Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
5
“research.” The Complainant contends that it is disingenuous to invalidate an OPRA
request for a record that the Custodian swore did not exist. The Complainant contends
that this is especially true when the GRC itself exposed the Custodian’s false certification
by determining that responsive records existed.
June 27, 2012
8
Complainant’s
amended
request
for
reconsideration
with
the
following
attachments:
SOI form template.
SOI for GRC Complaint No. 2008-183.
GRC Complaint No. 2008-183:
The Complainant contends that the Custodian has violated OPRA in its entirety.
The Complainant states the GRC repeatedly attempted to obtain a completed copy of the
SOI from the Custodian.
9
The Complainant asserts that the Custodian refused to provide
same to the GRC; therefore, the Custodian failed to bear his burden of proving a lawful
denial of access.
The Complainant further alleges that the GRC acted arbitrarily by requesting that
the Custodian submit an SOI on July 31, 2009 and August 20, 2009 instead of
adjudicating GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 based only on the evidence contained in
record. The Complainant contends that the Custodian submitted fraudulent documents
during the mediation process
10
that forfeited his right to defend himself by default and
through false swearing. The Complainant contends that although the Custodian certified
that no responsive records existed, the Planning Board’s minutes and Courier News
article submitted as part of the Complainant’s initial request for reconsideration prove
otherwise.
The Complainant contends that neither the GRC nor the Office of Administrative
Law (“OAL”) has the authority to ignore the facts of a complaint and interject its own
arbitrary and capricious holdings. The Complainant thus contends that the GRC’s
acceptance of the ALJ’s February 6, 2012 Initial Decision is arbitrary and capricious and
further not supported by the evidence of record.
8
The GRC notes that on August 20, 2012 the Custodian’s Counsel submitted an objection to the
Complainant’s request for reconsideration; however, he did so well outside the required ten (10) business
day time frame. N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.10(d). Thus, the GRC will not consider same as said filing is tardy.
9
The GRC notes that after sending the Custodian a request for the SOI for GRC Complaint No. 2008-183,
the parties agreed to mediate the instant complaint. The GRC later requested an SOI after the complaint
was referred back from mediation. The GRC additionally sent a letter of no defense to the Custodian after
he failed to provide same to the SOI, as is the GRC’s procedure for all complaints.
10
Pursuant to the GRC regulations (N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.5(j)) and the Uniform Mediation Act (N.J.S.A.
2A:23C-1 et seq.), the GRC cannot consider any submissions of records or arguments made by either party
during mediation.
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
6
GRC Complaint No. 2009-259:
The Complainant asserts that this complaint is identical to GRC Complaint No.
2008-183 in that it is against the same agency for the same records. The Complainant
contends that the GRC again forwarded to the Custodian several SOI forms.
11
The
Complainant contends that the Custodian, emboldened by the GRC’s failure to enforce
OPRA, submitted eight (8) records sought by the Complainant as part of the SOI. The
Complainant asserts that the inclusion of these records is a clear violation of OPRA and
directly contradicts the Custodian’s certification in both complaints that no records
existed. The Complainant contends that the Custodian further altered the SOI form with a
purpose to deceive the GRC and Complainant by not inputting responses to the specific
questions on page 3 and omitting page 4 from the SOI. The Complainant asserts that the
Custodian supplemented the SOI with a document index on October 16, 2009; however,
the index failed to conform with the tenets of Paff, supra, and violates OPRA.
The Complainant thus contends that the Custodian’s failure to submit a complete
SOI for either complaint and other multiple violations of OPRA amounts to a knowing
and willful violation of OPRA.
Analysis
Whether the Complainant has met the required standard for reconsideration of the
Council’s April 25, 2012 Final Decision?
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.10, parties may file a request for a reconsideration of
any decision rendered by the Council within ten (10) business days following receipt of a
Council decision. Requests must be in writing, delivered to the Council and served on all
parties. Parties must file any objection to the request for reconsideration within ten (10)
business days following receipt of the request. The Council will provide all parties with
written notification of its determination regarding the request for reconsideration.
N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.10(a) – (e).
In the matter before the Council, the Complainant filed the request for
reconsideration of the Council’s Final Decision dated April 25, 2012 on June 21, 2012,
the last day of the second (2
nd
) extension of time to provide same.
Applicable case law holds that:
“[a]
party
should
not
seek
reconsideration
merely
based
upon
dissatisfaction with a decision.” D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392,
401 (Ch. Div. 1990). Rather, reconsideration is reserved for those cases
where (1) the decision is based upon a "palpably incorrect or irrational
basis;" or (2) it is obvious that the finder of fact did not consider, or failed
to appreciate, the significance of probative, competent evidence. E.g.,
Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996). The
11
The GRC notes that the evidence of record indicates that it requested the SOI in GRC Complaint No.
2009-259 just once: on September 22, 2009.