2002-112

Final Decision

At its February 27, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council ("Council") considered the February 23, 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 dismissed the complaint finding that:

1. All requested documents were provided to the requestor
   
2. The redaction of the residents' names to protect the disclosure of financial information included in the requested documents was proper under Executive Order #26 and the provisions of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9.
   
3. An affidavit was provided from the Township certifying that true and accurate copies of the files were made, with the exception of the names of residents, and attorney/client communications, which the requestor does not appear to be seeking.

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

Relevant Records Requested: Review files of tax exemptions applications, initial statements, further statements, supporting documents, all correspondence and notes of residential real estate of Beth Medrash Govoha
Request Made: November 15, 2002
Response Made:   On or about November 18, 2002
Custodian: Bernadette Standowski, Township Clerk
GRC Complaint filed: December 12, 2002

Recommendations of Acting Executive Director

This complaint involves a request to review all the applications for tax exemption, the initial and further statements, supporting documents, and all correspondence and notes pertaining to residential real estate owned by Beth Medrash Govoha. The requested documents were in the possession of the Tax Assessor's office in the Township of Lakewood.  The request for documents was made on November 15, 2002 and the requestor was provided access to view 53 files that pertained to the request during the week of November 26, 2002.  Copies of the requested documents were provided to the requestor on January 31, 2003. 

At issue in the case is the redaction of resident’s names in the forms entitled "Standard Questions for Parsonages, Faculty, Student Housing, etc." and a claim that some of requested supporting documentation was missing. 

The custodian maintained that all requested documents were provided to the requestor and the only information not disclosed were residents' names, the number of children residing at the property and personal income information, citing in support of their position United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 3544, under ( c)(3)(A), (c )(2)(B) and  ( c)(3)(B); and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.   The custodian’s counsel provided an Affidavit to the requestor to affirm that the documents provided were true and complete and the only information not disclosed were the residents' names and letters to and from the Municipal Attorney and the Municipal Tax Attorney to the Assessor. 

The Acting Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the complaint be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. All requested documents were provided to the requestor
   
2. The redaction of the residents’ names to protect the disclosure of financial information included in the requested documents was proper under Executive Order #26 and the provisions of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9.
   
3. An affidavit was provided from the Township certifying that true and accurate copies of the files were made, with the exception of the names of residents, and attorney/client communications, which the requestor does not appear to be seeking.

Legal Analysis

The custodian's attorney has advised that the redacted documents at issue are completed forms entitled "Standard Questions for Parsonages, Faculty, Student Housing, etc."  The custodian's attorney submitted two completed forms, by way of example, to the GRC staff.  The custodian's attorney has advised that the Township has redacted the names of the persons residing at the property.  The requestor has advised GRC staff that, of the redactions made to the forms, he now only seeks these redacted names.  Redacting the names of the residents protects the disclosure of certain financial information included in the forms and so is appropriate.  In this regard, Executive Order #26 provides that information describing a natural person's finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness, except as otherwise required to be disclosed, are not government records.  Additionally, it is possible that disclosure of the identity of the residents would reveal certain information concerning the receipt of public housing assistance that would violate federal law. 

Lastly, the requestor claims that certain documents were not in the files he reviewed.  This is a factual issue that, at least initially, should be addressed by way of affidavit.  In this regard, there is an affidavit in the file from the Township certifying that true and accurate copies of the files were made, with the exception of the names of residents, which is discussed above, and attorney/client communications, which the requestor does not appear to be seeking.

Documents Reviewed

The following documents have been submitted to members of the Government Records Council concerning the case:

• November 15, 2002 - Records Request Filed With Custodian
• November 15, 2002 - Letter Form Township Tax Assessor To Township Attorney Asking For Legal Advise On Records Request
• November 18, 2002 - Letter From Township Tax Assessor To Township Attorney Requesting Legal Advise
• December 27, 2002 - Denial Of Access Complaint Filed
• April 17, 2003 -Letter To Mediator And Requestor From Custodian's Counsel In Response To Requestor's Claim Record Response Not Satisfied
• April 21, 2003 - Complaint Referred Back to GRC From Mediation
• June 18, 2003 - Custodian's Statement Of Information And Supporting Affidavit And Documents
• June 27, 2003 - Letter From Requestor To GRC Indicating Issues Concerning Request
• September 15, 2003 - GRC Request to Custodian for Additional Information
• September 25, 2003 - Response Letter From Custodian's Counsel To GRC Addressing Request For Additional Information
• February 6, 2004 -Request From GRC To Requestor To Identify Documents Not Received
• February 11, 2004 - Requestor's Response to GRC
• February 11, 2004 -  Custodian's Counsel Submitted Example of Document Containing Redactions
• February 18, 2004 - GRC Request to Custodian's Counsel for Response to Questions
• February 19, 2004 - Custodian Counsel's Response to GRC
• February 20, 2004 - Custodian  Counsel's Further Response to GRC

Conclusion

The Acting Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the complaint be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. All requested documents were provided to the requestor
   
2. The redaction of the residents’ names to protect the disclosure of financial information included in the requested documents was proper under Executive Order #26 and the provisions of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9.
   
3. An affidavit was provided from the Township certifying that true and accurate copies of the files were made, with the exception of the names of residents, and attorney/client communications, which the requestor does not appear to be seeking.

_________________________

Paul F. Dice
Acting Executive Director
Government Records Council

Dated:  February 23, 2004

Return to Top