New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled paper and Recyclable
FINAL DECISION
September 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting
Robert F. Edwards
Complainant
v.
Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union)
Custodian of Record
Complaint Nos. 2008-183 & 2009-259
At the September 25, 2012 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”)
considered the September 18, 2012 Reconsideration Findings and Recommendations of the
Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted
unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. The Council, therefore,
finds that the Complainant’s request for reconsideration be denied because the Complainant has
failed to establish in his request for reconsideration of the Council’s April 25, 2012 Final
Decision that 1) the GRC's decision is based upon a “palpably incorrect or irrational basis” or 2)
it is obvious that the GRC did not consider the significance of probative, competent evidence,
and has failed to show that the GRC acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in adopting
the Administrative Law Judge’s February 6, 2012 Initial Decision. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J.
Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996); D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990); In The
Matter Of The Petition Of Comcast Cablevision Of South Jersey, Inc. For A Renewal Certificate
Of Approval To Continue To Construct, Operate And Maintain A Cable Television System In
The City Of Atlantic City, County Of Atlantic, State Of New Jersey, 2003 N.J. PUC LEXIS 438,
5-6 (N.J. PUC 2003).
This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be
pursued in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey within forty-five (45)
days. Information about the appeals process can be obtained from the Appellate Division Clerk’s
Office, Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market St., PO Box 006, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006.
Proper service of submissions pursuant to any appeal is to be made to the Council in care of the
Executive Director at the State of New Jersey Government Records Council, 101 South Broad
Street, PO Box 819, Trenton, NJ 08625-0819.
Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 25
th
Day of September, 2012
Robin Berg Tabakin, Chair
Government Records Council
2
I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.
Denise Parkinson Vetti, Secretary
Government Records Council
Decision Distribution Date: October 1, 2012
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL
Reconsideration
Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
September 25, 2012 Council Meeting
Robert F. Edwards
1
Complainant
v.
Housing Authority of Plainfield
(Union)
2
Custodian of Records
GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 & 2009-259
GRC Complaint No. 2008-183:
Records Relevant to Complaint: A copy of the Housing Authority of Plainfield
(“PHA”) proposal on July 10, 2008 to the Plainfield Planning Board (“Planning Board”).
Request Made: July 22, 2008
Response Made: July 22, 2008
Custodian: Randall Wood
GRC Complaint Filed: August 19, 2008
3
GRC Complaint No. 2009-259:
Records Relevant to Complaint: “For the purposes of this request, the term
‘documents’ includes, but is not limited to: correspondence, memos, reports, concept
papers, maps, plans, site plans, layouts, sketches, photographs and/or any other materials
in any format.
Please provide copies of the following public records:
Documents submitted to the [Planning Board] or any member thereof that were
referenced during, pertained to, or were submitted for or as part of or in
anticipation of, the presentation about Elmwood Gardens given by the PHA at the
Plainfield Planning Board meeting on July 10, 2008. This includes documents that
may have been submitted to the [Planning Board] prior to the July 10, 2008
meeting.”
4
1
No legal representation listed on record.
2
Represented by Dan S. Smith, Esq. (Orange, NJ).
3
The GRC received the Denial of Access Complaint on said date.
4
This is a verbatim recitation of the Complainant’s records request.
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
2
Request Made: August 20, 2009
Response Made: None
Custodian: Randall Wood
GRC Complaint Filed: September 16, 2009
5
Background
April 25, 2012
Government Records Council’s (“Council”) Final Decision. At its April 25, 2012
public
meeting,
the
Council
considered
the
April
18,
2012
Findings
and
Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by
the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and
recommendations. The Council, therefore, found that “… because the credible evidence
adduced during the hearing at the Office of Administrative Law outweighs the parties’
exceptions, and because the Complainant failed to provide any legal basis for the GRC to
reject the Administrative Law Judge’s findings, the Council adopts the Administrative
Law Judge’s Initial Decision dated February 6, 2012:
‘I CONCLUDE that the [PHA] and its custodian did not unlawfully deny
[the Complainant] access to the records, because [the Complainant’s]
requests were invalid under OPRA.
I further CONCLUDE that [the Complainant] failed to meet the standard
for a proper OPRA request, where the request sought documents that were
not readily identifiable, and was of the nature of a blanket request for a
class of various documents.
Although [the Custodian] failed to respond to [the Complainant’s] second
OPRA request, which is “deemed” a denial of that request, I
CONCLUDE that imposition of a civil penalty is inappropriate, because
neither the [C]ustodian nor any other official knowingly and willfully
violated OPRA or unreasonably denied access under the totality of the
circumstances.’ (Emphasis in original).”
April 27, 2012
Council’s Final Decision distributed to the parties.
May 2, 2012
E-mail from the Complainant to the GRC. The Complainant requests an extension
of 30 days to submit a request for reconsideration based on a recent personal matter.
May 3, 2012
E-mail from the GRC to the Complainant. The GRC states that it is in receipt of
the Complainant’s request for a 30-day extension of time to submit a request for
reconsideration. The GRC states that although N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.10(b) specifies that
requests for reconsideration must be filed within ten (10) business days following receipt
5
The GRC received the Denial of Access Complaint on said date.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |