write him a summons for "obstructed view." Yermakova, who was seated in the back seat next to her infant child, then allegedly exited the vehicle and asked Harris for an explanation for the traffic stop. According to the suit, Harris' response was "belligerent" and "provided her no details surrounding the traffic stop." The suit alleges that Cox then pushed Boksner, who had also exited the vehicle, into the vehicle's door, causing injury, and "forcefully pulled [Yermakova] out of the car, causing her eyeglasses to fall from her face." When Yermakova pleaded with the officers to watch out for her glasses, Cox allegedly "intentionally stepped on" them, "twisted [Yermakova's] left arm behind her back and threw [her] onto the rear driver's side of the vehicle." Cox then allegedly handcuffed Yermakova and placed her in a patrol car. Yermakova alledgely pleaded with the officers "to let her go since her child needed to be breast fed." Police charged Yermakova with aggravated assault, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct and lodged her in the Middlesex County Workhouse. They issued Boksner a summons for improper passing. According to the lawsuit, all charges against Yermakova were dismissed because "the arresting officers failed to appear in municipal court on numerous occassions." The motor vehicles summons was also allegedly dismissed. The case is captioned Yermakova and Boksner v. North Brunswick, New Jersey Superior Court Docket No. MID-L-7508-09 and Yermakova's and Boksner's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. None of Yermakova's and Boksner's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $30,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by North Brunswick or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that North Brunswick or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Yermakova and Boksner $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.
 

Wrightstown Mayor, wife exonerated on another ethics charge

In a July 10, 2012 letter, Local Finance Board Chairman Thomas H. Neff dismissed another ethics complaint against Wrightstown Borough (Burlington County) Mayor Thomas Harper and his wife Mary Karen Harper. This dismissal comes on the heels of Neff's July 3, 2012 dismissal which is reported here. http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2012/07/wrightstown-mayor-wife-cleared-of.html The most recent dismissal regarded a December 10, 2011 complaint filed by John Paff, chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. The complaint alleged that both Harpers, who served on Wrightstown's Joint Land Use Board, were in an impermissible conflict of interest when they moved and voted in favor of appointing David C. Frank, Esq. as the Land Use Board's attorney while Frank was serving as registered agent for two limited liability corporations owned by the Harpers. Those two corporations, Each Leasing, LLC and Avis, LLC, each own real estate in Wrightstown Borough. In his complaint, Paff had alleged that the Harpers violated the Local Government Ethics Law "by failing to recuse themselves from voting on three resolutions that awarded a no-bid contract to Mr. Frank, who had a standing business relationship with them by serving as registered agent of the two limited liability corporations." He also alleged that Frank himself had violated the Act "by simultaneously acting as Wrightstown Land Use Board attorney and as registered agent for the two limited liability corporations in which two members of Land Use Board held an interest." Neff found that both of Paff's charges lacked a "reasonable factual basis for violation of the Local Government Ethics Law." Neff reported that the Local Finance Board "determined that the business relationship between the Harpers and Mr. Frank did not constitute a business relationship that would be in violation of the Local Government Ethics Law." He characterized the relationship between the Harpers and Mr. Frank as "legitimate and unavoidable in a free society" and distinguished it from matters "which are prejudicial and material and . . . corruptive of democracy and a free society." The complaint and dismissal letter are on-line here. We hope that publication of this matter will help local government officers better determine the contours of the Local Government Ethics Law.
 

ELEC apparently doesn't require contributor occupations to be reported.

Several months ago, I was reading the Election Law Enforcement Commission's (ELEC's) "Compliance Manual for Candidates" (available here http://www.elec.state.nj.us/pdffiles/forms/compliance/man_cf.pdf ) And learned how critically important ELEC claims it is for candidates, on their "R-1" or "C-1" form filings, to report the "occupations" of those contributors who donate more than $300. According to page 22 of ELEC's manual When reporting occupation information, a description of the contributor?s source of income must be provided, such as ?florist,? ?attorney,? ?doctor,? ?custodian,? or ?electrician.? _Descriptions such as ?self-employed,? ?owner,? or ?sole proprietor? do not identify occupation and are insufficient._ If the contributor does not have a source of livelihood, a description such as ?retired,? ?student,? or ?none? shall be reported, but in all cases some written description shall be provided and the information shall not be left blank. (Emphasis in original) I starting perusing candidate filings looking to see if they were complying with this requirement. It didn't take me long to find that a Cumberland County Freeholder candidate, the Rev. James Dunkins, on his November 28, 2011 Form R-1 filing, just left the "occupation" field blank. So, like any good citizen who wants ELEC's rules to be scrupulously followed, I filed a formal complaint against Dunkins and requested that the Rev. Dunkins and/or his campaign treasurer be fined for this infraction. In late February, a little more than a month after I faxed ELEC my complaint, an ELEC representative called me and told me that my complaint letter wasn't sufficient and that I must submit my complaint on ELEC's official form and return by regular mail so that ELEC would have my "original signature." I simply filled out the form and mailed it to ELEC with my original complaint letter attached. By letter dated May 2, 2012, Shreve E. Marshall, Jr., ELEC's Director of Review & Investigation, informed me--without giving a reason why--that "at it's meeting on April 10, 2012, the Commission determined _not_ to open a review for compliance with the provisions of the New Jersey Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act." (Emphasis in Marshall's letter.) My complaint and Director Marshall's letter are on-line here. All I can conclude is that despite the explicit directions on page 22 of its Manual, ELEC really doesn't care whether or not candidates complete their reporting forms correctly.
 

Wrightstown Mayor, wife cleared of ethics charge

By letter dated July 3, 2012, the New Jersey Local Finance Board cleared Wrightstown (Burlington County) Mayor Thomas Harper and his wife Mary Karen Harper of violating the Local Government Ethic Law for testifying in support of a land use application regarding a property adjacent to the Harpers' residence while both Harpers served on the same board that heard the application. The matter was initiated by a November 25, 2011 complaint filed by John Paff, chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. The complaint alleged that both Harpers served on Wrightstown's Joint Land Use Board when the Board met on April 14, 2009. At the April 14, 2009 hearing, the Board was considering a site plan application regarding 56 West Main Street which is next door to the Harpers' residence at 54 West Main Street. Immediately prior to the hearing, both Harpers recused themselves from the matter but were both sworn in to testify in favor of the application. After the Board approved the application, both Harpers rejoined the other board members on the dais. In support of its complaint, the Libertarian Party cited an appellate level, unpublished opinion in Beacon Hill Farm, LLC v. Township of Marlboro, 2006 WL 1661361 (Law Div. 2006). That case considered the question of whether a council president, who recused himself from participating in proceedings to enact a zoning ordinance, could sit on the dais and conduct the meeting. In that case, the court ruled that the council president should have "physically remove[d] [himself] from the presence of the public body and leave the room until consideration of the topic which caused the recusal is complete." The court further held that participation by a recused official "poisons the board?s quasi-judicial proceedings.? The Local Finance Board, while recognizing the Beacon Hill Farm case, noted that it was decided under the Municipal Land Use Law rather than the ethics law. The Board stated that it "historically . . . has not made the recommendation that a local official who recused him/herself from the dais be required to leave the room during an open public comment meeting." Accordingly, the Local Finance Board ruled, "once Mayor and Mrs. Harper removed themselves from the official action of the Joint Land Use Board, they were representing themselves concerning their own interests." The Libertarian Party's complaint and the Local Finance Board's dismissal letter are both on-line here. We hope that publication of this complaint will help local government officers better determine the contours of the Local Government Ethics Law. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Vuocolo

 

Paff v. Bridgeton Board of Ed

 

Fairfield Legal bills on-line

I have posted the detailed legal services bills submitted to Fairfield Township by Solicitor John G. Carr, Esq. to the following link: The bills cover services rendered during the months of July 2011 through May 2012.
 

Jones v. Dalton

 

Lean and mean version of the NJ civil case database

At last night's New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) Board meeting, I was asked to prepare a stripped-down version of the New Jersey Civil Case database and give detailed instructions on how to use it. This is what I did. I took the NJCIVIL.TXT file which contains approximately 260,000 records and deleted all the cases such as auto accidents, name changes, etc. and left only cases of the following types: Civil Rights, Whistleblower, Discrimination and Open Public Records. These are the types of cases that I believe that most open government advocates are interested in. This reduced the size of the file from about 260,000 records to about 5,600 records. I then sorted the records, first by county, and then by case type and then by docket number staring with the newest and ending with the oldest. So, if you open the file, the Atlantic County cases are listed first and the Warren County cases are listed last. Within each county, the Civil Rights cases are listed first, followed by the Whistleblower, Discrimination and the Open Public Records Act cases. Finally, the cases of each type are listed from newest to oldest. In order to use this new file, the first thing you need to do is download it from the following URL: Then, save it to your hard drive and open it with a text editor. I use EditPlus, which I like very much and which has a free evaluation version that can be downloaded from http://www.editplus.com/ But, you can use any text editor, such as WordPad or NotePad that are are on almost all Windows computers. Once you get the file open, turn off the "word wrap" (which in WordPad is under the "view" tab) and the file should reformat in nice, neat columns. Suppose you're interested in Morris County. Search (use CTRL-F) for the string "MRS-L" and you'll jump down to Wright v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, which is the first Morris County case listed. If you slowly scroll down the cases, you'll see some that might interest you. For example, Docket No. MRS-L-2970-10 is a the Civil Rights case of Rodano v. Morris County. If you read toward the right of the same row, you'll see that the case settled on March 8, 2012 ("ST SCHED TR" typically means that the case settled when the court scheduled it for trial). Suppose you're interested in finding more about the Rodano case. Then you might want to send the following OPRA request to the records custodian in Morris County: ----begin OPRA request Please accept this as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at [address] Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this request. Records requested: I am informed that a civil case captioned Rodano v. Morris County, Docket No. MRS-L-2970-10 may have settled on or about March 8, 2012. I would like the following records: 1. The most recently amended civil complaint filed in the case (or, I want the original complaint if the complaint was never amended.) I don't need summonses, case information sheets, cover letters, etc. 2. The agreement, if one exists, that sets forth the terms and amount of settlement, i.e. the "settlement agreement" related to the above cited case. Thank you. ----end OPRA request Also, know that you can learn all the parties to the case, exactly which documents were filed and other case information by using New Jersey's user-unfriendly on-line search engine. Instructions are on-line here: http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-jersey-courts-put-civil-index-on.html Doing this is useful in cases like "MRS-L-001790-09 VITELLARO VS MAYOR AND TWP COMMITTE " where you can't tell, from the truncated information given, which Township was being sued. I hope this is useful. John Paff
 

Cumberland Salem Conservation District pays $10,000 to settle employee's defamation and improper termination suit

On October 12, 2011, the Cumberland Salem Conservation District, located in Upper Deerfield Township in Cumberland County, agreed to pay $10,000 to a former employee who sued the District claiming that the District's Director defamed her and that the District fired her . In her suit, Bridgeton resident Lisa Carll claimed that she was a 17 year employee who performed administrative work for the Conservation District. After her hours were cut back, she applied for partial unemployment benefits. While receiving the benefits, she claims to have noticed that they were "inconsistent and inaccurate with respect to holidays and vacation days" so she deposited what she felt may have been overpayments "into a savings account and waited for the Division of Unemployment Compensation to correct any overpayment." In November 2009, Carll claims that she was confronted by Conversation District Director Garry Timberman, who allegedly "accused [Carll] of improperly seeking unemployment benefits for her own benefit and use." Thereafter, Carll claims to have contacted the Division of Unemployment Compensation, confirmed that she had been overpaid and then paid the overpaid amounts back to the Division. Carll alleges that Timberman, despite knowing that the overpaid benefits were paid back, "published defamatory remarks accusing [her] of misappropriation or theft." Based on Timberman's remarked, Carll claims that she was summoned into the District's January 26, 2010 executive session, without proper notice, and "summarily fired." The case is captioned Carll v. Cumberland Salem Conservation District, Cumberland County Superior Court Docket No. L-67-11 and Carll's attorney was Theodore E. Baker of Bridgeton. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Carll's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Conservation District or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Cumberland Salem or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Carll $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Cumberland Salem Conservation District pays $10,000 to settle employee's defamation and improper termination suit

On October 12, 2011, the Cumberland Salem Conservation District, located in Upper Deerfield Township in Cumberland County, agreed to pay $10,000 to a former employee who sued the District claiming that the District's Director defamed her and that the District fired her . In her suit, Bridgeton resident Lisa Carll claimed that she was a 17 year employee who performed administrative work for the Conservation District. After her hours were cut back, she applied for partial unemployment benefits. While receiving the benefits, she claims to have noticed that they were "inconsistent and inaccurate with respect to holidays and vacation days" so she deposited what she felt may have been overpayments "into a savings account and waited for the Division of Unemployment Compensation to correct any overpayment." In November 2009, Carll claims that she was confronted by Conversation District Director Garry Timberman, who allegedly "accused [Carll] of improperly seeking unemployment benefits for her own benefit and use." Thereafter, Carll claims to have contacted the Division of Unemployment Compensation, confirmed that she had been overpaid and then paid the overpaid amounts back to the Division. Carll alleges that Timberman, despite knowing that the overpaid benefits were paid back, "published defamatory remarks accusing [her] of misappropriation or theft." Based on Timberman's remarked, Carll claims that she was summoned into the District's January 26, 2010 executive session, without proper notice, and "summarily fired." The case is captioned Carll v. Cumberland Salem Conservation District, Cumberland County Superior Court Docket No. L-67-11 and Carll's attorney was Theodore E. Baker of Bridgeton. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Carll's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Conservation District or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Cumberland Salem or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Carll $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Kissoondath v. Vineland

 

Bond lawsuit against Vineland

 

Vineland pays $375,000 to settle employment discrimination suit.

On March 16, 2011, the City of Vineland (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $375,000 to a local man who sued members of the Vineland Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Ryan M. Asselta, who had been employed by the City's Electric Utilities Department since 1988, claims to have suffered a serious spinal injury on March 2, 2005. After about a year of recovery, Asselta said that he sought to return to work for the City in a different capacity since he was no longer able to work at his former job--and electical lineman. He claims that despite the availabity of job to read electic meters he was not given that job, even though he was medically fit to perform it. In addition to his discrimination claims, Asselta claims that the City's refusal to re-hire him was retaliation for him having filed Workers Compensation claims. The settlement agreement requires Asselta to agree not to ever again seek employment from the City of Vineland. The case is captioned Asselta v. Vineland, Cumberland County Superior Court Docket No. L-294-07 and Asselta's attorney was Christine P. O'Hearn of Westmont. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Asselta's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $375,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Vineland or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Vineland or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Asselta $375,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Bridgeton Board of Education pays $75,000 to settle lawsuit alleging racist, sexually harassing comments.

