Microsoft Word Edwards V. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 and 2009-259 fd
Yüklə 284,2 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- FINAL DECISION April 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting
- Decision Distribution Date: April 27, 2012
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
- (Union) 2 Custodian of Records GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 2009-259 GRC Complaint No. 2008-183
- Request Made
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director 9 “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 ALJ’s February 6, 2012 Initial Decision. Thus, the Complainant’s request for reconsideration is denied. Cummings, supra; D'Atria, supra; Comcast, supra. Conclusions and Recommendations The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find 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). Prepared By: Frank F. Caruso Senior Case Manager Approved By: Karyn Gordon, Esq. Acting Executive Director September 18, 2012
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled paper and Recyclable FINAL DECISION April 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting Robert F. Edwards Complainant v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union) Custodian of Record Complaint Nos. 2008-183 and 2009-259 At the April 25, 2012 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the April 18, 2012 Supplemental 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 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). 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.
2 Final Decision Rendered by the Government Records Council On The 25 th Day of April, 2012 Robin Berg Tabakin, Chair Government Records Council I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council. Denise Parkinson Vetti, Secretary Government Records Council
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director 1
(“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
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. Yüklə 284,2 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|