NJ Seal
State of NJ - Government Records Council Email Grc

2003-109

- Final Decision
- Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
- Final Decision
- Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
- Final Decision
- Findings and Recommendations

Final Decision

C.W.
   Complainant
      v.
William Paterson University
   Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2003-109

 

At its July 14, 2005 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the July 8, 2005 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 re-affirms its November 9, 2004 Final Decision in its entirety and without amendment or qualification.

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.

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 14th Day of July, 2005

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

DeAnna Minus-Vincent, Secretary
Government Records Council 

Decision Distribution Date:  July 20, 2005

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

C.W.,                                             GRC Complaint No. 2003-109        
Complainant
      v.
William Paterson University,
Custodian of Records

Records Requested (as stated in the Denial of Access Complaint):

  1. Correspondence between Mr. Joseph Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life, and Ms. Cheryl Clarke, Deputy Attorney General relative to my compliant [sic] about unauthorized use of my educational records by the Department of Residence Life
  2. “The University policy relative to the use and purpose of a WPU Police Department Public Information Report by the Residence Life Department
  3. Three witness statements discussed in Complainant’s February 13, 2003 William Paterson University disciplinary hearing
    1. Guard statement
    2. Resident Director
    3. Area Coordinator
  4. “Record Request” document from Complainant’s disciplinary file
  5. Restriction list as of January 23, 2003

Request Made: July 25, 2003 and July 27, 2003
Response Made: August 7, 2003
Custodian:  Marc Schaeffer
GRC Complaint filed: August 24, 2003

Background

At its November 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the November 1, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties, including the Custodian’s November 8, 2004 certification. The Council voted unanimously to adopt numbers “2” and “3” of said findings and recommendations and amend number “1” on the basis of the Custodian’s November 8, 2004 certification stating that there were no records responsive to the Complainant’s 7/25/03 and 7/27/03 Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request.  The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis of:

  1. The Custodian’s November 8, 2004 certification stating that there are no records responsive to the Complainant’s OPRA requests dated 7/25/03 and 7/27/03.
  2. Item #3, #4 and #5 of the Complainant’s Denial of Access Complaint are dismissed for the purpose of this complaint as the issues raised are not subject of GRC Case 2003-109 and are addressed in GRC Case 2003-113.

Based on the unique circumstances surrounding the alleged facts in this case, the Council’s Executive Director re-opened the case in order to provide the Complainant with an opportunity to present “arguments and/or documentation that were not incorporated into our cases-handling process” and to offer the Custodian an opportunity to respond to same.

Council staff sent both parties complete copies of all records received by the Council to date and elicited their positions.

Analysis

WHETHER the Council has the right to reconsider this case following the issuance of its November 9, 2004 Final Decision?

Custodian’s counsel argues that the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) does not provide the Council with the statutory authority to reconsider this case. Counsel indicates that disputes involving Council decisions should be addressed by appeals of said decisions to the Appellate Division of Superior Court. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(e).

Custodian’s counsel has erred in its narrow interpretation of the Council’s duties under OPRA. OPRA states that the Council shall “initiate an investigation concerning the facts and circumstances set forth in the complaint.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(e). The Council’s Executive Director concluded that based on the Complainant’s statements that pertinent arguments and documents had not been reviewed, the Council’s investigation into the issues of GRC Complaint No. 2003-109 case might not be complete. Therefore, in order to fully execute its duties under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(e), the Council is obligated to re-open this case.

The Council should conclude that it is within its statutory authority to re-open this case.

WHETHER the Custodian’s August 7, 2003 response regarding the requested records in #1 above was lawful?

Complainant asserts that the Custodian’s August 7, 2003 response that “[i]f any correspondence exists between Mr. Caffarelli and Deputy Attorney General Clarke relative to the use of your educational records by the Department of Residence Life, that material would fall within the exemption form attorney-client privilege. Therefore, there are no government records responsive to this request” does not constitute a lawful basis for denial.  Complainant further asserts that the Custodian’s response demonstrates that the Custodian made no attempt to determine whether any documents existed that would be responsive to his request. The Complainant also discounts the Custodian’s assertions and explanation beyond August 7, 2003 stating “the issue is not what Schaeffer might certify today, but what was his response on August 7, 2003.”