On January 20, 2012, the Bridgeton Board of Education (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $75,000 to a former Bridgeton school guidance counselor who claimed that her supervisor, Robert Cwik, sexually harassed and racially discriminated against her. She also claimed that school principal Lynn Williams ignored her complaints about Cwik's alleged conduct. In her suit, Angela Combs made some very specific and graphic allegations regarding Cwik's conduct and comments. Those who will not be offended by these allegations are invited to read them in paragraph 23 of Comb's complaint, which is on-line at the link below. The case is captioned Combs v. Bridgeton Board of Education, Cumberland County Superior Court Docket No. L-1069-08. Combs' attorney was Kevin M. Costello of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. None of Combs' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Bridgeton Board of Education or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Bridgeton Board of Education or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Combs $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

State pays $1.5 million to settle Bayside Prison inmate lawsuit

On June 22, 2012, the State of New Jersey agreed to pay $1.5 million to an inmate who claimed that he was severely beaten by correction officials at the Bayside State Prison and received insufficient medical attention at both Bayside and South Woods State Prison. Both prisons are located in Cumberland County, New Jersey. In his suit, Lewis Williford, who brought his suit through legal guardian Wanda Brigmon of Voorhees, said that on May 2, 2005, prison guards entered his cell and "slammed his head against the wall and beat him." He claims that beating was "performed, orchestrated, condoned, planned and/or directed" by correctional officials John Clendaniel, Gary Sheppard, Clyde Koerner and Michael Bryan and was in retaliation for an administrative complaint that Williford filed against Clendaniel. He further claims that despite his head trauma, Dr. Vitaly G. Steinberg, Registered Nurse Claire Cantrell and Licensed Practical Nurse Beverly Timmons, who provided medical services at Bayside, failed to properly diagnose or treat him. Williford claims that he was transferred to South Woods the day after his attack and the medical staff there, consisting of Marci L. MacKenzie, Ph.D., Kevin Frank, R.N., Stephanie Kudla, R.N., Elvira Maldonado, L.P.N., Sharon Akey, R.N., Fran Green, N.P.C., Diane M. Hollenbeck, R.N., Abu Ahsan, M.D., Michele McAdams, R.N. and Narrissa Pierce, R.N., similarly failed to properly diagnose or treat his injuries. Williford claims that the alleged beating, together with the alleged failure to diagnose and treat his injuries, caused him to suffer a hemorrhagic stroke on May 20, 2005, which left him incapacitated and "unable to ambulate himself, feed himself, dress himself or take care of his bodily functions." He is allegedly left with a "feeding tube to provide him with nourishment" and is unable to speak or "comprehend anything beyond basic instructions." The case is captioned Williford v. Bayside State Prison, Superior Court Docket No. CUM-L-509-07 Williford's attorneys were Jonathan M. Cohen and James Waldenberger of Philadelphia. Case documents are on-line here. None of Williford's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. Since the case settled, nothing in the record constitutes an admission of wrongdoing by State or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Williford $1.5 million than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Fairfield Cumberland

 

Weehawken official fined 100 dollars

 

Mecka v. Hudson Healthcare

 

Paff v. Egg Harbor Summary Judgment

 

Letter to Bound Brook Board

 

GRC asked to settle two issues

 

Accusations of sex in the Bound Brook school principal's office?

Hon. Terrence Hoben, President and members of the Bound Brook Board Of Education LaMonte Building 337 West Second Street Bound Brook, NJ 08805 (via e-mail only to cdeddy@bbrook.org) Dear President Hoben and Board members: I write both individually and on behalf of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. The project seeks to increase openness and transparency in government agencies, particularly at the local level. To that end, we routinely review lawsuits that are filed by and against government agencies, track those suits through to adjudication and post the results on our blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/ We believe that voters and taxpayers have a legitmate interest in knowing why their local government agencies and officials are getting sued and how much those suits are costing them. We also find that we cannot always rely on the agencies themselves to bring such lawsuits and settlements to the public's attention. On August 11, 2012, Shari Duddy, who works as a Learning Disabilities Teaching Consultant for the Bound Brook Borough (Somerset County) Board of Education, filed a lawsuit against school officials claiming that she has been the subject of "a campaign of harassment and abuse." The lawsuit, Duddy v. Bound Brook Board of Education, Docket No. SOM-L-0988-11, which I recently obtained in response to my Open Public Records Act request, is on-line here: This type of lawsuit is common, but one of the allegations in Duddy's lawsuit makes it stand out from the rest. In paragraph 14.k of her suit, she claims that her supervisor, Director of Special Services Jasmine Brandt, "falsely and publicly accus[ed] Ms. Duddy of having sexual relations with the principal of a District school in the principal's office." This allegation, regardless of its truth or falsity, is disturbing and troubling, because one of the following three cases must be true: a. The allegation is untruthful, meaning that Ms. Duddy falsely accused Ms. Brandt of spreading a rumor the she (Ms. Duddy) and a school principal had sex in the principal's office, or b. The allegation is is true, meaning that Ms. Brandt spread around a lie about Ms. Duddy and a school principal having sex in the principal's office, or c. The allegation is partially true, meaning that Ms. Brandt truthfully reported that Ms. Duddy and a school principal had sex in the principal's office. It appears that either a) Ms. Brandt or Ms. Duddy is telling a very nasty lie or b) that Ms. Duddy and a school principal actually had sex in the principal's office. In either event, the Board should investigate the allegation and discipline whichever of the two ladies lied, or if the Board finds that Ms. Duddy actually had sex with a principal in the principal's office, it should bring charges against both Ms. Duddy and the principal. Would you please discuss this matter at your June 11, 2012 Board meeting? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours,
 

Egg Harbor pays $110,000 to settle hostile work environment suit

On April 24, 2012, the Township of Egg Harbor (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $110,000 to a former Township police officer who sued members of the Egg Harbor Police Department for allegedly retaliating against him and creating a hostile work environment. In his suit, Robert Gleisberg, who has worked for the department since 1985, claimed that police department officials, including Lieutenant Hector Tavarez and Sergeant William Fair, retaliated against him. Among Gleisberg's grievances were: a. Tavarez was hostile toward Gleisberg because Gleisberg had allegedly "objected to Tavarez's status as a person responsible for dealing with children pursuant to the Police Athletic League in light of Tavarez's conviction in municipal court for misconduct involving female children in the year 1988." b) Gleisberg had objected to a "Master Police Officer" designation because it was a "non-existent rank" and "was contrary to law." c) Gleisberg had objected to Fair allegedly having "coached" Officer Bob Smith on what to say to ensure that Margate Police Officer Mark Ciambrone would not succeed in his efforts to suppress "certain illegal gun(s)" that had been seized from him." Gleisberg alleged that Fair's intent was to "have Officer Smith lie under oath." d) He was denied entry into the motorcycle unit. e) Gleisberg was allegedly was "forced to inform the entire police department every time he had to defecate on duty" which Gleisberg felt was "embarrassing and humiliating." f) he supported fellow officer Christopher Mozitis in his grievances against the department. In 2011, Mozitis settled his lawsuit against Egg Harbor Township for $650,000. See http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2011/08/egg-harbor-pays-650000-to-settle-police.html The case is captioned Gleisberg v. Egg Harbor, New Jersey Superior Court, Docket No. ATL-L-2932-08and Gleisberg's attorney was Clifford L. Van Syoc of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. None of Gleisberg's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $110,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Egg Harbor or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Egg Harbor or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Gleisberg $110,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

$340 Cassette

 

Hillside Board member files ethics complaint against fellow Board members

In her December 6, 2011 complaint filed with the New Jersey School Ethics Committee, which I received on May 11, 2012 in response to an Open Public Records Act request, Hillside school board member Rayba Watson alleged that Board president George L. Cook, III and Board member Robert Trotte voted on October 20, 2011 to award a $60,000 insurance contract to Fairview Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. even though a) A. Tony Monteiro, who allegedly served as both Cook's and Trotte's campaign managers is claimed by Watson to be "one of [Fairview's] representatives" and b) Fairview's bid was allegedly $12,000 higher than the lowest bidder. According to Watson's sworn complaint, both Cook and Trotte had been previously informed by school board attorney Perry Lattiboudere to remove themselves, apparently because of a conflict of interest, from the Board's interviews with Fairview. A copy of Watson's complaint is on-line here. It has been referred to the Office of Administrative Law and bears OAL Docket # EEC 3097-12 (School Ethics Commission Docket No. C53-11) and is scheduled for hearing on 09/18/12 before Judge Jones. About me and why I'm posting this. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. Although ethics complaints against elected officials are of vital public importance, the School Ethics Commission makes it difficult for the public and media to learn about these complaints' existence until well into the process. The allegations are not proven and Cook and Trotte should be presumed not to have acted unethically unless and until the Commission finds otherwise. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

ECHA

 

Borough seeks up to $339.75 for audio tape of a single meeting

The Borough of Englewood Cliffs (Bergen County) wishes for me to pay up to $339.75 for the audio recording of a December 8, 2010 Borough Council meeting. lThe Borough posits that the meeting was recorded on audio tape and that since the Borough now uses CD technology, it needs to use a private vendor, at $135 per hour, to duplicate the 2.5 hour meeting recording. My OPRA request, the Borough's response and my reply to that response are on-line here.
 

West Deptford Municipal Court

 

Letter to Monmouth Presiding Judge

 

Paulsboro pays $94,524.28 to settle police officer's discrimination claim

On April 3, 2012, the Borough of Paulsboro (Gloucester County) agreed to pay $94,524.28 to a Paulsboro police officer who filed administrative discrimination claims against the Paulsboro Police Department, In his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Division on Civil Rights complaints, Pedro Heredia, a 10-year veteran of the Paulsboro Police Department, claimed that he was questioned by Captain Marino about an incident in which Officer David Belbin allegedly made "inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature" to Officer Nicole Thigpen. Marino, Heredia claimed, disclosed what Heredia said in the interview to Belbin who later confronted Heredia in the Police Station locker room. In another incident, Heredia said that he witnessed Sergeant Jason Bish use excessive force against an African American male. He claim that two other officers who also witnessed the alleged incident, Keith Hoagle and Michael Bielski, both false stated that the incident did not occur the way Heredia had reported it. Thereafter, he claims to have subjected to racially biased remarks and literature and was ultimately suspended because of "untruthfulness and misconduct." Under the settlement agreement, Heridia agreed to resign his position and never seek employment from Paulsboro again. In addtion to paying Heredia $94,524.28, Paulsboro agreed to dismiss all pending disciplinary charges against him and not oppose Heredia's application for a disability pension. Heredia's lawyer was represented by the law firm of Ginarte, O'Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winograd, LLP. The complaints and settlement agreement are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of disputes in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Heredia's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $94,524.28 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Paulsboro or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Paulsboro or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Heredia $94,524.28 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

OPRA to Englewood Cliffs

I am trying to get a handle on exactly how up-to-date (or not up-to-date) the Borough Council is on keeping, approving and maintaining its public and executive minutes. I have submitted a very detailed OPRA request, available here, that ought to provide me with that information and inform me if a compliance lawsuit is necessary.
 

Paff v. Downe

Downe Township agrees to make minutes promptly available After receiving my notice of an intended lawsuit, the Downe Township (Cumberland County) Committee passed a May 7, 2012 resolution promising to make draft copies of both its public meetings and the nonexempt portions of its nonpublic (closed or executive) meetings publicly available "the sooner to occur of thirty (30) days after a meeting or prior to the next scheduled meeting, whichever occurs first." My threatened lawsuit, Committee resolution and cover letters are on-line here: http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2012/2012130Uo//DowneComplaint.pdf Downe Township is a rural township of about 1,700 inhabitants that borders the Delaware Bay. Some towns, due to their small size, claim that they don't have the staff or resources to keep their minutes up to date. The fact that Downe is able to promise to make both its open and closed minutes publicly available prior to the next meeting challenges the "we're too small" excuse.
 

Paff v. Downe

 

Midland Park BOE

 

Fairfield Cumberland Letter

Regarding former Administrator's selection of contractors.
 

Paff v. Downe

 

Clinton Twp Board of Education

 

Galloway Minutes

 

Englewood Cliffs school board summary judgment

 

Letter to Atlantic County Prosecutor

 

Atlantic County Prosecutor's letter on OPMA

For the first time in my experience, the Atlantic County Prosecutor has taken a position on an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) issue. In a March 27, 2012 letter, Chief Assistant Prosecutor Diane M. Ruberton advised that the Absecon Board of Education would have violated the OPMA if it had voted "through an exchange of e-mails to amend the budget to appropriate money for an increase in high school tuition." But, Ruberton opined that since "no vote was ever taken and the matter was scheduled to be addressed at a public meeting, . . . no violation of the Open Public Meeting Act ever actually occurred." Ruberton's letter is on-line here. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Are "private prisons" subject to OPRA?

On Friday, April 20, 2012, at 9 a.m., Essex County Superior Court judge Rachel N. Davidson will conduct an Order to Show Cause hearing in the case of John Paff v. Community Educational Centers, Inc., Docket No. ESX-L-1658-12. This case presents an issue of first impression in New Jersey--whether taxpayers lose their right to access government records when the government "contracts out" a traditional governmental function--in this case correctional services--to a private entity. In New Jersey, 11.4% of non-federal prisoners are housed in private facilities. Yet, as currently applied, the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), while allowing citizens access to certain categories of records held by government-run prisons, denies access to those very same categories when held by private prisons. It seems to me that the public's rights under OPRA shouldn't turn on the government's decision to privatize its functions rather than executing them through government employees. The hearing, which is open to the press and public, will be held in Courtroom 302 at the Historic Courthouse at 470 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd in Newark. Plaintiff's lawyer is Richard Gutman of Montclair (973-744-6038) and the private prison's lawyers are Debra Shannon and Nichoele Johnson of West Caldwell (973-226-2900). The briefs filed by both parties are on-line here. Anyone who wishes to attend the hearing is cautioned to telephone the court at 973-693-6716 on Thursday to ensure that it hasn't been postponed.
 

Forfeiture plea bargain

 

Dropped 911 call entitles police to warrantless entry of home

At the following link is a December 15, 2011 decision by Burlington County Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Kelly (retired on recall) affirming the conviction of an Air Force Captain for Obstruction (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a)) and Resisting Arrest (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-2a(1)). The decision is on-line here. At issue was a "dropped" 911 call that came from Captain Evan Reece's home in Pemberton Township. (A "dropped" 911 call is a call that is received by police but in which the caller gives no voice response to the dispatcher.) When Sergeant Peter Delagarza came to investigate the call, Reece, in a calm voice and demeanor, told him that he did not place the call. After Delagarza noted a fresh abrasion on Reece's hand and notice there were three cars in the driveway, he asked Reece about his marital status and whether or not he was home alone." At this point, according to Delagarza, Reece's "demeanor began to change." Reece allegedly refused Delagarza's request to "come in and look around" and when two other officers arrived, Reece allegedly tried to close the door and lock it. The officers, however, were able to push the door open before Reece was able to lock it. "After a few minutes of physical struggle, with the police hitting [Reece] in the face, he was controlled and cuffed" and charged with the two offenses. Police then checked out the house and found it to be normal. Reece was convicted of both offenses by Pemberton Municipal Court Judge Charles Shimberg on March 14, 2011 after five court appearances. Judge Kelly affirmed, holding that a 911 call is presumptively an emergency and that the police were "justified in doing what was needed to insure that no one in that house was in need of emergent aid." The circumstances constituted an exception to the normal rule that police must get a search warrant before making an entry into someone's residence. Reece has filed a civil suit in the matter. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/20119on//PembertonComplaint.pdf and one of the officers, John Hall, filed a counterclaim seeking damages against Reece for allegedly injuring him. The lawsuit, however, has been put on hold while Reece appeals his conviction to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Police Accountability Project paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251
 

Ciampi v. Township of Union Public School District, et al, Docket No.: UNN-L-4703-11

 

Ciampi v. Township of Union Public School District, et al, Docket No.: UNN-L-4703-11

 

Mercer Prosecutor criticizes Trenton Council over tardy minutes

In a March 27, 2012 letter, Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph L. Bocchini, Jr. took the Trenton City Council to task for not making "available to the public written minutes of [Council] meetings for a substantial period of time." Citing N.J.S.A. 10:4-14, Bocchini told the Council that going forward, minutes "should be made 'promptly available' to the public and noted that a 1986 court decision defined "promptly available" as meaning within two weeks after the meeting. As for the Council's backlog of minutes from previous meetings, Bocchini asked the Council to provide him "with a timetable when minutes from past meetings will be complete and available to the public." Bocchini's letter is on-line at I wish to thank Trenton resident Jim Carlucci for bringing this matter to the prosecutor's attention and for sharing Bocchini's letter with me. It's not often that a county prosecutor enforces the Open Public Meetings Act. Bocchini's letter is refreshing and may help convince other prosecutors around New Jersey to take action on complaints about tardy disclosure of meeting minutes.
 

