Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
3
of a Council decision, the GRC will grant the Complainant’s request for an extension
based on extraordinary circumstances. The GRC thus grants the Complainant an
extension of time until June 11, 2012 to submit a request for reconsideration.
June 8, 2012
E-mail from the Complainant to the GRC. The Complainant requests a second
(2
nd
) extension of time until June 21, 2012 based on lingering issues from the personal
matter.
June 8, 2012
E-mail from the GRC to the Complainant. The GRC grants the Complainant an
extension of time until June 21, 2012 to submit a request for reconsideration based on
extraordinary circumstances.
June 21, 2012
Complainant’s request for reconsideration with the following attachments:
Page 2 of the GRC’s “OPRA Alert – Volume 1” for July 2008.
PHA document (untitled and undated) and receipt of records dated July 8, 2008.
Planning Board special meeting agenda dated July 10, 2008.
Planning Board special meeting minutes dated July 10, 2008.
Courier News article “120 Units May Be Razed” dated July 17, 2008.
Complainant’s OPRA request relevant to GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 dated
July 22, 2008.
Memorandum from Mr. Hurd to the Complainant dated July 22, 2008.
E-mail from Ms. Fran Snyder (“Ms. Snyder”), previous GRC Mediator, to the
Complainant dated January 7, 2009.
The Custodian’s Affidavit dated January 13, 2009.
Complainant’s amended Denial of Access Complaint relevant to GRC Complaint
No. 2008-183 date-stamped June 12, 2009.
6
Mr. Bobby Conner, Esq.’s, Complainant’s previous Counsel, OPRA request dated
August 20, 2009.
Mr. Rickey Willliams’ (“Mr. Williams”) Affidavit dated September 30, 2009.
The Complainant requests that the Council reconsider its April 25, 2012 Final
Decision based on a mistake, extraordinary circumstances, fraud, new evidence and
illegality.
The Complainant recapitulates the facts of both complaints. The Complainant
contends that said facts prove that the Custodian and Custodian’s Counsel knowingly and
willfully violated OPRA by committing multiple violations of the statute, submitting
false certifications and failing to respond to the Complainant’s OPRA requests and
GRC’s requests for Statements of Information (“SOI”).
6
The Complainant attaches only the first page of said submission.
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
4
The Complainant first contends that the Custodian and Custodian’s Counsel
committed conspiracy pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2. The Complainant contends that
together the Custodian, Counsel and Mr. Williams agreed to knowingly and willfully
impede access, submit false certifications and conceal records subject to access pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The Complainant argues that in spite of the multiple certifications
submitted to the GRC in which members of the PHA certified that no records responsive
to the Complainant’s OPRA request at issue in GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 existed,
the Custodian provided the Complainant with one (1) sketch in response to his OPRA
request relevant to GRC Complaint No. 2009-259. The Complainant states that Jacobs v.
Harvey, Docket No. MER-L-3119-94 (Law Division, August 31, 2006), the Court held
that defendant falsely stated that no records responsive existed and ruled in favor of
plaintiff.
7
The Complainant thus argues that the Court’s holding in Jacobs, supra, entitles
him to a judgment in these complaints.
The Complainant next contends that the GRC failed to enforce the Appellate
Division’s holding in Paff v. NJ Department of Labor, 392 N.J. Super. 334 (App. Div.
2007) when the GRC did not require the Custodian to submit completed SOIs and
responses to the Complainant’s Denial of Access Complaints. The Complainant further
contends that the GRC refused to require the Custodian to submit comprehensive
document indexes as required by Paff, supra. The Complainant reiterates that Jacobs,
supra, entitles him to a judgment in these complaints.
The Complainant next argues that Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mumtaz
Bari-Brown violated N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(a)(1) by “… tampering with physical evidence is
an offense involving … inherently involves dishonesty.” See State v. Kennedy, 419 N.J.
Super. 475 (App. Div. 2011). The Complainant asserts that he is reiterating his
allegations against the ALJ that he set forth in his objections dated February 19, 2012.
The Complainant reiterates that Jacobs, supra, entitles him to a judgment in these
complaints.
The Complainant next argues that the GRC improperly held that the
Complainant’s OPRA requests at issue herein were invalid. The Complainant asserts that
his OPRA requests contained a brief description of the records sought pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5.f. and were based on a Courier News article that identified the records
by time, date, place and subject. The Complainant asserts that the Planning Board’s July
10, 2008 minutes further corroborate the Courier News article. The Complainant also
contends that his OPRA requests conformed with the GRC’s “OPRA Alert – Volume 1”
for July 2008 (stating that a valid OPRA request “… identifies a type of government
record … [and] states a specific time frame …” Id. at pg. 2).
The Complainant further contends that the GRC did not invalidate a similar
OPRA request in Rivera v. City of Plainfield (Union), GRC Complaint No. 2010-111
(April 2012). The Complainant states that in Burnett, supra, the Court held that a request
submitted for a class of government records without identifying a particular document
sought does not render the request overly broad, nor does it necessarily require
7
The GRC has been unable to locate a copy of the decision in question and thus does not know exactly
how the Court chose to hold regarding defendant’s false statement.