Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
12
The Complainant next excepted to the ALJ’s holding that the Complainant’s two
(2) OPRA requests were overly broad. The Complainant argued that the GRC should
follow the Court’s holding in Burnett v. County of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506 (App.
Div. 2010), which provided additional guidance on its holding in MAG. The
Complainant argued that MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage
Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005) and Bent v. Stafford Police Department,
381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005) do not apply in these matters because the
Complainant specifically sought the records submitted to the Planning Board.
The GRC rejects this exception. In Burnett, supra, the plaintiff appealed from an
order of summary judgment entered against him in his suit to compel production by the
County of Gloucester of documents requested pursuant to OPRA, consisting of “[a]ny
and all settlements, releases or similar documents entered into, approved or accepted
from 1/1/2006 to present.” Id. at 508. (Emphasis added). The Appellate Division
determined that the request sought a specific type of document, although it did not
specify a particular case to which such document pertained, and was therefore not overly
broad. Id. at 515-16.
Regarding GRC Complaint No. 2008-183, the Complainant’s July 22, 2008
OPRA request sought a proposal, which the ALJ determined was a non-specific type of
record. The ALJ reasoned that the records provided to the Planning Board by the PHA
consisted of several identifiable documents provided to the Planning Board over time and
not as one package: “a site plan, two photographs of the existing complex, an exterior
rendering of potential townhouses, a first-floor plan of the existing complex, a brief
description of the existing structure, zoning, potential townhouses and a zoning map.” Id.
at pg. 13. The ALJ noted that it is doubtful that these records as a collection constituted a
proposal. The ALJ clearly determined the term “proposal” was open to interpretation as
to exactly what a “proposal” constituted.
The ALJ further likened the Complainant’s request to OPRA request Item No. 1
at issue in Morgano v. Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, GRC Complaint No. 2007-156
(February 2008), which sought case files for two (2) indictment numbers. In that
complaint, the Council noted that the case files composed of twenty (20) and twenty-one
(21) separate records respectively. This is different from plaintiff’s request in Burnett,
supra, which sought settlements, releases and records similar to the former over a defined
period of time.
Regarding GRC Complaint No. 2009-259, the ALJ clearly articulated the reasons
why he believed the Complainant’s August 22, 2009 OPRA request is overly broad and
unclear. The ALJ stated that the Complainant’s request essentially sought “all records
that may have been related to the potential demolition of Elmwood Gardens.” Id. at pg.
14. The ALJ further noted that the inclusion of the Courier News article did not “… cure
the deficiency … which erroneously suggested that [Mr.] Hurd presented a package to the
[Planning] Board at the meeting.” ALJ’s Initial Decision dated February 6, 2012. Again,
his request is certainly more similar to the request at issue in Morgano, supra, than in
Burnett, supra.
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
13
The GRC notes that the Council similarly cited to Morgano in determining that
the Complainant’s August 22, 2009 OPRA request was broad and unclear. See Edwards
v. Plainfield Housing Authority (Union), GRC Complaint No. 2009-259 (Final Decision
dated November 18, 2009). In fact, the Complainant filed an appeal on December 18,
2009 in part challenging the Council’s holding. Edwards v. Plainfield Housing Authority
(Union), GRC Complaint No. 2009-259 (Interim Order dated December 21, 2010).
Complainant’s third (3
rd
) exception:
Finally, the Complainant excepted to the ALJ’s handling of the proceedings. The
Complainant argued that the OAL lost briefs and failed to notify the Complainant of
changes in advance of the October 6, 2011 hearing. The Complainant further contended
that the ALJ allowed the PHA to call him as a witness with no proper notice and allowed
the PHA to bombard him with what he characterized as irrelevant and disparaging
comments. The Complainant also contended that the ALJ did not allow him to fully
cross-examine the PHA’s witnesses concerning trustworthiness and reliability and
imposed restrictions on the Complainant’s ability to examine the credibility of the PHA
witnesses; the Complainant also asserted that the ALJ sustained objections to the
Complainant’s questions regarding the Custodian’s actions.
The GRC rejects this exception because the Complainant already brought these
arguments before the ALJ who considered and denied Complainant’s arguments, having
placed those reasons on the record. See ALJ’s Initial Decision at pg. 12. Moreover, a
review of the ALJ’s Initial Decision indicates that the Complainant was not denied due
process in the OAL proceedings.
An administrative agency has the duty of ensuring that the administrative law
judge's decision was based on a preponderance of the credible evidence. In re Polk
License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 560 (1982); Dore v. Bedminster Tp. Bd. of Ed., 185
N.J. Super. 447, 453 (App.Div.1982). The agency’s decision need only "demonstrate that
the agency gave attentive consideration to the ALJ's recommendation as part of the
record and [to] address itself to key items of evidence which were crucial to its decision."
Public Advocate Dep't v. Public Utilities Bd., 189 N.J. Super. 491, 506. See also St.
Vincent's Hospital v. Finley, 154 N.J. Super. 24, 29-33 (App.Div.1977).
The ultimate determination of the agency and the ALJ’s recommendations must
therefore be accompanied by basic findings of fact sufficient to support them. State,
Dep’t of Health v. Tegnazian, 194 N.J. Super. 435, 442-43 (App. Div. 1984). The
purpose of such findings “is to enable a reviewing court to conduct an intelligent review
of the administrative decision and determine if the facts upon which the order is grounded
afford a reasonable basis therefor.” Id. at 443. Additionally, the sufficiency of evidence
“must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight”; the test is
not for the courts to read only one side of the case and, if they find any evidence there,
the action is to be sustained and the record to the contrary is to be ignored (citation
omitted). St. Vincent’s Hospital v. Finley, 154 N.J. Super. 24, 31 (App. Div. 1977).
Moreover, due process demands only that a litigant in a contested administrative
adjudication receive a full and fair hearing conducted at the agency level. See Matter of