NJ Seal
State of NJ - Government Records Council Email Grc

2003-100

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

Final Decision

Tina Renna,
Complainant
v.
County of Union,
Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2003-100
Decision Issued: February 27 2004
Decision Effective: March 8, 2004

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 the county did release the documents with proper approval from the counsel of Xerox, and the custodian properly denied access at the time of the request because:

  1. The information was considered proprietary based on representation made by Xerox Corporation.
  2. The information would have given an unfair advantage to the competition based on representation made by Xerox Corporation.

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 Acting Executive Director

Tina M. Renna                                                GRC Complaint No.  2003-100
Complainant 
v.
County Of Union
Custodian of Records

Relevant Records Requested: Proposal of Xerox to County of Union to run print shop.
Custodian: Anthony M. Orlando
Request Made: June 4, 2003
Response Made:   June 11, 2003
GRC Complaint filed: July 28, 2003

Recommendations of Acting Executive Director

This complainant had requested a copy of the proposal of Xerox to County of Union to run print shop.

At the time of the request, the custodian was told that the information was proprietary information and that, if released, it would have given an unfair advantage to the competition of Xerox.

After receiving approval through the counsel of Xerox, the records were released to the complainant.

The Acting Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the Council dismiss the complaint for the following reason:

The custodian properly denied access at the time of the request because:

  1. The information was considered proprietary based on representation made by Xerox Corporation.
  2. The information would have given an unfair advantage to the competition based on representation made by Xerox Corporation.

The county did release the documents with proper approval from the counsel of Xerox.

Legal Analysis

No legal analysis is necessary.

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

  • June 4, 2003 - Records Request
  • June 11, 2003 - Denial of Records
  • July 30, 2003 - Denial of Access Complaint Filed
  • August 26, 2003 - Offer of mediation to both parties
  • September 2, 2003 - E-mail correspondence - Ms. Renna agrees to mediation
  • September 3, 2003 - County of Union agrees to mediation
  • October 8, 2003   - E-mail correspondence - Xerox authorizes release of proposal
  • October 23, 2003 - E-mail correspondence - Referred back to GRC from mediation
  • October 31, 2003 - Record Custodian’s Statement of Information, which included certified statement of records custodian and release of proposal to the complainant.

Conclusion

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the complaint because:

The custodian properly denied access at the time of the request because:

  1. The information was considered proprietary based on representation made by Xerox Corporation.
  2. The information would have given an unfair advantage to the competition based on representation made by Xerox Corporation.

The county did release the documents with proper approval from the counsel of Xerox.

________________________

Paul F. Dice
Acting Executive Director
Government Records Council

Return to Top