OPRA states that “[t]he public agency shall have the burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6

The Custodian’s August 7, 2003 response did indeed need clarification. However, that clarification was provided, albeit on subsequent dates.

On October 15, 2004, Custodian’s counsel asserts in the Statement of Information submitted on behalf of the Custodian that “[t]here is, in fact, no such correspondence.”

On November 8, 2004, Custodian certified that “[n]o such correspondence exists.”

On February 2, 2005 Custodian’s counsel re-states “there was no correspondence between Mr. Caffarelli and me relative to the use of Complainant’s educational records.” Counsel also qualifies the statement by explaining that the advice she offered on the issue was verbal, not written.

The explanations provided by Custodian’s counsel and the Custodian in his certification clearly indicates the Custodian’s position that the requested correspondence between Mr. Caffarelli and Deputy Attorney General Clarke relative to the use of Complainant’s educational records by the Department of Residence Life does not exist. The Custodian’s position is, therefore, lawful. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

The Council should conclude that this portion of Complainant’s allegations would not have altered its Final Decision of November 9, 2004.

WHETHER the existence of April 30, 2003 and May 16, 2003 letters between the Custodian and the Complainant with copies to Custodian’s Counsel – letters not provided to the Complainant in response to his OPRA requests – indicate that the Custodian failed to properly respond to the Complainant?

Complainant asserts that the April 30, 2003 and May 16, 2003 letters “were neither identified nor released by Schaeffer pursuant to the August 25, 2003 record request as required by [OPRA].” Complainant further asserts that “[c]onspicuously absent from the Custodian’s August 2003 response is any reply to the records pertaining to ‘all correspondence between the University and the Attorney General’s Office.’” Complainant also alleges that “[t]hose letters have been in the possession of the GRC staff but their relevance has been apparently overlooked during the initial analysis phase.” Complainant states the existence of these two letters renders the Custodian’s certification “defective and subject to further investigation” and that the Custodian’s failure to provide same to the Council “could certainly be characterized as an apparent attempt to conceal records.”

Custodian’s counsel states that “[t]he advice given by me on this issue was not done in writing. As such, there was no correspondence between Mr. Caffarelli and me relative to the use of the Complainant’s educational records.” Further, “moreover, contrary to the claims of the Complainant that the University concealed those [April 30, 2003 and May 16, 2003] letters, they appear on the list of documents reviewed by the Council in preparation of the ‘Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director’ in this matter.” Counsel also acknowledges being copied on the April 30, 2003 and May 16, 2003 communications.

The Complainant has acknowledged having received copies of the April 30, 2003 and May 16, 2003 communications. Indeed, the Custodian prior to the subject OPRA requests sent both directly to the Complainant. Therefore, the Custodian’s non-disclosure of same at the time of the subject OPRA requests does not diminish his credibility or position. There is no reason to believe that the Custodian has not been forthright in his assertions or that William Patterson University has concealed documentation.

The Council should conclude that this portion of Complainant’s allegations would not have altered its Final Decision of November 9, 2004.

WHETHER the Custodian’s initial use of the Attorney/Client privilege exemption obstructed the claimant’s access to the documents referenced in the subject OPRA requests?

The Council need not consider the Complainant’s allegation that the Custodian improperly used the Attorney/Client privilege given the Council’s ultimate reliance on the Custodian’s position that there are no records responsive to the subject OPRA requests. Having found that there are no records responsive to the request, the issue of Attorney/Client privilege is moot.

The Council should conclude that this portion of Complainant’s allegations would not have altered its Final Decision of November 9, 2004.

WHETHER the Custodian’s response to the Complainant’s request for the University policy relative to the use and purpose of a WPU Police Department Public Information Report by the Residence Life Department was ambiguous?

The Complainant asserts that the Custodian’s certification that “[t]here is no government record (emphasis added) that can be provided to the Complainant” is misleading in that the term “government record” might not include all categories of documents that might be on file at William Patterson University.

The Complainant’s allegations are unfounded, as the Custodian’s statements have been clarified. The explanations provided by Custodian’s counsel and the Custodian in his certification clearly indicates the Custodian’s position that the requested policy does not exist. The Custodian’s position is, therefore, lawful. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

The Council should conclude that this portion of Complainant’s allegations would not have altered its Final Decision of November 9, 2004.