New Providence High School Teacher reprimanded

 

Lacey Board of Education executive minutes

 

North Jersey article

 

Montvale BOE minutes

 

Court: Bayonne "intentionally violated OPRA."

In its March 22, 2012 decision in Mark's Advanced Towing, Inc. v. City of Bayonne, Robert Sloan et al, the Appellate Division referred to an April 1, 2010 order entered by Hudson County Superior Court Judge Bernadette N. DeCastro that found that the City of Bayonne "intentionally violated" the Open Public Records Act. The Appellate Division's decision is on-line at John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Woodbridge Fire District 12

March 21, 2012 Richard M. Braslow, Esq. Dear Mr. Braslow: I received the records you sent me today and have place them on the Internet at for your ready reference. Just to recap, I submitted a records request on February 24, 2012 that contained four (4) separate requests set forth in numbered paragraphs. Paragraphs 3 and 4 were resolved by the settlement/release you previously sent me and you explanation that the civil complaint was too marked up with notes to make it convenient to redact and send to me. That leaves the following two paragraphs: 1. The minutes of the Board two most recently held public meetings for which minutes are available. 2. The minutes of the Board two most recently held nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) meetings for which minutes are available. I have three questions/comments: 1. When we spoke on the phone on March 14th, did we discuss whether the Board of Commissioners ever goes into closed or executive session? The reason I ask is because both of the minutes provided to me are from public meetings and do not address paragraph 2 of my request. Unless the Board has never, since its inception, held an executive or closed meeting, there must be some record responsive to paragraph 2, please advise. 2. I don't think that the statement in the minutes that "The meeting was called to order under chapter 231 laws of 1975. The meeting is here advertised in the Home News and Tribune and Town Hall" comports with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). First, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-10, the minutes need to "specify[] the time, place, and manner in which such notice was provided." If the statement in the minutes, that the meeting "is here advertised in the Home News and Tribune" is accurate, then the OPMA was violated because both N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d) and 10:4-18 require notice to be served on "at least two newspapers." The Home News is one paper, which other newspaper was notified? (The full text of the OPMA is on-line at http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/OPMA.htm ) 3. Under "roll call" the minutes recite only that "everyone is present." But, N.J.S.A. 10:4-14 requires the minutes to show "the time and place [and] the members present." I believe this fairly means the names of the individual Board members present, not just the statement that "everyone" is present. Also, the minutes do not recite the location of the meeting. 4. Most substantively, I have a problem with the statements on pages 5 and 8 of the PDF file at the above link. Apparently, under "personnel," "Souza, Jr." stated that "We will discuss something after the meeting." Then, later, under "old business" he reiterates that "I don't have any concerns at this point other than the one that we will talk about later." Does this mean that a quorum of the Board discussed a "personnel matter" in private without the benefit of going into executive session? I find this matter very troubling and look forward to receiving yours or your client's response. Thank you. John Paff P.O. Box 5424 Somerset, NJ 08875-5424 Voice: 732-873-1251 Fax: 908-325-0129 E-mail paff@pobox.com cc: Ed Sheehan, Secretary to the Board (via
 

Mountain Lakes

 

Kearny case

 

Florence Township

Files for my Costa/Florence matter
 

Docket No. BER-L-2148-12

RE: Paff v. Englewood Cliffs Board of Education, March 16, 2012 Englewood Cliffs Board of Education via e-mail only to mwelfel@englewoodcliffs.org and cambrose@englewoodcliffs.org Dear Board President and Members: I have received word today that an Open Public Meetings Act lawsuit I recently filed against the Board of Education was received for filing on March 12, 2012 and assigned Docket No. BER-L-2148-12. Attached is a copy of the lawsuit, and I've also put it on-line for your convenience at I will formally serve the lawsuit upon the Board in the near future, but I wanted you to have an advance copy of it so that you and your attorney are aware of it as soon as possible. Very truly yours, John Paff
 

Englewood Cliffs school board pays $20,000 to settle wrongful termination suit

On October 3, 2011, the Englewood Cliffs (Bergen County) Board of Education agreed to pay $20,000 to a former school custodian who had sued the school board for allegedly firing him because he became injured and sought workers compensation benefits. In his suit, Henry Dudek of Harrison, who was hired as a school custodian in 2008, said that he was hurt on the job on March 2, 2009. He claims after he filed a workers compensation claim, Superintendent Dominick Mucci recommended that the school board fire him. When he asked why he was fired, Dudek alleges that the reasons the Board proffered "were unsupported by [Dudek's] performance reviews and employment records." He asked for and received a hearing before the school board, but alleges that during the July 13, 2009 the Board "did not take an active part in the hearing [and] did not ask a single question to, or request any explanation of [Dudek]." Following the hearing, Dudek claims, the Board affirmed their earlier decision to not renew Dudek's employment contract. He further claims that the board revoked his workers compensation benefits after the July 13, 2009 hearing. The case is captioned Dudek v. Englewood Cliffs Board of Education, Bergen County Superior Court Docket No. L-2008-10 and Dudek's attorney was Paul Piantini, III, Esq. of Paramus. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Dudek's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $20,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Englewood Cliffs school board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the school board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Dudek $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Stillwater and contract award

Anthony M. Ardito, C.P.A. via e-mail: tony.ardito@traunerconsulting.com March 12, 2012 Mr. Ardito: I understand that you are the auditor for the Township of Stillwater in Sussex County. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. I write because the Township of Stillwater, when it did not have a CFO, awarded a construction contract to Daniel A. Rivera for $18,784, which is in excess of the bid threshold, without soliciting competitive bids. The contract and other relevant documents are on-line here. I spoke to Municipal Clerk Lynda Knott on the telephone today and she acknowledges that the award of this contract was not done in accordance with the Local Public Contracts Law and that the Township Committee is well aware of the error. I just wanted to bring it to your attention as well, in case you are not already aware of it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Paff 732-873-1251 cc. Mayor and Committee
 

Manasquan Board of Education

Christine Muly, President and members of the Manasquan Board of Education 169 Broad St Manasquan, NJ 08736 (via e-mail to phom@manasquanboe.org ) Dear President Muly and Board members: The minutes of the Board's January 17, 2012 and January 24, 2012 executive sessions raise some troublesome issues. Those minutes are attached to this letter and, respectively, are available on-line at: and The most troubling issue, in my view, is Mr. McOmber's statement to President Muly, as reflected in the January 17th minutes, that "he had a conflict" negotiating with "with the staff on special education issues." Then, at the January 24th meeting, the Board "decided that [it] would stay with Mr. McOmber's firm for this service." This information raises two areas of concern. First, which N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b) exception justified having this conversation outside of public view? The exception stated in the resolution--exception (b)7-"pending or anticipated contract negotiations"--is intended to shield the Board's negotiation strategy and tactics from its adversary. Given that all the 12(b) exceptions must be strictly construed against closure and in favor of openness, I question the Board's reliance on that exception. I think that exception (b)8 is a closer fit, but I still doubt that it would cover a discussion about the Board attorney's possible conflict. Second, and more troubling, Mr. McOmber, candidly, expressed to his client that it would be unethical for him to do 'X' because it would consitute a conflict of interest and violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board, apparently, rejected his concern and instructed him to do 'X' despite his concerns. Like the minutes discussed in my January 16, 2012 letter to the Board, the January 17th and 24th minutes do not reveal sufficient details to permit the public to know 'X' (i.e. the nature of Mr. McOmber's alleged conflict). The public needs to know the nature of Mr. McOmber's perceived conflict so that it can a) judge for itself whether the conflict is real and would put Mr. McOmber at odds with the Rules of Professional Conduct and b) if so, report Mr. McOmber to the District IX Ethics Committee if he obeys his client's instructions to provide representation notwithstanding the conflict. Therefore, I ask that the Board please announce in public, at its next meeting, the nature of the conflict that Mr. McOmber reported to President Muly. If the Board declines this invitation, I ask that it resolve to amend the minutes of its January 17, 2012 executive minutes to reveal the nature of the conflict. Thereafter, I will submit an OPRA request for those minutes and, if the Board redacts the text that would disclose the conflict's nature, we can let a court decide whether the public's right to know or the Board's assertion of confidentiality is paramount. Also troubling are two non sequiturs in the January 17, 2012 executive minutes. First is the sentence "It was also noted that the coach was not present for a meeting with the students and parents" which immediately followed a discussion of "inappropriate comments" on Facebook. The second is the sentence "A RICE notice will be provided to the staff member involved in this matter prior to further discussion in closed session." These non sequiturs raise questions regarding the coach's role in the Facebook incident and that a "staff member" may have acted inappropriately in dealing with 8th graders. Clearly, the public has an interest in knowing about teachers and staff members who may be conducting themselves inappropriately with students. Is the Board intentionally making its executive session minutes vague? Would the Board be willing, at its next meeting, to revise its January 17th executive minutes so as to make them comprehensible? Remember, the Board would not be jeopardizing any confidentiality concerns simply by revising its executive minutes since it can always redact and confidential material from them prior to public disclosure.
 

Custodian charged with "operating business" in Belleville schools

My Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request has revealed that in December 2011, the Belleville Board of Education (Essex County) filed sworn tenure charges against school custodian Miguel Valladares. Those charges and supporting affidavits are on-line here According to a filed statement by Superintendent Joseph Picardo, Valladares, who had been employed as a school custodian since 2003, had placed his own vending machines in two district schools. Valladares allegedly stocked the machines and took the money from them "for at least three years" while school officials were not aware that the machines were on school property. In his defense, Valladares claimed that he serviced the machines on his lunch break and that "he turned over monies to the [School 8] principal by sliding envelopes under the locked door at the main office." The filed papers do not indicate whether or not an investigation was made into the allegations regarding the complicity of the principal. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251 March 9, 2012
 

Haddon Heights settles OPMA lawsuit

On February 21, 2012, Susan Scoblin-O'Neill settled her pro se Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) lawsuit against Haddon Heights Borough (Camden County). In exchange for dismissal of her lawsuit, the Borough has agreed, among other things, to ensure that its future closed session resolutions "disclose as much information as possible without harming the public interest or the Borough's interest in keeping the matter private." The Borough also agreed to reimburse Susan her $260 in out-of-pocket court costs. The agreement, which is in the form a release, and not an order filed with the court, is on-line at It is important for citizens to learn how to file OPMA lawsuits. Since the OPMA does not contain any provision requiring public bodies to pay successful plaintiffs' attorney's fees, most citizens are understandably reluctant to hire lawyers to bring OPMA cases. Absent a legislative amendment, the OPMA will remain largely unenforced unless citizens file their own lawsuits. Thanks to Susan for stepping up to the plate. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Carneys point accident

 

Fairfield Cumberland

 

Hillside cop undergoing discipline allowed to draw pension

In response to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, I received an August 19, 2009 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Township of Hillside (Union County) and former Hillside police officer Francisco (Frank) Utset. I've placed the MOA on-line here: According to the MOA, the Township was in the process of firing Officer Utset for "engaging in conduct unbecoming a public employee on July 21, 2008. To that end, the Township had issued a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action and suspended Utset, with pay, effective July 21, 2008--the day after the alleged "unbecoming" incident. Despite the pending disciplinary charge, Officer Utset applied for "accidental disability retirement" benefits from the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS) and the Township agreed to hold its disciplinary action in abeyance while the PFRS decided Officer Utset's retirement application. After a year had elapsed, and the PFRS still hadn't decided whether or not to grant Officer Utset's retirement application, the Township, citing "the severe economic crisis," decided that it couldn't continue to carry Officer Utset on full pay and benefits. Accordingly, an agreement was forged under which Officer Utset would go on "administrative leave" effective July 22, 2009, at which time he would no longer receive any pay or benefits. The Township "agree[d] that the best course of action would be for [Officer Utset's] disability retirement application to be approved." To that end, Officer Utset agreed to "actively pursue his application" and the Township agreed to "cooperate" in this endeavor. According to my search today on DataUniverse, the PFRS did grant Officer Utset a $36,047.88 annual pension with a May 1, 2009 retirement date. According to the search, which is on page 9 of the PDF at the link above, Officer Utset's "final average salary" was $90,119.94.
 

Voorhees pays $195,000 to settle police lieutenant's lawsuit

On September 27, 2011, the Township of Voorhees (Camden County) agreed to pay $195,000 to a former Voorhees Police lieutenant who sued the Voorhees Police Department for allegedly retaliating against him for supporting a fellow lieutenant who had complained about and filed a whistler blower lawsuit against Voorhees Police Chief Keith Hummel, Deputy Chief John Prettyman and Lieutenant Louis Bordi. (On December 2, 2009, Slack's fellow lieutenant, Jeffrey Nardello and his lawyer settled the whistler blower lawsuit for $930,000. For more details see http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com/2010/01/voorhees-township-settles-with-police.html) In his suit, Gerald Slack said that after Nardello filed a written complaint against his superiors in October 2000, Chief Hummel demanded to know who Nardello intended to call as witnesses to support the complaint. According to Slack, after Nardello filed his whistle blower suit and Hummel saw that Slack was listed as one of Nardello's witnesses, a campaign of harassment against him commenced. Hummel allegedly filed baseless disciplinary actions against Slack. According to the lawsuit, Slack's problems with his superiors worsened after Slack reported Prettyman for arriving at a hostage scene "in full uniform with his weapon and township vehicle in an intoxicated state." Slack also alleges that he got in trouble for allegedly "meowing" at Patrolman Brian Bonsall during a shift change. There are many more allegations of harassment listed in the complaint, a copy of which is at the link below. The case is captioned Slack v. Voorhees, Docket No. CAM-L-5659-09 and Slack's attorneys were F. Michael Daily, Jr. of Westmont and Clifford Van Syoc of Cherry Hill. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement states that $125,000 of the settlement was paid to Slack while the remaining $70,000 was paid to Van Syoc. None of Slack's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $195,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Voorhees or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Voorhees or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Slack $195,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Was Englewood Cliffs Mayor conflicted from school budget discussion?

Question: If a Mayor serves as CEO of an insurance agency and on the board of directors of a bank, both of which do business with the local school board, is he permitted to participate in the Borough Council's deliberations regarding a defeated school budget? This is a question I presented to the Local Finance Board (LFB), the agency which enforces the Local Government Ethics Law, in a March 7, 2012 letter of complaint which I've placed on-line here. Unfortunately, it takes the LFB approximately two years to adjudicate a complaint.
 

Elk Township passes Open Public Meetings Act policy.

On December 14, 2011, as part of a ruling in an Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) case, Superior Court Assignment Judge Georgia M. Curio ordered the Elk Township (Gloucester County) Committee to "implement an effective [OPMA] policy . . . within sixty (60) days." Mayor Philip A. Barbaro and the Committee adopted the policy on March 1, 2012 and a copy of it is on-line here: The majority of the policy summarizes the OPMA and doesn't add any additional protections to the public's interest beyond what is provided by the OPMA itself. The policy does, however, establish an e-mail usage policy. It also requires closed meeting minutes to be a "general summary of the matters discussed" and states that an "advisory body" is subject to the OPMA if it "has the power to eliminate options available to a decision-making body." The policy applies to the Township Committee as well as the Township's land use boards and other agencies and boards of the Township.
 

OPRA request misunderstood--lawsuit averted

Ms. Spohn: Please accept this e-mail as my request for government records in accordance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. Please respond and send all responsive documents to me via e-mail at paff@pobox.com. If e-mail is not possible, please fax responses and responsive records to me at 908-325-0129. Also, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Background: I am in receipt of your March 5, 2012 response to my January 27, 2012 records request. I have posted my request, your response and fifty-four pages of records you sent me on the Internet at Unfortunately, you have misapprehended at least part of my January 27, 2012 records request. Paragraph 1 of that request was for "[t]he minutes of three most recently held nonpublic (i.e. "closed" or "executive") municipal governing body meetings for which minutes are available for public disclosure in either full or redacted form." Suppose that the Borough Council has not prepared minutes of any of the closed meetings held during 2011 and that the the most recent closed meetings for which minutes exist occurred on December 8, 2010, November 10, 2010 and October 13, 2010. Suppose further that the Borough attorney has determined that the minutes of the December 8, 2010 and November 10, 2010 closed meetings could be disclosed in full but that the minutes of the October 13, 2010 closed meeting needed redaction. Then, the records that would be properly responsive to paragraph 1 of my request would be the minutes of those three closed meetings, redacted as necessary. I recognize that the Borough Council is behind in production and disclosure of its minutes. The main object of paragraph 1 of my request was to gauge the extent of the problem. At this point, I am not sure whether Borough's closed session minutes are six months behind, two years behind or perhaps even further behind. Below I have repeated paragraph 1 of my request and ask that you respond to it within seven business days. Paragraph 2 of my request is simple and is repeated below. It merely asks for the resolutions that were passed authorizing the three closed meetings for which minutes were provided in response to paragraph 1. I want to compare the matters that the Council said that it was going to discuss in closed session to the matters that it actually discussed in private to see if there is a one to one correspondence. Paragraph 3 of my request was similar to paragraph 1, in that it attempted to find out how far behind the Borough is in production of its public meeting minutes. Note that the version of paragraph 3 set forth below differs a bit from the previous version. Finally, note that I have also added a new paragraph 4. Records Requested: 1. The minutes of the three most recently held nonpublic (i.e. "closed" or "executive") municipal governing body meetings for which minutes are available for public disclosure in either full or redacted form. 2. The resolutions, as required by N.J.S.A. 10:4-13, that authorized the three nonpublic meetings for which minutes were provided in response to #1 above. (If the resolutions are spread out in full in the public meeting minutes (as opposed to "free standing" resolutions), please furnish only those pages of the public meeting minutes that contain the resolutions.) 3. The minutes of three most recently held public municipal governing body meetings that have been approved by the Borough Council. 4. The "2012 bylaws" that were unanimously approved at the most recent reorganization meeting. Thank you. John Paff
 

Some Borough Council minutes on-line

On Saturday, May 3, 2012, I obtained some Englewood Cliffs Borough Council agendas and minutes from Borough Clerk Susan Spohn in response to my February 23, 2012 Open Public Records Act request. My request, Spohn's answer and the agendas and minutes are on-line here. John Paff
 

Belleville school board tenured employee fired

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. I have found that in many, if not most, municipalities and school districts, the public is unaware of significant events that may impact upon their and their children's lives. Often, the details of such incidents are set forth in the minutes of a public body's nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) meeting minutes. While public, these minutes are not often put on the public body's Internet site and the public is often not aware that they exist. A case in point are the the minutes of the January 9, 2012 closed session of the Belleville Board of Education, which I've placed on the Internet at The minutes indicate that a tenured employee was fired and that tenure charges were filed against him or her. It seems to me that Belleville parents and taxpayers have a right to know the teacher?s identity and at least some of the details regarding the conduct that led to his or her termination and the tenure charges being filed. Toward that end, I have requested more records from the Board of Education. I anticipate that the Board will resist my efforts to learn about this incident, but I will post on this forum whatever response I get to my records request. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251 March 3, 2012
 

New Providence High School Teacher reprimanded

I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project. I have found that in many, if not most, municipalities and school districts, the public is unaware of significant events that may impact upon their and their children's lives. Often, the details of such incidents are set forth in the minutes of a public body's nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) meeting minutes. While public, these minutes are not often put on the public body's Internet site and the public is often not aware that they exist. A case in point are the the minutes of the November 21, 2011 closed session of the New Providence Board of Education, which I've placed, along with other closed session minutes on the Internet at The minutes indicate that a teacher had, according to a written complaint filed by the parents of a high school student, ?been harassing their son over the past couple of years.? After the principal investigated and the parents were dissatisfied with the principal?s investigation, the superintendent conducted his own investigation. This resulted in a finding that there were five separate incidents of which four ?demonstrated poor judgment and unprofessional conduct by the teacher.? A letter of reprimand was issued to the teacher and the teacher?s increment was withheld. It seems to me that a) the student and parents who complained have a legitimate interest in keeping their identities confidential but b) other parents of high school students ought to know this teacher?s identity. I think the public?s right to know the teacher?s identity and at least some of the details regarding his or her ?poor judgment? would help guide them and their children in interacting with that teacher in the future. Toward that end, I have requested more records from the Board of Education. I anticipate that the Board will resist my efforts to learn about this incident, but I will post on this forum whatever response I get to my records request. Sincerely, John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251 March 3, 2012
 

West Deptford pays $45,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On April 25, 2011, the Township of West Deptford (Gloucester County) agreed to pay $45,000 to Woodbury woman who sued members of the West Deptford Police Department for allegedly shoving and injuring her during an arrest of her grandson. In her suit, Dorothy Peele, who was then sixty years old, said that on October 11, 2007, West Deptford police officers Michael J. Cramer and Craig Burman visited her home in the Red Bank Run Apartments in order to arrest her grandson who was then a juvenile. She alleges that Cramer "physically assaulted her, grabbed her body forcefully threw her into a chair and knocked her to the floor." She said that Cramer, who was "enraged, verbally offensive and abusive," pushed her to the floor "and held her there with her hands behind her back." She alleges that Cramer arrested her and charged her with aggravated assault, obstructing justice and resisting arrest. Cramer denied Peele's account of the incident and Burman corroborated his account. Also named in the suit were West Deptford Police Chief Craig Mangano and the Township of West Deptford. The case is captioned Peele v. West Deptford, Federal Case No. 1:09-cv-02267 and Peele's attorney was Laurence P. Bafundo of Marlton. Case documents are on-line here. None of Peele's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $45,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by West Deptford or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that West Deptford or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Peele $45,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Dunellen: Repeal Request

My letter to the Mayor and Council seeking repeal of some unenforceable provisions of the Borough Code is on-line here:
 

Improper deals being made in Dunellen Municipal Court

I've found that the Dunellen Borough's municipal prosecutors and Judge Fackelman have been allowing plea bargains in the Dunellen Municipal Court that violate a 1998 Attorney General directive. I have complained to the Middlesex County Prosecutor's office regarding this matter and my letter of complaint and the attachments to the complaint are on-line here: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project paff@pobox.com voice: 732-873-1251 February 27, 2012
 

Open Letter to Mayor and Council: My draft lawsuit against a planning board member

Following is a letter that I sent this evening to Mayor Seader and the Borough Council. At issue is the slack manner in which the Borough and its officials comply (or more accurately fail to comply) with the Local Government Ethics Law. The draft lawsuit referred to in the letter is on-line at: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project -------------------------------------- February 25, 2012 Hon. Robert J. Seader, Mayor and members of the Dunellen Borough Council 355 North Ave Dunellen, NJ 08812 (via e-mail to wrobins@dunellenborough.com) Dear Mayor Seader and Council Members: I write both individually and in my capacity as Chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party?s Open Government Advocacy Project in an attempt to get Dunellen Borough officials to comply with the Local Government Ethics Law?s Financial Disclosure requirements. To that end, I?ve attached a draft civil complaint that I intend to file with the Middlesex County Superior Court on Monday, March 12, 2012, unless compliance?at least by Planning Board and Recreation Commission member Randee S. Staats?is achieved. I realize that threatening a lawsuit might seem like a drastic measure, so I?d like to explain why I find it to be necessary. As part of my work for the Libertarian Party, I routinely check to see if municipal officials across the state are filing their annual Financial Disclosure Statements, and if so, whether they are filing them completely and correctly. I checked Dunellen?s compliance last summer and found, unfortunately, that twenty-four (24) Borough officials had not complied with the filing requirements. (See Exhibit pages 1 through 7 of my draft lawsuit for a copy of my June 24, 2011 complaint with the New Jersey Local Finance Board against those officials.) I recently selected one member of those officials who did not file his 2011 financial statement and who was named in my June 24, 2011 complaint. The official I selected was Mr. Staats, in part due to unverified information I have that he is Mayor Seader?s brother-in-law. (see footnote) I filed an Open Public Records Act request for Mr. Staats? 2009, 2010 and 2011 Financial Disclosure Statements. In response, I learned that Mr. Staats made no 2009 filing and, as outlined in my draft lawsuit, his 2010 and 2011 filings contain virtually none of the information that the Ethics Law requires to be publicly disclosed, e.g. his sources of income, business interests owned, real estate owned, etc. (Mr. Staats? 2010 and 2011 filings are attached as Exhibit pages 8 through 11 of my draft lawsuit.) In sum, and almost comically, Mr. Staats? ?Financial Disclosure Statements? disclose absolutely no financial information regarding him or his household. The Legislature passed the Local Government Ethics Law because ?[t]he vitality and stability of representative democracy depend upon the public's confidence in the integrity of its elected and appointed representatives.? N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.2(b). One of the law?s objects is to require Local Government Officers (but not Local Government Employees) to report their income sources so that the public can detect possible conflicts of interest. Suppose, hypothetically, that Mr. Staats? wife Joanne works for a company owned by an applicant seeking the Planning Board?s approval. Had Mr. Staats filled out his Financial Disclosure Statement properly, the public, having been put on notice of the sources of his family?s income, would realize that it would be a possible conflict for Mr. Staats to vote on or participate in this application. By not properly completing his Statement, Mr. Staats, in his hypothetical case, would have deprived the public of this important knowledge and thus undermined the Legislature?s intent. Dunellen Borough is not a family business. Rather, it is a government agency that is supposed to take seriously the legal obligations that govern it and its officials. Municipal clerk Robins ought to be watching these financial filings like a hawk and should immediately notify the Mayor and Council if any Borough official fails to file his or her Financial Disclosure promptly or completely. Any official who, after notice, fails or refuses to file a complete and accurate Statement should be removed from his or her position. My threatened lawsuit, in my view, is not an overreaction given the unacceptably poor and slack manner that the Borough and its officials have been complying with the Financial Disclosure Statement filing requirements. And, in case you?re wondering why I don?t take my complaint to the Local Finance Board, I recently learned that it has just two employees covering Ethics Law enforcement in every municipality and county that does not have its own ethics board?approximately five hundred forty (540) government units. There are so many officials and so much noncompliance and so little enforcement that it takes years, literally, for a complaint against a non-filer to be investigated and adjudicated. This letter is not only about Mr. Staats. Rather, please accept it as an invitation to discuss this issue with Mr. Robins at your March 5, 2012 meeting and devise a mechanism that will ensure that Financial Disclosure Statement filing requirements are a Borough priority that will be rigorously enforced going forward. As for the lawsuit, the last thing I want to do is file it. The taxpayers certainly don?t need that expense in addition to all the other tax burdens they endure. But filing it is exactly what I?ll do if Mr. Staats doesn?t file either his properly completed 2010 and 2011 Financial Disclosure Statements or his letter of resignation from both the Planning Board and the Recreation Committee by Friday, March 9, 2012. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I ask that you or Mr. Bruder notify me on or before March 9, 2012 of whether or not Mr. Staats will comply with the law. Sincerely, /s/ John Paff (Footnote) My information, which I have not verified, is that Randee Staats? sister, Karen, is Mayor Seader?s wife. I would appreciate it if Mayor Seader would confirm or dispute this information. cc. John E. Bruder, Esq., Borough Attorney
 

Dunellen's Appointment of Towing Companies

Like most towns, Dunellen appoints certain private towing companies to tow cars at the direction of the local police department. It appears that Dunellen, for the past three years, has not been following its own ordinance regarding the appointment of these companies. My letter to Mayor Seader and the Borough Council regarding this issue is on-line here: John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project paff@pobox.com 732-873-1251
 

Cain v. Hamilton

 

Paff v. Bridgeton Board of Ed

 

Berkeley Heights - Tedesco settlement

 

Dunellen e-mail policy

 

Andover E-mail policy

 

State v. OBrien

Issue: How is a minor motor vehicle summons an offense that can bring a "consequence of magnitude" and thus entitle to defendant to a public defender in accordance with R.7:3-2.
 

Councilman Washington's Trial Transcript

I have uploaded the transcript of Councilman Washington's August 9, 2011 trial in the Woolwich Township Municipal Court here: Also uploaded to the above link are a) Washington's defense brief, authored by Shannon M. Cornelius of the Law Office of Timothy D. Scaffidi of Woodbury and b) the State's brief authored by Gloucester County Assistant Prosecutor Margaret A. Cipparrone. According to my January 31, 2012 conversation with Gloucester County Criminal Case Manager Rosemarie Gallagher, the Scaffidi firm was appointed to represent Washington after he applied for free counsel as an indigent. Washington represented himself in municipal court. To summarize, a lieutenant and a detective from the Salem County Prosecutor's Office testified that they were standing on State Street, Penns Grove, outside the Penns Grove Police Department on May 18, 2011. They said that about 10:05 a.m., they observed Washington pull into the parking lot from State Street, exit his car and walk across the street. The next day, after receiving permission from his supervisor, the lieutenant issued Washington a summons for driving with a suspended license. Washington then testified on his own behalf. He said that he knew that his license was suspended on May 18, 2011. Accordingly, he said that his wife drove him to Borough Hall that day because he "already knew what the plot and the set up and the plan was." (T22:25) He testified that because his car windows are tinted, it may have been difficult for someone to tell how many people were in the car. Next, Washington's wife, Michelle Renee Washington, testified. She testified that she, and not Councilman Washington, was the driver on May 18, 2011. Thereafter, the prosecution recalled the lieutenant who testified that Mr. Washington's car's windows were not so heavily tinted to prevent him from seeing into the car. He testified that only one person--Mr. Washington--was in the car and that he saw him driving the car and get out of the driver side door. During closing arguments, Councilman Washington said that some of the decisions that he made while serving on Penns Grove's Police Committee caused him to be warned that "they were out to get [him] for political reasons." (T32:11-12) Judge William J. Golden found that the lieutenant's and investigator's testimony was clear and consistent and sustained the prosecution's burden in the case. He reviewed Mr. Washington's driver abstract and found ten prior convictions for driving with a suspended license, the most recent one being ten or eleven years prior. He sentenced Washington to pay a $1,006 fine, $33 in costs, serve ten days in jail and an additional 30 day term of license suspension. Judge Golden also indicated that he would approve Mr. Washington, if he was eligible, to serve his ten days in a program that is an alternative jail, such as the Sheriff's Labor Assistance Program (SLAP).
 

Hudson ELEC filings

 

New OPRA and OPMA bills

 

Gibbsboro/Voorhees OPRA suit concluded

 

Paff and Delgado v. Camden City Board of Ed

 

Renna v. Union County Alliance

 

Jones v. Paulsboro GLO-L-001360-11

 

Censure of former Excellence Charter School trustees

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

Florence School Board

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

Dunellen judge sued for malpractice in escalator injury case

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

Letter to Englewood Cliffs

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

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

 

Piscataway school board's "sunshine" compliance

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

open letter to Dunellen Mayor and Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunellen Parking Authority article identifies areas of confusion

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

 

2011

Passaic County Forfeiture Fund account holds nearly $2 million

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

Air Force Captain sues Pemberton Twp Police

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

Washington Council (kind of) improves transparency

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

Court orders release of neighbor's phone call to cops

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

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

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

Monroe Township loses $4 records case

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

State fines four Roselle Park officials for failure to disclose finances

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

Robbinsville pays $9,000 to settle employment lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bridgewater Police Sergeant settles suit with Township

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closed Minutes reveal Galloway's reasons for removing Manager Tees

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

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

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

Livingston Township is in violation of state records retention laws.