Documents Reviewed

  1. August 24, 2003 – Denial of Access Complaint and Detail Summary
    1. March 27, 2003 – Letter to Complainant from Arnold Speert, President
    2. April 21, 2003 – Letter to Mr. Joseph Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life 
    3. April 30, 2003 – Letter to Complainant from Joe Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life
    4. May 7, 2003 – Letter to Mr. Arnold Speert, President
    5. May 7, 2003 – Letter to Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: C.W. – Appeal Hearing
    6. May 9, 2003 – Letter from Complainant to Joe Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life
    7. May 16, 2003 – Letter to Complainant from Joe Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life
    8. May 21, 2003 - Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: C.W.  – Appeal Hearing
    9. May 29, 2003 – Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: C.W. – Appeal Hearing
    10. June 7, 2003 – Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: FERPA Complaint/Disciplinary Hearing Testimony
    11. June 11, 2003 – Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: Appeal Hearing – June 18, 2003
    12. June 17, 2003 – Letter to Roland Watts, Associate Dean of Student Development
    13. July 25, 2003 – Complainant’s OPRA request
    14. July 27, 2003 – Emailed addendum to records request
    15. July 29, 2003 – “OPRA Tape Recording” email to Custodian
    16. July 29, 2003 - Custodian’s response to “OPRA Tape Recording” email
    17. August 7, 2003 – Custodian’s written response
    18. August 7, 2003 – Email to Custodian Re: OPRA request of 7/28&7/29
    19. August 14, 2003 – Email to Custodian Re: OPRA Request
    20. August 15, 2003- Response by Custodian to email Re: OPRA Request
  1. 9/3/03 – Fax of complaint to Custodian
  2. January 14,2004 – Offer of Mediation to Custodian
  3. January 14,2004 – Offer of Mediation to Complainant
  4. January 16, 2004 – Complainant’s email to GRC “Re: Complaint #2003-109 2003-113”
  5. January 22, 2004 – Complainant’s Agreement to Mediate
  6. January 22, 2004 – Custodian’s Agreement to Mediate
  7. February 10, 2004 – Interim decision of GRC to forgo adjudication pending mediation
  8. February 10, 2004 – Findings and Recommendations
  9. September 14, 2004 – Request for Statement of Information 
  10. October 20, 2004 – Deputy Attorney General Clarke’s Statement of Information 
    1. July, 25 2003 – OPRA records request form
    2. July 29, 2003 – Complaint’s email to Dr. Marc Schaeffer “Re: OPRA Request”
    3. August 7, 2003 – Custodian’s response
    4. August 21, 2003 – Records request form
    5. September 3, 2003 – Custodian’s response
  11. October 29, 2004 – Complainant’s Supplement to Denial of Access Complaint
  12. November 3, 2004 – Council staff’s communication to Complainant stating that the Council does not base its decisions on events that occur during mediation
  13. November 4, 2004 – Complainant’s follow-up with Council staff on mediation events and the Custodian’s position regarding same
  14. November 8, 2004 – Custodian’s certification that “Records Requested” numbers “1” and “2” above do not exist and that his response was timely
  15. November 9, 2004 – Findings and Recommendation of the Executive Director
  16. November 9, 2004 – Council’s Final Decision
  17. November 11, 2004 – Complainant’s follow-up with Council staff. It includes an assertion that the Custodian unlawfully employed the Attorney-Client privilege.
  18. November 13, 2004 – Complainant’s allegations that documents obtained through earlier OPRA requests indicate that the Custodian’s certification is “defective” and that additional investigation is indicated.
  19. November 15, 2004 – Complainant’s additional rebuttal to the Custodian’s certification
  20. November 25, 2004 – Complainant states concerns about not having been able to respond to a Preliminary Findings and Recommendation (PFR) issued by the Council
  21. November 29, 2004 – Council staff’s acknowledgement of Complainant’s November 25, 2004 letter
  22. November 30, 2004 – Complainant’s letter to the U.S. Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office regarding the appropriateness of the Council’s finding that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) serves as a valid preemption in some of Complainant’s Council cases
  23. December 1, 2004 – Complainant’s confirmation of Council staff’s November 29, 2004 communication and a request for documentation regarding the Council’s PFR process
  24. December 15, 2004 – Complainant’s additional commentary on the Council’s lack of issuing Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
  25. December 17, 2004 – Council Executive Director re-opens White v. William Paterson University, Council Complaints # 2003-109 and 2003-113
  26. December 22, 2004 – Complainant’s acknowledgement of the re-opening of Council Complaints # 2003-109 and 2003-113 and assertion of concerns he has with open Council cases
  27. January 21, 2005 – Council staff communicates file copies to Complainant and Custodian’s counsel and offers each the opportunity to present its case within the parameters set by the Council’s Executive Director when re-opening the case
  28. January 31, 2005 – Complainant’s request to Council staff for advice on how to address his concerns
  29. January 31, 2005 – Complainant’s follow-up to earlier e-mail
  30. February 2, 2005 – Custodian counsel’s objection the re-opening of the case and statement of position with respect to the Council’s November 9, 2004 decision
  31. February 3, 2005 – Complainant’s detailed position
  32. February 4, 2005 – Complainant’s rebuttal to Custodian counsel’s February 2, 2005 submission
  33. February 7, 2005 – Council’s Executive Director states that the time for submissions ended on February 4, 2005