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

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

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

Millstone Valley's insurance cancellation

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

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

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

OPRA/OPMA hearing in Camden this Wednesday

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

Woodbury Heights 2010 municipal salaries on-line

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

Gloucester City counterclaims against OPRA requestors

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

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

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

Hearing today in North Plainfield lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

Murdered teen's family sue Lawnside Borough

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

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

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

Union County's web site creation--Part II

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

Union County's web site creation--Part II

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

Help wanted: NJLP Police Accountability Project

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

Citing statute as reason for redaction ruled insufficient

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

Comprehensive e-mail policy adopted

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

Is Maplewood convicting people of violating repealed, invalid ordinances

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

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

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

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

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

OPRA/OPMA Suit filed against Runnemede school board

 

Perfunctory, uninformative dismissal of Internal Affairs complaint

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

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

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

No incident reports filed in police accidental shooting

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

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

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

Two Police Employees have suits pending against Berkeley Township

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

Elizabeth pays $500,000 to settle employee discrimination suit

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

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

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

 

New Host Script Test

 

 

Re-test Issue Creation

 

3rd Issue Entry Test

This should now be correct
 

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

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

Source of crime information in your town

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

Ventor complaint against marijuana smoker

 

FDS Complaint against Jersey City

 

No appointment needed to make OPRA request

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

Serving as an appointed municipal official

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

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

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

RE: Merchantville Dismisses Police Internal Affairs Complaint

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

Bloomfield FDS Complaints

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

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

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

Egg Harbor Township police revises their Internet reporting form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plea Bargains in Municipal. Court

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

Bloomfield Settles OPRA case

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

Ethics Charges against West Wildwood attorney

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

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

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

Model Res

 

Galloway Township Supplemental OPRA request

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

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

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

OPRA decision in Hudson County

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

NJLP seeks repeal of Paulsboro Loitering Ordinance

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

Somerset Freeholders revise closed session process

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

Attorney General acknowledges receipt of NJLP rulemaking petition

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

Whoops! Atlantic County Links not available!

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

Union County MusicFest

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

Greenwich Township Tort Claim Notice

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

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

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

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

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

Fire District 1 Sexual harassment case settled

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

Do two OPRA requests constitute harassment?

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

Do two OPRA requests constitute harassment?

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

Runnemede school board apologizes for gaffe

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

Files in Paff v. Gibbsboro

 

OPMA case filed in Gloucester County

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

State v. Bish

 

Should convicted cop be allowed to retire?

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

Dunellen Parking Authority -- lack of 2008 records

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

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

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

Tuesday: Ethics hearing against lawyer charged with altering document

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

Summit Council said to have violated OPMA

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

Records Request to Wrightstown

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

Wrightstown - supplement

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

Garwood

 

Garwood

 

Probable cause found for assault cases against Paulsboro police

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

Councilman Carl J. Washington, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

Paff v. Egg Harbor Twp

 

OPMA Lawsuit against Camden City school board

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

Commercial Township Legal Bills Online

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

Karim Arzadi

 

NJLP Complaint Against Wrightstown Mayor

 

Egg Harbor exonerates cop who conducted warrantless search

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

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

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

Second LFB complaint against Wrightstown Mayor and Wife

 

OPRA suit filed against State Firemen\'s Association

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

Does (former) Commercial Mayor Garrison have a temper?

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

Lawrence Township Legal Bills Online

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

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

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

JE

 

Livingston Police Overtime

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

Dunellen Parking Authority -- lack of 2008 records - update

 

Perth Amboy Redevelopment Agency Minutes

 

Trial set for Laurel Lake fire department sex harassment case

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

Question for school ethics Commission

 

Old Bridge Zoning Officer Sued for Slander

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

Woman claims Perth Amboy cops arrested her for taping them

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

O\'Boyle v. Galloway

 

Mountain Lakes OPRA request

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

Runnemede

 

 

2010

Voorhees Township settles with police lieutenant for $930,000

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

Voorhees Township settles with police dispatcher for $40,000

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

Atlantic City settles with Absecon woman for $30,000

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

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

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

Deceased arrestee's estate receives $100,000 settlement

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

Deceased inmate's estate receives $76,000 settlement

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

Supreme Court holds that settlement agreement must be disclosed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appellate Division resolves OPRA's copy cost issue

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

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

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

Questions regarding $600,000 West Deptford police abuse settlement

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

$15,837.50 OPRA attorney fee against West Deptford upheld

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

Trooper disciplinary hearings closed to public

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

Perth Amboy introduced Professional Accountability Ordinance

 

School board ordered to pay record requestor's attorney fees

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

Use of an agency's official OPRA request form

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

Appellate Division rules against OPRA requestor

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

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

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

New OPRA/OPMA lawsuit filed

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

Mantua pays $10,000 to settle police harassment claim

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth pays $10,000 to settle police brutality claim

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

Elizabeth pays $5,000 to settle police brutality claim

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

Elizabeth pays $25,000 to settle police brutality claim

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

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

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

Paterson pays $30,000 to settle false arrest claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public officials' use of personal e-mail addresses

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

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

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

NJLP requests that Penns Grove adopt settlement disclosure ordinance

 

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

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

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

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

Letter to Mantua Township Committee

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

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

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

Hoboken pays $7,500 to settle police abuse suit

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

Hoboken pays $7,500 to settle police abuse suit

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

Hoboken pays $125,000 to settle false arrest claim

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

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

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

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

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

Enterline v. Hillsborough

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

Berkeley Council requested to adopt lawsuit disclosure ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paramus pays $75,000 to settle sexual harassment suit

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

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

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

Clifton assigns official e-mail addresses to Mayor and Council

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

Additional records from Lady Liberty Academy Charter School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important OPRA decision

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

Process for appealing denial of access to court records

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

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

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

George Field's lawsuit against Robbinsville

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

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

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

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

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

Loss in Supreme Court

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

OPRA and Disclosure of Executive Meeting Minutes

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

$530K judgment in favor of Elizabeth superintendent upheld

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

Mercer County OPRA hearing on June 22, 2010

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

Ridgewood Teacher Settles Tenure Charges

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

Salem County Political Party Bylaws posted on-line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eatontown pays $200,000 to settle police negligence suit

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

Bordentown City Mayor falsely accuses Internet site

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

Veteran Berlin Borough Police Officer suspended

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

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

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

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

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

Long Beach pays $125,000 to settle retaliation lawsuit

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

Stratford Mayor Gentless files defamation suit against former Council members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomfield sued for refusal to disclose e-mail

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

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

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

Stratford Court Clerk fired for failing to promptly deposit funds

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

Internal Affairs Complaint against the Garwood Police Chief

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

Glen Ridge Borough agrees to use more descriptive closed session resolution

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

Glen Ridge Borough agrees to use more descriptive closed session resolution

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

Two lawsuits against Plainfield Board of Education

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

Confidential Informants

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

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

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

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

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

Citizens file petition to roll back Borough's salary increase

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

Police secrecy makes citizen oversight difficult

To the editor: On April 26, 2010, a Piscataway man sued Monroe Township (Middlesex County), its police department and officers Piro and Burns (presumably Peter S. Piro and Brian P. Burns) for racially discriminating against him at a local supermarket on January 29, 2010. The man, Raymond Martin, alleged that he went to the local Stop & Shop to purchase a money order to send back to relatives in his home country of Jamaica. After buying the money order, Martin, who is African American, claims he was eating pizza at the supermarket's cafe when Officers Piro and Burns approached him. According to Martin's lawsuit, the following verbal exchange took place. Police: "What are you doing here?" Martin: "I'm eating." Police: "Raymond is not a black or Jamaican name. We're taking your downtown, we're going to fingerprint you and lock you up." Martin "Why?" Police: "Shut the f--- up." Instead of taking him to the police station, Piro and Burns allegedly took Martin to his residence that he shared with a home health aide named Sylvania Allan. The two officers allegedly pushed Martin through the front doorway and entered the residence despite Allan telling them that weren't allowed to come in. After allegedly asking "persistent questions" to both Martin and Allan, the officers were satisfied and left. After reading the suit, I thought "OK, that's Mr. Martin's side of the story." Knowing that lawsuit plaintiffs and their lawyers don't always tell the unvarnished truth about encounters with police, I submitted a records request on May 7, 2010 to Monroe Township to get the police officers' side of the story. As expected, my requests were met with considerable resistance. After several exchanges with police officials and Township lawyer Kevin G. Boris, I ended up getting two relevant documents. The first is a police dispatch report showing that police were dispatched to the Stop & Shop on Perrineville Road on January 29, 2010 at 1:46 p.m. The other is an "Incident Report" prepared six days after the incident showing that Piro and Burns were dispatched to investigate a report of a "suspicious person." The narrative of the report, which spans two pages, was almost totally redacted, i.e. blacked out. Martin's lawsuit, the dispatch report and the Incident Report are all on-line here: Why all the secrecy? Police officers play a unique role in society. They have the power to arrest and to use deadly weapons. With such authority comes a critical need for public oversight. In this case, Raymond Martin has publicly accused Officers Piro and Burns of engaging in "conduct [that] was obviously racist and egregious." Yet, when I attempted to learn the police department's side of the story, I was met with resistance and ultimately given two documents that are redacted so heavily that they're meaningless. The Monroe Police should release enough details regarding their encounter with Raymond Martin to allow citizens to judge whether Officers Piro and Burns acted reasonably under the circumstances. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

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

On July 10, 2009, the State of New Jersey, Department of Corrections agreed to pay $75,000 to the family of a man who allegedly hanged himself in his prison cell while incarcerated at Northern State Prison. In their suit, the family of Tyree Wilson alleged that prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to Wilson's medical needs, and that prison guards Todd Barnett and Craig Sears "failed to conduct the required rounds in the Unit in which [Wilson] was placed for close observation. The suit also accuses medical professionals employed by CFG Health Systems, LLC., a private vendor of health services, of failing to properly diagnose and treat Wilson. Wilson's family alleged that these failures, along with "injuries deliberately, wantonly and maliciously inflicted upon" Wilson led to his alleged suicide on January 16, 2005 The case is captioned Estate of Tyree Wilson v. Northern State Prison, et al., Federal Case No. 07-cv-1942 (WJM) and the Wilson family's attorney was Michael D'Aquanni of Springfield. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. There may have been a separate settlement with CFG Health Systems, LLC, but since that company is private, it does not respond to Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests. None of the family's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Department of Corrections or any of its employees. All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the family $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

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

On January 15, 2010, the State of New Jersey, Department of Corrections agreed to pay $90,000 to the mother of a man who died at Eastern State Prison on April 23, 2007. In her suit, Hazel Richardson, mother Rickie Allen Goldware, alleged that her son, classified as a psychiatric patient, was beaten by guards and forcibly medicated while strapped to a chair. The case is captioned Richardson v. State of New Jersey, Federal Case No. 09-cv-01383 and the mother's attorney was Vijayant Pawar of Morristown. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2010198A1//StateWilson.pdf None of Richardson's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $90,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Department of Corrections or any of its employees. All that is known for sure is that the State or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Richardson $90,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Paff v. South Bound Brook

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

OPRA hearing on August 6th in Jersey City

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

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

On February 22, 2010, the City of Millville (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $100,000 to a female Millville police officer who sued her follow officers for allegedly subjecting her to "repeated humiliating and degrading sexual harassment." In her suit, Jennifer Gentile claimed that her fellow officers and members of upper management would "make sexual comments about her breasts and what they desired to do to her sexually." She alleged that one of her superior officers would state that he always wanted to "get in her pants." She alleges that a male dispatcher told her that he would "bend her over and f--- the s--- out of her." She claims that she would "basically hide in her office" and take the elevator to the basement to enter and leave the building to avoid contact with the harassing co-workers. She complained that upper management was not responsive to her complaints and took no action against her harassers. The case is captioned Gentile v. Millville, Docket No. CUM-L-701-09 and Gentile's attorney was James M. Carter of Turnersville. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Gentile's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $100,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Millville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Millville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Gentile $100,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Sexual Harassment in Brigantine: Open letter to Mayor and Council

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

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

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

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

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

Complaint dismissed against 30 Gloucester Twp officials

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

Ethics Complaint dismissed against 12 South Amboy officials

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

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

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

Several OPMA issues with the Bridgeton Board of Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 22, 2010, the Franklin Township Board of Education (Somerset County) agreed to pay $80,000 to a couple who sued the Board and Franklin Park Elementary School Vice Principal Anthony Caparoso for allegedly racially discriminating against their African-American son. The couple, Desmond and Celeste Clark, claimed that Caparoso repeatedly suspended their four year old son from preschool even though the Board's own policy prohibited suspending preschool students. (The school district, however, alleges that it was not improper to suspend preschool students until 2006 when the New Jersey Department of Education specifically prohibited such suspensions.) The parents further claim that Caparoso's suspensions were a result of his racial animus toward their son. In support of this claim, the Clarks referred to a statement that Caparoso allegedly made on June 16, 2004 that "I don't like that little black kid, he reminds me of one of those little black kids in the ghetto." The case is captioned Clark v. Board of Education of the Township of Franklin, Federal Case No. 3:06-cv-02736 and the Clarks' attorney was Brian F. Curley of Morristown. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of the Clarks' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $80,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by the Franklin Board or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that the Franklin Board or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Clarks $80,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Online:Pittsgrove Township Board of Ed's legal services invoices

I submitted an OPRA request for invoices for legal services provided to the Pittsgrove Township (Salem County) Board of Education for a (roughly) three month period. I have placed those invoices, which span nearly fifty pages, on the Internet here. Legal services invoices contain useful information for citizen activists who wish to monitor a public body and hold it accountable. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Pittsgrove school board quizzed on its executive session minutes

On September 9, 2010, I wrote to the Pittsgrove Township Board of Education asking if would take more robust and comprehensible minutes of its nonpublic (closed or executive) meeting. My complaint is that the Board, which sometime meets in private for hours, often boils the substance of those meetings down to two or three vague sentences in the meeting minutes. This deprives the public, as well as present and future Board members, from understanding what was said and done during these private meetings. My letter to the Board is on-line here and resolutions and minutes from three recent Board executive meetings are on-line here. Readers interested in this issue are urged to attend the Board September 16, 2010 meeting and ask the Board to publicly comment on my September 9, 2010 letter. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Sampling of Vineland School Board's legal bills on-line

A worthwhile exercise for citizen activists is to request their municipality's, school board's or other agency's legal services bills. These records permit citizens to know a) how much money the agency is spending on lawyers and b) a general idea of what the money is being spent on. As an illustration, I submitted an OPRA request for invoices for legal services provided to the Vineland (Cumberland County) Board of Education for a three month period. I have placed those invoices, which span nearly eighty pages, on the Internet at Here are just a few things that a citizen can learn from the invoices: 1. That the Vineland Board of Education paid three law firms approximately $21,200 during a three month period in 2010. 2. Frank DiDomenico's April 15, 2010 (pages 4 and 5 of the PDF at the link above) gives some insight into the Board's March 2010 contract negotiations with the Vineland Administrators and Supervisors Association (VASA). 3. Frank DiDomenico's April 15, 2010 (page 12 of the PDF) refers to "Tracy Soto School Aide and criminal charges in Vineland Municipal Court." 4. Frank DiDomenico's April 15, 2010 invoice (page 13 of the PDF) refers to the Board's "intent to privatize Food Service Operations." 5. Frank DiDomenico's May 18, 2010 invoice (page 26 of the PDF) refers to an "issue of restitution" discussed with the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office and Frank DiDomenico's June 9, 2010 invoice (page 35 of the PDF) on the same matter refers to an unnamed official or employee being reinstated "due to no indictment by County Prosecutor." After reading these invoices, a citizen activist, in order to learn more, can submit a records request for the records that the invoices disclose. For example, my records request for records revealed by these invoices are on-line at In sum, legal services invoices contain useful information for citizen activists who wish to monitor a public body and hold it accountable. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

My town won't obey the law. What do I do?

Sometimes I get questions that I think might be of general interest. Here's one such question and my answer to it. QUESTION: My municipal government does not obey the law and does not care that it does not obey the law. For example, state law, specifically N.J.S.A. 40A:9-139, requires each municipality to pass an ordinance providing for the appointment of a municipal attorney. Despite this law, my town doesn't have such an ordinance and refuses to enact one. My complaints to the Attorney General, County Prosecutor and various state agencies haven't helped and I don't have money to hire an attorney. What can I do? ANSWER: You could consider filing a lawsuit pro se, i.e. without a lawyer. That's what Frank Bright, an activist in New Brunswick, did in 2003 when the Mayor refused to appoint citizens to certain boards and committees even though he was directed to do so by a municipal ordinance. Bright won his lawsuit and his victory was reported in the media (See, e.g. "City told to put people on nonexistent panels," by Sharon Waters, Home News and Tribune, February 27, 2004). If the law compels a public official or agency to perform a ministerial act (i.e. an act that the official or agency doesn't have the discretion not to perform), the court can order the agency or official to perform the act. And, the way one goes about applying to the court for such an order is to file a suit "In Lieu of Prerogative Writ of Mandamus." In Bright's case, the Court ruled that although the Mayor had discretion to choose who would serve on the various boards and committees, he was required by law to appoint somebody. In your case, it appears that you could similarly sue your governing body and the court should require them to enact the required ordinance. Several years ago, I obtained a copy of Bright's lawsuit paperwork from the courts, and have now posted those records on-line at in order to show exactly how Bright worded his suit, how New Brunswick responded, how Bright replied to the City's response and how the Court ruled. Readers will note that the the judge originally decided to not make New Brunswick reimburse Bright for his court costs but later changed his mind. So, in the end, Bright succeeded in making the City of New Brunswick follow the law and got all his court costs paid by the City. I feel compelled to include some sort of disclaimer admonishing readers that filing a lawsuit is serious business and that they should contact an attorney, etc. While that is true, I also believe that there are times when citizens who can't afford a lawyer to correct official neglect or wrongdoing need to stand up for their rights. So, do your research and file a pro se suit only if you believe it's lawful and justified. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Neptune Twp Housing Authority fails to comply with "sunshine" laws

On September 24, 2010, I wrote to the Neptune Township Housing Authority complaining that the Authority's Board of Commissioners is not in compliance with the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). Among the issues complained of: a) the Authority charging an excessive amount for copies of public records, b) the Authority's failure to respond to a request for executive session minutes and c) the Authority's failure to adequately inform the public of the topics that will discussed during non-public (i.e., "executive" or "closed") session. My letter and attachments are on-line here. Some of the exhibits to my letter are legal services invoices submitted to the Authority by Bart J. Cook, Esq. of Asbury Park. Unlike many attorneys who charge their governmental clients for only the services performed, Mr. Cook bills the authority an $1,125 monthly "retainer" in addition to $150 per hour for legal work performed. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Seaside Heights pays $75,000 to settle police brutality suit

On August 18, 2010, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $75,000 to a pair of Rahway residents who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for allegedly using excessive force against the man and falsely arresting both the man and the woman. In their suit, Anton Maricic and Audrone Jurgeleviciene said that on September 2, 2007 they were walking on the boardwalk back to their car after taking Jurgeleviciene's daughter and four year old grandson to an amusement park. Maricic alleged that he was carrying the grandson's toy sword and was "gesturing with it in a joking fashion to various parts of the boardwalk." After a passerby allegedly "uttered a vulgarity" to Maricic and Maricic "returned the vulgarity" the group went back to where their car was parked. At this point, Maricic alleges, he was "pushed by" Patrolman Joseph Minialga and Sergeant Jon Lombardi and was told to "keep moving." Maricic, who claims to have a "dislocated shoulder and rotator cuff injury" which prevents him from putting his arms behind his back, stated that it was a free country and that he had done nothing wrong. He alleges that the officers then put him in a chokehold and "yank[ed] his arms behind his back and handcuff[ed] him, causing him to experience excruciating pain." When Jurgeleviciene tried to assist, she was allegedly arrested as well. Also named in the suit was Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd. The case is captioned Maricic et al v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-03088 and the pair's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of the pair's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the pair $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

South Bound Brook Council Executive Session Minutes

I submitted an OPRA request this morning for the minutes of the two Council executive sessions held in 2010--one on January 12th and the other on April 13th. Mr. Kazar responded the same day with the January 12th minutes, which are on line here. He wrote that the minutes for the April executive session "slipped through the cracks" but now that he realizes that they're overdue, he'll have them ready by the October council meeting. He also said that going forward, he will make executive session minutes promptly available. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Bergen court rules on OPRA and DARM's record retention schedules

On September 14, 2010, Bergen County Assignment Judge Peter E. Doyne issued a written opinion in North Jersey Media Group v. Bergen County Economic Development Corporation, Docket No. BER-L-6593-10. That opinion is available for download here. The opinion, while "unpublished" (i.e. it creates no binding precedent), is very instructive, especially on the question of whether a public agency is legally required to establish a system to properly preserve e-mail records. Judge Doyne ruled that the Destruction of Public Records Law doesn't create a private cause of action (i.e. a citizen cannot seek a civil penalty against a government agency or official who loses or destroys a record). But, he also ruled that since the defendant agency "has no guidelines for the retention of records" it shall "implement a policy to maintain and preserve records required by statutes and regulations." Based on Judge Doyne's ruling, I believe that it is at least arguable that public agencies are under a ministerial duty to design a system that collects and archives official e-mails. Thus, if a citizen knows that municipal council members are sending and receiving official e-mails from their Yahoo, AOL, or GMail accounts and that there is no municipal policy requiring those e-mails to be preserved on the municipal server, I believe that citizen may be able to successfully bring an action in lieu of prerogative writs to compel the municipality to implement to establish such a policy. (For information on compelling a government agency or official to complete a ministerial task, see my blog entry "My town won't obey the law. What do I do?" at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2010/09/my-town-wont-obey-law-what-do-i-do.html )
 

OPRA case in Morristown tomorrow, Friday, October 1st

On October 1, 2010 at 9 a.m., Morris County Assignment Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis will hear argument in Paff v. Borough of Chatham, Docket No. MRS-L-1860-10. I am represented by Richard Gutman, Esq. of Montclair and the case documents are on-line here. At issue is Chatham's denial of my request for records that would reveal the length of a former Borough police sergeant's suspension. As background, the news papers reported that the sergeant, Roy George, allegedly left a backpack containing a loaded handgun on a Westfield sidewalk after a night of drinking. Even though Chatham disclosed the fact that George had been demoted and suspended and the reasons for the demotion and suspension, the Borough refused to grant access to records disclosing the length of George's suspension. The public and media are invited to attend the hearing which will be held at the courthouse on Washington and Court Streets, Morristown. (I'm sorry for the late notice but it appeared until late today that the matter would be adjourned.)
 

Hightstown employs an open and transparent process

I would like to commend the Borough of Hightstown on the transparent manner in which it recently filled a vacant seat on its municipal council. One member of the Borough Council, a Republican, resigned. According to the Municipal Vacancy Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:16-1, et seq., the local Republican Committee submitted the names of three nominees to the Borough Council. The Council was then obliged to select one of those nominees to serve the remainder of the vacated term. I have witnessed vacancies being filled by other public bodies, and the process is usually shrouded in secrecy. Typically, the nominees are interviewed during an executive session and the public is only allowed to witness a formal vote installing the successful nominee. (The leading case on the process of filling vacancies is enunciated in Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. vs. Board of Education of Manville, 201 N.J. Super. 65 (Law Div. 1984), which is on-line here. Hightstown, however, did it right. First, after the Republican Committee submitted the names of the three nominees, their resumes were posted on the Borough’s website prior to the September 28, 2010 meeting at which the selection was made. Then, the entire selection process, including detailed interviews of the three candidates and the Council's deliberations, was held in public allowing citizens to witness the formulation and decision making process from start to finish. The agenda of the September 28, 2010 meeting, the resolution to fill the vacancy and the three nominees' resumes are on-line here. I commend Hightstown's mayor and council for the manner in which they handled this process. Readers should insist that their municipalities and school boards follow Hightstown's example the next time a vacancy needs to be filled. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Question regarding enforcement of loitering laws in Camden

The following question was posed to the LP's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project: What about the "Loitering in a Drug Zone" law in Camden? That has a maximum of 6 months in the county. If you plead guilty they fine you $500. If you fight it, and lose, you get the max. I hired an attorney, and he requested the officer's presence in court, and the officer didn't show up, twice. They had to dismiss it. But the lawyer cost me $500 and I lost two days of work. Camden doesn't have a local loitering law. Rather, the Camden Police are enforcing the two state laws that prohibit loitering in certain circumstances. As regular readers know, general loitering ordinances have been illegal in New Jersey since 1979. That's because the Legislature, when it established the uniform criminal code that year, decided that loitering prohibitions too often result in discriminatory enforcement. But, in 1991, the Legislature made an exception to this general rule by enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2.1, which prohibits loitering for the purpose of illegally using, possessing or selling controlled substances. The full text of that statute is on-line here. Then, in 1997, the Legislature made a second, similar exception by enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1.1, which prohibits loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. The full text of that statute is on-line here. Violating either of these prohibitions is a "disorderly persons" offense that carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3 and 2C:43-8.) And, exposure to six months in jail, according to New Jersey courts, is not serious enough to entitle the defendant to a trial by jury. State v. Stern, 197 N.J.Super. 49 (App. Div. 1984). So, a defendant's fate is left to a locally appointed judge. I ask readers to click on the above links to take a good look at these laws. Readers will find that it is difficult, especially after considering paragraph (d) in either of the laws, to discern with any degree of precision exactly what the state must prove in order to sustain a conviction. It strikes me that Libertarians ought to visit Camden as a group on a regular basis and "wander, remain or prowl" on the streets while "repeatedly beckoning to or stopping pedestrians or motorists" in order to give them a copy of the United States Constitution. I wonder if we'd be arrested? John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Lotering for purpose of buying or selling drugs

There seems to be general interest in the two state loitering statutes. I have located one published court case that construes the offense of loitering for the purpose of buying or selling drugs. For those who are interested, the court's four-page opinion is on-line here.
 

Edgewater Park repeals "Disorderly Conduct" Code

At the Libertarian Party's request, the Township of Edgewater Park (Burlington County) repealed its "Disorderly Conduct" code. While not strictly a loitering code, the Disorderly Conduct code sought to prohibit conduct such as "us[ing] offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction." The original ordinance, repeal ordinance and the LP's letter to the Mayor and Council are on-line here.
 

Lenape Valley Regional school board pays $275,000 to racial slur lawsuit

On March 31, 2010, the Lenape Valley Regional Board of Education (Sussex County) agreed to pay $275,000 to a Byram Township high school student who sued the Board and Principal Douglas deMarrais for failing to take prompt, corrective action after the student's parents reported that their son had been harrassed and called racial slurs. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was one of only 13 African-American students out of a total of 1,970 students enrolled at the high school. The student is identified in court papers only by his initials, "E.L." His parents, however, are identified as Edward Lee, Sr. and Leanne Lee. The case is captioned Lee v. Lenape Valley Regional, Federal Case No. 2:06-cv-04634 and Lee's attorneys were Bennet Zurofsky of Newark and Joshua Friedman of Larchmont, New York. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publishing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Lee's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $275,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Lenape Valley Regional or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Lenape Valley Regional or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lee $275,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Camden pays $4,500 to settle police harassment/intimidation suit

On December 8, 2009, the City of Camden (Camden County) agreed to pay $4,500 to a local man who sued members of the Camden Police Department for allegedly harassing him. In his suit, Halbert Coursey said that after all charges arising out of his February 5, 2004 arrest were dropped on December 20, 2004, he filed filed suit against the Camden Police officers who sued him. He claims that Camden Police retaliated against him through a pattern of abuse and harassment. On December 1, 2005, he alleges, Officer Steven Gracia (also referred to as Stephen Gracia) arrested him because he thought that he was on a "list of people who were prohibited from being in" a certain neighborhood. After not being able to verify that Coursey was on that list, Gracia allegedly released him but issued him a summons for "loitering with the intent to purchase a CDS." Coursey claims that the summons was issued solely to harass him and that he was forced to hire an attorney and appear in court. He claims that Gracia never appeared in court to prosecute the charge and that it was eventually dismissed. On November 16, 2006, Coursey alleges, he was in a group of men that was approached by two police officers who he believes were D. Vautierinze and. C. Concepcion (presumably Carlos Concepcion). The officers allegedly told everyone in the group except for Coursey to leave. After Coursey was alone with the two officers, he saw that Gracia "lurking in the background" and asked him to come over to identify him for the two officers. Gracia allegedly refused to do so and the other officers intimidated Coursey with a flashlight and pepper spray. On January 11, 2007, Coursey claims that he was washing his car when "a number of officers" told him to put his hands on his car and searched him without his consent. When the officers found a letter from Coursey's lawyer in his pocket, one of them allegedly asked "What are you doing with an attorney? If you are suing, why do you live in this piece of s---?" The officers allegedly locked him the backseat of a police car and later released him. Also named in the suit were Camden Police Chief Edwin Figuero and Arturo Venegas. The case is captioned Coursey v. Camden, Federal Case No. 1:08-cv-2169 and Coursey's attorney was George L. Farmer of Ventnor. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Coursey's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $4,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Camden or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Camden or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Coursey $4,500 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.
 