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council re-affirm its November 9, 2004 Final Decision in its entirety and without amendment or qualification.

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

July 8, 2005

 

Return to Top

Final Decision

C. W.,
Complainant
v.
William Paterson University,  
Custodian of Record 		Complaint No. 2003-109

At its November 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the November 1, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties, including the Custodian’s November 8, 2004 certification. The Council voted unanimously to adopt numbers “2” and “3” of said findings and recommendations and amend number “1” on the basis of the Custodian’s November 8, 2004 certification stating that there were no records responsive to the Complainant’s 7/25/03 and 7/27/03 ORPA request.  The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis of:

  1. The Custodian’s November 8, 2004 certification stating that there are no records responsive to the Complainant’s OPRA requests dated 7/25/03 and 7/27/03.
  2. Item #3, #4 and #5 of the Complainant’s Denial of Access Complaint are dismissed for the purpose of this complaint as the issues raised are not subject of GRC Case 2003-109 and are addressed in GRC Case 2003-113.

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.

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 9th  Day of November, 2004

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

C.W.                                               GRC Complaint No. 2003-109
Complainant
v.
William Paterson University
Custodian of Records

Records Requested:

  1. Correspondence between J. Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life for William Paterson University and Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Cheryl Clarke regarding what he alleges was unauthorized use of his educational record.
  2. University policies
    1. Relative to the use and purpose of a William Paterson University Police Department Public Information Report as used by the Department of Residence Life within the Residence Life judicial system.
  3. 3 witness statements discussed in Complainant's 2/13/2003 William Paterson University disciplinary hearing

    1. Guard statement
    2. Resident Director
    3. Area Coordinator
  4. “Record Request” document from Complainant's disciplinary file
  5. Restriction list as of 1/23/03

Request Made: 7/25/03, 7/27/03
Response Made: 8/7/03
Custodian:   Marc Schaeffer
GRC Complaint filed: 8/24/03

Background

Complainant’s Case Position

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on 8/24/03 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et. seq. alleging Denial of Access to the following:

  1. Correspondence between Joseph Caffarelli, the Director of the University’s Office of Residence Life and the Deputy Attorney General Cheryl Clarke in regard to his allegations of unauthorized use of his educational record. The Complainant contends that the information provided was verbally relayed to him and therefore attorney-client privilege no longer applies.
  2. The William Paterson University Police Department’s policy on the use of its Public Information Report. The Complainant contends that the Custodian’s response to this request was ambiguous and he could not determine if the record was not being released or if it “simply did not exist.”
  3. Three witness statements in regard to the Complainant’s activities on the evening of 1/22/03 through the morning of 1/23/03. This request is not subject to Case 2003-109 and is addressed in Case 2003-113.
  4. “Record Request” document from Complainant’s disciplinary file. This request is not subject to Case 2003-109 and is addressed in Case 2003-113.
  5. Restriction list as of 1/23/03. This request is not subject to Case 2003-109 and is addressed in Case 2003-113.
  6. Supplemental information submitted on October 29, 2004 asserts a denial of access to the following items, which were not included in the original Denial of Access Complaint. In reference to these records The Complainant states the Custodian “referred the (Complainant) to the specific publications that contain the policies he is requesting.”
    1. Request for any and all policies relative to the use and purpose of Residence Life Communication Reports as used by the Department of Residence Life within the residence life judicial system.
    2. Request for any and all policies pertaining to the appeal process utilized by the University relative to disciplinary hearings conducted by the Department of Residence Life.
    3. Request for any and all policies pertaining to residence life probation, disciplinary probation, housing probation, or probation as utilized by the Department of Residence Life.
    4. Request for a copy of the policy and procedures manual used by the Department of Residence Life as it pertains to students residing on campus and the handling of violations of residence life policies.

Public Agency’s Case Position

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian asserts the following:

  1. “If any correspondence exists between Mr. Caffarelli and Deputy attorney General Clarke relative to the use of your educational records by the Department of Residence Life, that material would fall within the exemption for attorney-client privilege. Therefore, there are no records responsive to your request.” In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian’s counsel Deputy Attorney General Cheryl Clarke asserts in the Statement of Information that there is no correspondence between J. Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life and herself regarding the allegations by the Complainant and therefore, the Complainant “has not been denied access to a government record.”
  2. There is no policy on the use of a William Paterson University Police Department Public Information Report and thus no record responsive to this request.
  3. Requests 3, 4 and 5 under “Relevant Records Requested” were made at a later date and are not subject to GRC Case 2003-109. These issues are addressed in GRC Case 2003-113.

Deputy Attorney General Clarke states that the Custodian informed the Complainant in writing on August 7, 2003 that the records in question do not exist.

Analysis

The Complainant in this case is seeking records that the Custodian asserts do not exist. Whether or not the records requested are made, maintained and kept on file is at issue.

  1. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 states,

    The public agency shall have the burden of proving that the Denial of Access is authorized by law.

    The Custodian’s counsel maintains that there is no denial of access to the records requested; correspondence in regard to the use of the Complainant’s educational record and the University policy requested do not exist. The Custodian’s written response to the Complainant, dated September 3, 2003 states that “if such correspondence exists between Mr. Caffarelli and me related to allegations of violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), that material would fall within the exemption for attorney-client privilege.” The Statement of Information submitted on October 20, 2004 adds, “there is, in fact, no such correspondence.” The written response to the Complainant’s request for correspondence was vague and there is no evidence that the Complainant was informed that the records he is requesting do not exist. The Custodian should certify in a definitive statement whether or not the requested records exist; if they do exist, provide a general nature description for each record with the reason for the exemption.  

  2. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 states,

    "Government record" or "record" means any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business by any officer, commission, agency or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof, or that has been received in the course of his or its official business by any such officer, commission, agency, or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof. The terms shall not include inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material.

    The Custodian’s Counsel Deputy Attorney General Clarke states that there are no documents “responsive to the request(s)” for items 1 and 2. The records requested are not “made, maintained or kept on file,” therefore there is no denial of access.  Since the Custodian did not complete the Statement of Information, he should submit a certification stating this fact.

    The Council should find that items 3, 4 and 5 above should be dismissed for the purpose of this complaint. They are not subject of GRC Case 2003-109 and are addressed in GRC Case 2003-113.

  3. The issues presented in the October 29, 2004 Supplement to the Denial of Access Complaint are not part of the original complaint filed on September 4, 2003. However, the Custodian addresses these requests in the August 7, 2003 response to the Complainant’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, offering duplication of the requested documents and their corresponding statutory copying fees outlined in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b).

    N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b) states,

    A copy or copies of a government record may be purchased by any person upon payment of the fee prescribed by law or regulation, or if a fee is not prescribed by law or regulation, upon payment of the actual cost of duplicating the record.

    Except as otherwise provided by law or regulation, the fee assessed for the duplication of a government record embodied in the form of printed matter shall not exceed the following:

    • first page to tenth page, $0.75 per page;
    • eleventh page to twentieth page, $0.50 per page;
    • all pages over twenty, $0.25 per page.

There is no evidence that the Complainant attempted to obtain the records that were made available to him by the Custodian.

Documents Reviewed

The following records were reviewed in preparation for this “Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director.