Traffic summonses for Councilman and Borough Attorney

In Post No. 6662, I promised to obtain copies of any traffic tickets that Carteret Police Officer Thomas Kaminsky was reported to have issued to a Borough Councilman and the Borough Attorney over the summer. The Carteret PBA had publicly claimed that Kaminsky's issuance of these tickets motivated Borough officials to bring disciplinary charges against him. My OPRA request revealed that Kaminsky did issue traffic tickets to Councilman Joseph Sitarz and Borough Attorney Robert J. Bergen, Esq. Sitarz's ticket--for not wearing a seatbelt--was issued on July 11, 2010 and Bergen's ticket--for using his cell phone while driving--was issued on June 23, 2010. Copies of both tickets--redacted to remove driver license and license plate numbers--are available on-line here. Anyone who wishes to verify that the tickets were properly disposed of by the court should contact the Carteret Municipal Court at 732-541-3900. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

Trenton pays $12,500 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On December 1, 2009, the City of Trenton (Mercer County) agreed to pay $12,500 to a man who sued members of the Trenton Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause. In his suit, Jeffrey Bastien said that on April 23, 2006 he was in the lobby of 620 West State Street when he was "violently arrested" by Trenton Police Sergeant Benito R. Bello and other officers. He claims to have suffered "severe brusing and lacerations to his torso, face and left eye." The case is captioned Bastien v. Trenton, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-2022 and Bastien's attorney was David E. Sachs of Metuchen. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Bastien's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $12,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Trenton or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Trenton or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Bastien $12,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Drug Offender Restraining Order Act of 1999

 

Vineland Board of Education pays $60,000 to settle "whistle blower" suit

On December 9, 2009, the Vineland Board of Education (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $60,000 to and clear the disciplinary record of the assistant principal at the Landis Intermediate School. In his suit, Richard Panas said that beginning in the 2007-08 school year, he noticed an increase in school violence at the Landis school which coincided with the replacement of the school's disciplinary code with a less strict version. Panas said that he shared his concerns with Superintendent Charles Ottinger and Principal Donald Kohaut but neither "made any serious effort to address the situation." After the violence at the Landis school continued to escalate, Panas contends that he contacted the Board of Education members directly and told about "his unsuccessful effort to bring [the issue] to the administration's attention." This, Panas claims, caused Ottinger to discipline him for violating the Board's policies regarding "chain of command" and "media relations." As a result of the discipline, Panas claims he was put on "indefinite probation" and was being "monitored." He claims that his attempts to appeal the discipline were unsuccessful and that Kohaut and Ottinger took additional adverse action against him, including assigning him to hallway monitoring duty, giving him an adverse performance rating and forbidding him from speaking to teachers about violence at the school. In addition to paying Panas $60,000 in damages, the school board also agreed to expunge the discipline and evaluation from Panas' personnel file and to not retaliate against him in the future. The case is captioned Panas v. Vineland Board of Education, Federal Case No. 1:09-cv-03003 and Panas's attorney was Frank L. Corrado of Wildwood. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Panas's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $60,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Vineland Board of Education or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Vineland Board of Education or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Panas $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. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Freehold pays $150,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

On December 11, 2009, the Township of Freehold (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $150,000 to a local man who sued members of the Freehold Police Department for arresting and detaining him without cause and for injuring his wrist by applying handcuffs too tightly. In his suit, Frank J. Constantino said that on April 21, 2007, he was driving home with his son. He claims that while he was stopped at an intersection and signalling a right turn, he noticed a bicycle approaching about 30 to 40 yards behind him on his right hand side. After making sure that his turn would not cut off the bicyclist, he claims that he safely executed his turn when the bicyclist screamed "A--hole, stop at the stop sign." Constantino claimed that he said "I did. Have a nice day" to the the bicyclist and drove home. A few minutes after he got to his home, Constantino claims that the angered bicyclist arrived and approached him and said "I am a Freehold Township Police Officer and you're under arrest." As his neighbors began to congregate around him, Constantino alleges that he asked the man for his badge or some other proof that he was indeed an officer. Then some squad cars arrived and the bicylist, who was later identified as Officer George A. Burdge, III, allegedly "grabbed Constantino's arm, twisted his arm very aggressively behind his back and threw [him] down on his knees on his front lawn in front of his wife, children and neighbors." Burdge then allegedly applied handcuffs so tightly to cause Constantino to "yell out in pain." When Constantino asked Burdge to loosen the cuffs, he was allegedly told to "shut up." When he was taken to the police station, Constantino claims that he was chained to a bench for three hours while Burdge denied him a request for a drink of water while the officer was drinking water in front of him and mocking him. He was given six summonses and released. He claims that all of the charges were later dismissed or resulted in not guilty verdicts. He claims that he lost his job as a specialist at the New York Stock Exchange. Also named in the suit was Freehold Police Officer Ernest Schriefer. The case is captioned Constantino v. Freehold, Federal Case No. 3:08-cv-5159 and Constantino's attorney was Gary L. Mason of Manalapan. Case documents are on-line here. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant. None of Constantino's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $150,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Freehold or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Freehold or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Constantino $150,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened. ABOUT ME AND WHY I'M POSTING THIS. I chair the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project which seeks to increase governmental transparency and accountability, particularly at a local level. For more information on the Libertarian Party, go to http://www.njlp.org. As part of my work, I routinely check civil court cases where at least one of the parties is a government agency or official. Most often, these settlement agreements are never revealed to the public. I post them on the Libertarian Party's blog at http://njcivilsettlements.blogspot.com and other public forums because I believe that civil settlements, regardless of amount, may be of interest to citizens and taxpayers. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Paterson pays $10,000 to settle police excessive force suit

On February 2, 2010, the City of Paterson (Passaic County) agreed to pay $10,000 to a Totowa man who sued members of the Paterson Police Department for allegedly injuring him during an arrest. In his suit, Carlos Colon said that on May 16, 2006 he was arrested by Police Officers D. Giles (presumably Dewayn Giles), W. Lazu (presumably Wilson Lazu), J. Bernasconi (presumably Jason D. Bernasconi), McDowell (presumably Carl L. McDowell) and Sergeant J. Wolfe (presumably Jeffrey Wolfe). He claims that the officers, while arresting him, lacerated his forehead and the rear of his head which required stitches. He also claims that the arrest exacerbated his pre-existing epilepsy. The case is captioned Colon v. Giles, et al, Federal Case No. 2:08-cv-03621 and Colon's attorney was Richard G. Potter of Hackensack. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Colon's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Paterson or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Paterson or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Colon $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.
 

Records suit filed against the City of Brigantine

On August 3, 2010, I sent an open letter to Brigantine Mayor Philip J. Guenther and the City Council seeking access to a settlement agreement that a member of the city's police administration reached with the City and and an employee who accused him of sexual harassment. My letter is on-line at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2010/08/sexual-harassment-in-brigantine-open.html Since the City did not respond to my letter, I filed suit against Brigantine on September 14, 2010. The suit seeks access to the settlement agreement under three legal theories: a) the Open Public records Act (OPRA), b) the common law right of access, and c) the Local Fiscal Affairs Law. I am being represented by Richard Gutman, Esq. of Montclair. My suit seeks the settlement agreement with the name of the alleged sexual harassment victim redacted from it. I have no interest in knowing or publicizing the name of the alleged victim. I am, however, interested in publicizing the name of the alleged harasser and the terms of the settlement agreement. Documents from the lawsuit, which is captioned Paff v. City of Brigantine, Docket No. ATL-L-5038-10, are available on-line here. The matter is scheduled to be heard on November 18, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. by the Hon. Nelson C. Johnson in Atlantic City. Due to a scheduling conflict, however, the matter is almost certainly going to be postponed until December 14, 2010 or December 16, 2010. I will notify readers when a new date and hour is set. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project Somerset, New Jersey
 

NHVRHSD pays $302,000 to settle sexual harassment lawsuit

On May 13, 2010, the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District (NHVRHSD) in Hunterdon County agreed to pay $302,000 to two female school bus drivers who claimed they were sexually harassed by a male bus driver. In their suit, Bonnie Haydu and Bernice Rude both claimed that after being hired in 2006, they were "almost immediately" sexually harassed by Donald Hockenberry, who also drove a bus for the district. They further alleged that Hockenberry's immediate supervisor, Gerald H. Oram, Human Resources official Ann Marie Rose and other school district managers at knew about but were "intentionally indifferent" to the alleged harassment. The case is captioned Haydu and Rude v. NHVRHSD, Docket No. HUN-L-133-08 and the womens' attorney was Frank J. Morelli of Phillipsburg. According to the settlement agreement, Haydu received $133,664, Rude received $44,152 and the attorney received $124,184. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Haydu's and Rude's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement expressly states that the $302,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by NHVRHSD or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that NHVRHSD or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Haydu and Rude $302,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
 

Re: NJ Attorney General proposes OPRA rules

OPRA Attorney Richard M. Gutman formally commented on the Department of Law and Public Safety's proposed OPRA rules. His letter is on-line here. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

DCA proposes new OPRA rules

The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has proposed new rules governing how it responds to records requests and exempting certain categories of records from public disclosure. Those proposed rules are on-line here: OPRA attorney Richard M. Gutman of Montclair has submitted written comments to the proposed rules, and the text of those comments is on-line here: Any citizen who wishes may, prior to December 31, 2010, submit comments regarding the proposed rules. Citizen comments and with the DCA's response will be published in the New Jersey Register. Comments may be mailed or faxed to: Michael L. Ticktin, Esq. Chief, Legislative Analysis Department of Community Affairs PO Box 802 Trenton, NJ 08625 Fax No. (609) 633-6729. Comment letters should refer to "Proposal Number: PRN 2010-266."
 

LPS proposes new OPRA rules

The New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety has proposed new rules exempting certain categories of records from public disclosure. Those proposed rules are on-line here. OPRA attorney Richard M. Gutman of Montclair has submitted written comments to the proposed rules which are on-line here. Any citizen who wishes may, prior to December 31, 2010, submit comments regarding the proposed rules. Citizen comments and the LPS's responses will be published in the New Jersey Register. Comments may be mailed to: Philip H. Hopkins, Jr., Deputy Attorney General Administrative Practice Officer Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 081 Trenton, NJ 08625-0081 Comment letters should refer to "Proposal Number: PRN 2010-269."
 

Bergen judge issues OPRA/OPMA ruling

On November 4, 2010, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Conte issued an unpublished decision in O'Brien v. Woodcliff Lake, et al, Docket No. BER-L-2091-10. Conte's two-page court order and thirteen-page written decision are on-line here. The decision covers several topics, some of which are set forth here: 1. Woodcliff Lake, by failing to respond to a request for a council member's e-mails within seven business days, violated the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). 2. An in camera inspection would be done on an investigative report to determine the merit of Woodcliff Lake's claim that the report is exempt from disclosure. (An "in camera inspection" is when the judge examines a record in private.) 3. The Woodcliff Lake Borough Council violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) by informing the public, before going into closed session, only that it would discuss matters involving "attorney/client privilege, property acquisition." Activists in Bergen County may find some of Judge Conte's rulings helpful. For example, if a resident of another Bergen County municipality finds that its council or school board similarly describes closed session discussion topics vaguely (e.g. "attorney/client privilege, property acquisition"), he or she should send it a copy of Judge Conte's decision and request compliance. The ruling--and the likelihood that the body would lose if suit was brought--might convince the erring body to modify its OPMA procedure without need for litigation. Also, the plaintiff in this matter, Kevin O'Brien, is not an attorney and filed this action pro se. His success will hopefully encourage other open government activists to consider filing similar suits, when necessary, in their own localities. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Court awards attorney fees on common law right of access claim

On November 10, 2010, in what appears to be the first case of its kind, Union County Superior Court Judge Kathryn A. Brock ruled that a record requestor who obtained records under the common law right of access, but not under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), is entitled to his or her attorney fees. The case is John Paff v. Borough of Garwood, Docket No. UNN-L-1089-10. At issue was a request for a police surveillance video that depicted Garwood Police Officer Gennaro Mirabella, while in uniform, trespassing in the Garwood Borough offices. In a July 13, 2010 opinion, Judge Brock found that Paff was not entitled to the video under OPRA but was entitled to it under the common law right of access. For background and case documents, see http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2010/07/court-orders-release-of-surveillance.html After entry of the July 13, 2010 order, Paff's attorney, Richard M. Gutman of Montclair, filed an application for costs and attorney fees. He asserted that the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Mason v. Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008), created a new right to attorney fees in common law access cases. Brock agreed and awarded Gutman $40,288.50 in attorney fees and a "fee enhancement" of $14,100.98. She also awarded the cost of a $1,381.40 transcript and $260 in court filing fees for a total of $56,030.88. Garwood was represented in the case by Robert F. Renaud of Cranford. Brock found that although "there simply have not been any published decisions since the Court's decision in [Mason v. Hoboken] where the plaintiff filed claims for access under OPRA and the common law, but only prevailed on the common law claim . . . the authority to make the award is clear under [Mason] and under the catalyst theory this plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable counsel fee as the prevailing party on his common law claim under the facts of this case." Judge Brock found that $350 per hour was a reasonable fee for Mr. Gutman's services but reduced Gutman's request to be paid for 141.88 hours to 115.11 hours. Judge Brock also ruled that Gutman was entitled to an extra 35% because of the risk he took in not getting paid at all if the suit was unsuccessful. Brock agreed with Gutman that his chance of losing the suit was high, given that Garwood refused to provide him and Paff with "more specific information about the basis for the OPRA exemptions being relied upon" and because Garwood had raised a security concern by falsely claiming that the Borough's safe was shown on the video. On the latter point, she found that "if the court had not viewed the DVD and concluded that [Garwood's claimed] security exemption did not apply . . . the plaintiff's claim under the common law right of access might well have been lost . . ." Gutman's fee application and the Borough's opposition are on-line here. Judge Brock's order and thirty-seven page decision is on-line here.
 

Franklin Board of Education agrees to improve resolution

After reading Teresa Fasanello's November 15, 2010 article, it seemed to me that the Board's position to not let the public know the identities of the contractors to be privately discussed was logically indefensible. So, I reached out to John Gomez with an OPRA request, and he responded with a revised executive session resolution and a list of the change orders that are under consideration. The documents that Mr. Gomez sent me are on-line here: I'm glad that we were able to avoid a lawsuit over this issue. Sincerely, John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Bridgeton pays $100,000 to police officer who claimed hostile work environment

On July 19, 2010, the City of Bridgeton (Cumberland County) agreed to pay $100,000 to one of its police officers who claimed that he was wrongfully fire and then, after reinstatement, was subjected to a hostile work environment. In his suit, Shawn Reed said that he a broken ankle he received while drinking alcohol at a June 17, 2006 P.B.A. picnic caused him to go on medical leave. In August 2006, Reed claimed that he advised the City that he was ready to report back to work for light duty. Yet, he claimed that even though he was assured by Lieutenant Dan Morning that he could report for light duty, "Business Administrator Arch Liston, with the express approval of the Mayor and perhaps other members of the City Council unilaterally changed [city policy such that] no one would be allowed to return to light duty." When Reed attempted to use the "sick bank" (i.e. other city employees "bank" their unused sick time to benefit their fellow employees), he claims that Liston "again changed the policy, saying that sick bank time would not be allowed to be used by employees who had run out of sick time." Reed alleged that the City next accused him of "abandoning his job" and telling him that if he did not report back to work, he would be fired. He claims that since he was still disabled it was not possible for him to obey the City's orders. Reed alleged that the City also "concocted other pretextual charges" based on allegations of Reed's chronic alcoholism. He said that the alcoholism charges arose from reports by Dr. Farrell Crouse. Yet, Reed claimed, the City had sent Reed to see Mr. Frank Hudson, an alcohol counselor, who, along with member of the City's Employment Advisory System, determined that Reed had no drinking problem and was fit for duty. Liston and the police chief, however, allegedly relied upon Dr. Crouse's report and initiated charges that ultimately led to Reed being fired. After Reed appealed his termination, the City of Bridgeton "determined it was in their best interest to return [him] to employment status. According to an August 8, 2008 article in the Press of Atlantic City, the City then paid Reed $100,000 in back pay plus $26,000 in legal fees. After Reed returned to work, he alleged that he was made to wear "a uniform specifically designed only for him" and forced to work as a file clerk which caused him to be "ridiculed and laughed at by his co-employees." Also named in the suit were Bridgeton Police Chiefs Jeffrey C. Wentz and Mark Ott. Reed's wife, Suzanne Reed, joined as plaintiff in the lawsuit. The case is captioned Reed v. Bridgeton, Superior Court Docket No. CUM-L-845-08 and Reed's attorney was Kevin P. McCann of Bridgeton. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here. None of Reed's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $100,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Bridgeton or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Bridgeton or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Reed $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.
 