  1. August 24, 2003 – Denial of Access Complaint and Detail Summary
    1. March 27, 2003 – Letter to Complainant from Arnold Speert, President
    2. April 21, 2003 – Letter to Mr. Joseph Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life 
    3. April 30, 2003 – Letter to Complainant from Joe Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life
    4. May 7, 2003 – Letter to Mr. Arnold Speert, President
    5. May 7, 2003 – Letter to Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: C.W. – Appeal Hearing
    6. May 9, 2003 – Letter from Complainant to Joe Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life
    7. May 16, 2003 – Letter to Complainant from Joe Caffarelli, Director of Residence Life
    8. May 21, 2003 - Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: C.W. – Appeal Hearing
    9. May 29, 2003 – Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: C.W. – Appeal Hearing
    10. June 7, 2003 – Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: FERPA Complaint/Disciplinary Hearing Testimony
    11. June 11, 2003 – Letter to Dr. John Montone, Dean Office of Student Development, Re: Appeal Hearing – June 18, 2003
    12. June 17, 2003 – Letter to Roland Watts, Associate Dean of Student Development
    13. July 25, 2003 – Complainant’s OPRA request
    14. July 27, 2003 – Emailed addendum to records request
    15. July 29, 2003 – “OPRA Tape Recording” email to Custodian
    16. July 29, 2003 - Custodian’s response to “OPRA Tape Recording” email
    17. August 7, 2003 – Custodian’s written response
    18. August 7, 2003 – Email to Custodian Re: OPRA request of 7/28&7/29
    19. August 14, 2003 – Email to Custodian Re: OPRA Request
    20. August 15, 2003- Response by Custodian to email Re: OPRA Request
  2. 9/3/03 – Fax of complaint to Deputy Attorney General James Martin
  3. 9/3/03 – Fax of complaint to Custodian
  4. January 14,2004 – Offer of Mediation to Custodian
  5. January 14,2004 – Offer of Mediation to Complainant
  6. January 16, 2004 – Complainant’s email to GRC “Re: Complaint #2003-109 2003-113”
  7. January 22, 2004 – Complainant’s Agreement to Mediate
  8. January 22, 2004 – Custodian’s Agreement to Mediate
  9. February 10, 2004 – Interim decision of GRC to forgo adjudication pending mediation
  10. February 10, 2004 – Findings and Recommendations
  11. September 14, 2004 – Request for Statement of Information 
  12. October 20, 2004 – Deputy Attorney General Clarke’s Statement of Information 
    1. July, 25 2003 – OPRA records request form
    2. July 29, 2003 – Complaint’s email to Dr. Marc Schaeffer “Re: OPRA Request”
    3. August 7, 2003 – Custodian’s response
    4. August 21, 2003 – Records request form
    5. September 3, 2003 – Custodian’s response
  13. October 29, 2004 – Complainant’s Supplement to Denial of Access Complaint

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council:

  1. Order the Custodian submit a certification providing;
    1. A definitive statement as to whether or not the requested correspondence exists pertaining to the Complainant's 7/25/2004 OPRA request.
    2. If, in fact, there is such correspondence then the documents are to be listed with a general nature description and a reason given for the disclosure exemption of each document.
    3. A statement regarding the existence of the William Paterson University Police Department policy on the use and purpose of their Public Information Report.
  2. The staff has reviewed the Supplement to the Denial of Access and has determined that, based on the Custodian’s August 7, 2003 response to the OPRA request, access to the requested records has not been denied. There is no further action required by the Council.

Prepared By: Colleen C. McGann, Case Manager

Approved By:
Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Final Decision

C.W.,
Complainant
v.

William Patterson University,
Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2003-109
Decision Issued: February 18, 2004
Decision Effective: February 28, 2004

At its February 10, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the February 10, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted to adopt the entirety of said Findings and Recommendations. The Council voted to forego any further adjudicatory action pending the outcome of mediation given that the requestor and the custodian voluntarily signed Agreements to Mediate on January 22, 2004.

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.


Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations

C.W.                                               GRC Complaint Number 2003-109
Complainant
v.   
William Patterson University
Custodian of Records

Relevant Records Requested: Tape recording of May 8, 2003 residence disciplinary hearing.
Custodian: Marc Schaeffer
GRC Complaint filed:   August 24, 2003

Acting Executive Director’s Findings and Recommendation

The requestor and the custodian voluntarily signed Agreements to Mediate on January 22, 2004. Based on same, the Acting Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council and GRC staff forego any adjudicatory action pending the outcome of mediation.

Legal Analysis

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(b), there is no further legal analysis at this time.

Paul F. Dice, Acting Executive Director
Government Records Council
February 10, 2004

Return to Top