Episcopal vicar, convicted in 1998 of molesting kids, sues prison

In a suit filed on October 18, 2010, Charles Mitzenius, a former vicar of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Keansburg, claimed that officials of the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel refused him medical treatment after he was beaten by another inmate in 2008. He also claimed that a prison psychologist encouraged other inmates to call him a "pedophile priest" and hurl other insults at him during group therapy sessions. See Mitzenius v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al, Middlesex County Superior Court, Docket No. L-7749-10. Mitzenius' lawsuit is on-line here. He seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees. He is being represented in the suit by Charles H. Landesman of Kearny. According to a April 14, 2000 Star Ledger article, Mitzenius was convicted in 1998 on eight counts of aggravated sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child and sexual contact and was sentenced to 24-years in prison with an eight-year period of parole ineligibility. His youngest victim was a twelve year old boy. Mitzenius is presently 72 years old. John Paff Somerset, New Jersey
 

Edison Construction Official sues Township

On October 29, 2010, Edison Township Construction Official Lisa Larue sued Edison Township, Business Administrator Dennis Gonzalez and Director of Planning and Engineering John A. Medina for discriminating and retaliating against her and for creating a hostile work environment and violating the Conscientious Employee Protection Act. Larue v. Edison, Docket No. MID-L-8073-10. The lawsuit, filed by Princeton attorney Michael Osborne, is on-line here: The complaint is very detailed and specific and alleges official wrongdoing, including a) collecting fees for Certificates of Continued Occupancy that Larue alleges were to enrich the Township without any benefit to the applicant; b) overcharging Edison residents $36,000 for plumbing permits, c) failing to file required reports with the Department of Community Affairs, d) disbursing money with "no paper trail of income and expenses for auditing purposes," and e) approving projects at the Edison Soccer Complex and the YMCA despite no building permits having been applied for or inspecting having been done. The allegations in LaRue's suit are just that--allegations. Nothing has been proven. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

DEP proposes new OPRA rules

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has proposed new rules exempting certain categories of records from public disclosure. Those proposed rules are on-line here. OPRA attorney Richard M. Gutman of Montclair has submitted written comments to the proposed rules which are on-line here. Any citizen who wishes may, prior to February 4, 2010, submit comments regarding the proposed rules. Citizen comments and the DEP's responses will be published in the New Jersey Register. Comments may be mailed to: Alice A. Previte, Esq. Attention: DEP Docket Number 11-10-11 Office of Legal Affairs P.O. Box 402 Trenton, N.J. 08625-0402 Or, comments may be faxed to 609-984-3488.
 

OPRA lawsuit to determine amount of cash seized by police

On September 8, 2010, I read a newspaper article informing me that a drug arrest was made after a motor vehicle stop in Readington Township (Hunterdon County) on September 2, 2010 and that a "large amount of U.S. Currency" was seized from the arrestee's vehicle. This prompted me to file a records request to determine exactly how much currency was seized. (Note: I became interested in cash seizures in Readington after learning that the Readington Police, along with the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney General Office, split $100,000 seized from a vehicle despite a later finding that the search that resulted in the seizure was unconstitutional. For more information, see: ) Readington, however, refused to provide me with any records disclosing the exact amount of currency seized. The Township claimed that disclosing the amount might compromise a criminal investigation. With Richard Gutman of Montclair as my attorney, I filed suit against the Township on October 12, 2010. The suit is on-line here. The matter is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 9 a.m. before Hon. Yolanda Ciccone, A.J.S.C. at the courthouse at 20 N. Bridge St, Somerville. The public is invited to attend the hearing, but should call 908-231-7068 the day before to ensure that it has not been postponed. Refer to Paff v. Township of Readington, Docket No. HNT-L-673-10.
 

Gloucester Twp meeting minutes "cannot be located."

On November 16, 2010, I requested minutes from five Gloucester Township Council closed (i.e. executive) sessions from as recently as April 7, 2008. On November 24, 2010, I was informed by Clerk Rosemary DiJosie that the requested minutes "were not and cannot be furnished to anyone as they cannot be located." According to State record retention schedules, meeting minutes are required to be retained permanently. See http://www.njarchives.org/links/pdf/m100000-007.pdf Accordingly, the Township is in violation of the State's requirements. According to DiJosie's letter, I was "previously informed by letter dated July 10, 2008 from Gloucester Township Solicitor David Carlamere [that] measures have been put in place to better preserve Closed Session minutes." While this is technically true, that letter was in response to my June 30, 2008 complaint to the Mayor and Council that the Council's closed meeting minutes lacked specificity. I was not aware until receipt of DiJosie's November 24, 2010 letter that the Clerk's office simply "cannot locate" minutes at all. DiJosie's November 24, 2010 letter, Carlamere's July 10, 2008 letter and my June 30, 2008 complaint are on-line here. John Paff, Chair New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Gloucester Twp pays $13,500 to settle employee's retaliation suit

On February 26, 2009, the Township of Gloucester (Camden County), Scibal Associates (the Township's provider of insurance and claims adjustment services) and Jose Eduardo Diaz-Jiminez, M.D. agreed to pay a total of $13,500 to a Gloucester Township employee who claimed that Township officials, Scibal Associates and Dr. Diaz-Jiminez conspired "to create a pretext that [the employee] was engaged in fraudulent conduct." In his suit, David Pomianek, Department of Public Works employee, said that he was injured on the job on August 23, 2005. Since his injury was covered by workers compensation, Scibal and Associates required Pomianek to receive treatment by Dr. Diaz-Jiminez who was employed by Express Urgent Care & Occupational Health Services. According to the suit, Scibal placed Pomianek under surveillance to to see if he "was performing activities within the limits prescribed by Dr. Diaz-Jiminez." Pomianek alleges that Diaz-Jiminez "falsely resubmitted . . . documents changing the limitations . . . to create a pretext that [Pomianek] was engaged in fraudulent conduct." He claims that Dr. Diaz-Jiminez "interrogated" him at a subsequent office visit "seeking to illicit [sic] information that could be used against [Pomianek] and to establish that [Pomianek] engaged in fraud." Thereafter, Pomianek claims, the Township filed disciplinary charges against him for "misrepresentation of Worker's Compensation restrictions." After Pomianek contested the charges, he claims that additional charges were filed against him for "his inability to perform the essential functions of his job" and for falsifying hie employment application. After the first day of his disciplinary hearing, Pomianek alleges that the Township "abandoned the charges and returned [him] to work." He claimed that the period of time he was out of work damaged his credit rating and required him to pay $2,700 for a lawyer. The case is captioned Pomianek v. Gloucester Township, New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, Docket NO. L-982-07 and Pomianek's attorney was F. Michael Daily, Jr. of Westmont. The lawsuit and settlement agreement are on-line here.
 

Seaside Heights pays $50,000 to man who photographed arrest

On November 2, 2010, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $50,000 to a Bloomingdale man who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for falsely arresting him after he photographed the officers arresting another man. In his suit, George W. Kramer said that on July 29, 2007 he was returning to his friend's car after a night on the town when he observed police "in the process of assaulting and/or arresting a number of individuals, including one individual who was on the ground, handcuffed, and being 'Maced.'" Since he had a camera on him, he snapped a couple photos of the encounter from across the street. He claimed that Police Officer Shawn Heckler, after seeing him take the photos, crossed the street and accused Kramer of "playing Paparazzi." Kramer claimed that he offered to delete the photos but Heckler handcuffed him and placed him under arrest with help from officers Robert Rezzonico, Sean J. McGinley, Matthew Quinn and Moutros Constantino. He claimed to have been charged with "purposely obstructing, impairing or perverting the administration of law or government function" and was released from custody later that same morning. He alleged that all charges against him were dismissed on October 30, 2009. After his release, Kramer claimed to have run into Heckler again at a convenience store. During that encounter, Kramer said that Heckler told him that if he pled guilty "maybe we can work something out" and that he, Rezzonico, McGinley, Quinn and Constantino had deleted the arrest photo's from Kramer's camera. Also named in the suit were Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd and another police supervisor named Terrence R. Farley. The case is captioned Kramer v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv-0366 and Kramer's attorney was David B. Rubin of Metuchen. Case documents are on-line here. None of Kramer's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $50,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Kramer $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.
 

Christie: Proposed OPRA exemption rules have force of law

In 2008, the Government Records Council (GRC) ruled that OPRA exemptions proposed by state agencies as far back as 2002--but never enacted--indefinitely constituted a lawful basis for denying OPRA requests. On June 4, 2010, the Appellate Division reversed the GRC's decision and set a November 5, 2010 deadline for agencies to enact rules exempting certain classes of records from public disclosure under OPRA. My The June 5, 2010 blog posting regarding the ruling is at http://njopengovt.blogspot.com/2010/06/appellate-division-rules-that-were.html Since the Appellate Division's ruling, five state departments--Law and Public Safety, Corrections, Military and Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection, and Community Affairs--have proposed new rules exempting certain records from OPRA. In early November, Governor Chris Christie issued Executive Order 2010-47 which gave the force of law to the exemptions set forth in the proposed regulations. Christie determined that the proposed rules "cannot be finalized prior to the deadline of November 5, 2010 established by the court [and that] it is in the public interest that these exemptions do not lose their force and effect during the pendency of the rulemaking process." Executive Order 2010-47, along with the five agencies' proposed rules, is on-line here.
 

How is Pitman complying with state records retention laws?

I noticed that Pitman's web site invites members of the public to contact the mayor and council members by sending e-mails to their personal accounts. It's good for public officials to be accessible by e-mail, but the fact that their personal addresses are being advertised raises a question as to how Pitman is fulfilling its duties under state regulations to archive and preserve all official e-mails. Suppose that a council member dies, moves out of town or has a computer crash. Suppose further that a citizen were to then submit an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for that council member's previously sent or received e-mails. Would the Borough clerk be able to produce those e-mails without having to contact the former council member (or his or her estate) or subpoena them from the former council member's personal e-mail server? On December 28, 2010, I sent a letter and an OPRA request to Pitman Mayor Batten and the members of the Borough Council. That letter and request are on-line here. It recommends that the Borough provide each council member with a municipal address, such as name@pitman.org, so that all official e-mails will be automatically preserved and archived. John Paff, Chairman New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project
 

Municipal Retention of elected officials' e-mails

Following is the text of my 12/30/10 records request to the Borough of Pitman (Gloucester County). FACTS: On December 28, 2010, I submitted to the Borough of Pitman a records request for 1. The nonexempt portions of the first three e-mails sent after 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2008 by former Councilman Fred Swartz that related to municipal business. (NOTE: in my request, I misspelled the Councilman's name as "Schwartz.") 2. The nonexempt portions of the first three (3) e-mails sent by sitting Councilwoman Debra Higbee after 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2010 that related to municipal business. 3. Any policy or other writing presently in force in Pitman Borough which addresses the requirements and recommendations set forth in DARM Circular Letter No. 03-10-ST. The overall purpose of my request was to determine whether the Borough is in compliance with DARM Circular Letter No. 03-10-ST, which requires the Borough to reliably retain and archive its official records, including those that are sent from or received at an elected official's personal e-mail account. (NOTE: The DARM Circular Letter is on-line at http://www.njarchives.org/links/circular-letter-03-10-st.html and official correspondence sent and received from an elected official's personal e-mail account have been determined to be government records disclosable under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), see Donal Meyers v. Borough of Fair lawn, GRC Case No. 2005-127 at http://www.nj.gov/grc/decisions/2005-127.html ) On December 28, 2010, Borough Clerk Judith O'Donnell responded. In response to my request for former Councilman Swartz's e-mails, Clerk O'Donnell stated: I was not in my present position with the Borough of Pitman at [the time that Mr. Swartz served on Borough Council], and therefore had no occasion or receive any form of correspondence from Councilman Schwartz. In response to my request for Councilwoman Higbee's e-mails, Clerk O'Donnell provided three e-mails dated February 23, 2010, 1:28 p.m.; March 9, 2010, 10:24 a.m., and March 9, 2010, 2:32 p.m. Clerk O'Donnell's cover letter and three responses are on-line here. ANALYSIS: Swartz's e-mails: Clerk O'Donnell improperly responded to my request for Swartz's e-mails. My request was for "the nonexempt portions of the first three e-mails sent after 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2008 by former Councilman Fred Swartz that related to municipal business." Clerk O'Donnell, however, apparently interpreted my request as being for e-mails Swartz had sent to HER. Since Clerk O'Donnell was not the Borough Clerk when Swartz served on Council, she asserted that since she had not corresponded with Swartz, no records were responsive to my request. But, my request wasn't limited to e-mails Swartz sent to Clerk O'Donnell or even to the person who served as Borough Clerk during 2008. Rather, my request was for three e-mails that dealt with municipal business that Swartz sent, during a certain time frame, to ANYONE while he served as a member of the Borough Council. Suppose, for example, that Swartz sent a February 24, 2008 e-mail to a municipal vendor regarding a municipal contract. Suppose further that Swartz did not send a copy of that e-mail to the Clerk or anyone else. This e-mail would likely be categorized as "general external correspondence" that the Borough is required to retain for 3 years (NOTE: See Record Series No. 0503-0001 in the Municipal Agencies General Records Retention Schedule which is on-line at http://www.state.nj.us/state/darm/links/pdf/m100000-007.pdf ) Thus, the Borough would be under an affirmative duty to retain such an e-mail for at least three years regardless of whether or not Swartz had sent a copy of it to anyone else and regardless of whether Swartz transmitted it from a computer at Borough Hall, his home or from a Starbucks in San Diego. Accordingly, I am repeating my request for Swartz's e-mails in Request No. 1 below. This time, I ask Clerk O'Donnell to properly respond. Higbee's e-mails: I note that two of Councilwoman Higbee's three e-mails were addressed to Clerk O'Donnell and the third e-mail was copied (i.e. cc 'd) to Clerk O'Donnell. But this raises a question as to whether Clerk O'Donnell provided me with only those e-mails that were sent to her as opposed to those that Higbee sent to others. As stated in my analysis of Swartz, my request was not limited to only those e-mails to which Clerk O'Donnell received. Rather, my request was broad enough to encompass municipality related e-mails that Councilwoman Higbee sent to anyone, such as a vendor, a fire chief or a colleague on the Borough Council. Accordingly, I am resubmitting another request, in Request No. 2 below, restricted to e-mails Higbee sent that were NOT sent or copied to the municipal clerk. Also, Higbee's March 9, 2010, 2:32 p.m. e-mail states: "Russ [presumably Council President Russell Johnson], Dave [presumably Councilman David Swindell] and Patti [presumably Councilwoman Patti Kelley] have all answered yes to paying the bill and I make it 4 so it is okay to pay the sj gas bill." It appears that a majority of the Borough Council "met" via e-mail and "voted" to expend money from the public treasury [footnote]. This raises a separate question regarding compliance with the Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et. seq. Accordingly, Request No. 3 seeks to learn more about this on-line vote. RECORDS REQUESTED: 1. The nonexempt portions of the first three e-mails sent after 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2008 by former Councilman Fred Swartz that related to municipal business. 2. The nonexempt portions of the first three (3) e-mails sent by sitting Councilwoman Debra Higbee after 12:01 a.m. on February 23, 2010 that related to municipal business. Specifically excluded from this request are any e-mails that were sent or copied (i.e. cc' d) to Clerk O'Donnell. 3. All e-mails from "Russ," "Dave" and "Patti" regarding the "sj gas bill" referred to in Councilman Higbee's March 9, 2010, 2:32 p.m. e-mail. The March 8, 2010 public meeting minutes indicate that a question was raised about a $34.31 gas bill that was deducted from the ambulance hall budget and could have been possibly coded to the wrong account. The minutes reflect that the payment of the $34.31 bill was not approved for payment at the March 8, 2010 meeting. While authorizing payment of a small sum by an e-mail vote may appear to be an insignificant violation of the Meetings Act, it is nevertheless concerning since it suggests that the Council, on other occasions, may have taken votes on more significant issues outside of public view.
 

 

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