2003-153

Final Decision

At its June 10, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the June 2, 2004 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 with modifications. The Executive Director’s recommendation was modified to read: “In the absence of substantiating information to the contrary, the Council dismiss the case based on the fact that the Custodian has complied with all aspects of the Interim Decision reached by the GRC.”

The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis that in the absence of substantiating information to the contrary the Custodian has complied with all aspects of the May 26, 2004 Council’s Interim Decision.

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 10th Day of June, 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

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Relevant Records Requested:

1. All communications, including documents, memos and E-mails, concerning Mr. Michael Galdieri.
2. Copies of the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as office personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03.
3. Copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days.
4. Administrator James Murphy’s records as they relate to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03.
5. Copies of all correspondence, maintenance reports, service reports and memos sent or received with reference to Jersey City Incinerator Authority employee hand scanner/time clocks not working and/or not working properly.

Request Made: September 8, 2003
Response Made:  September 16, 2003
Custodian: Oren K. Dabney, Sr.
GRC Complaint Filed: December 3, 2003

Executive Director’s Supplemental Findings and Recommendations

At the May 13, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the May 7, 2004 Executive Director’s Supplemental Findings and Recommendations and all related documents submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. Therefore, the Council hereby ordered that:

1. Item number 1 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – The Custodian is to provide a certification listing all documents in its possession at the time of the Complainant’s September 9, 2003 Open Public Records Act request and which is/are responsive to same. Said response shall not be limited to just personnel records. 
2. Item number 2 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – This portion of the complaint is dismissed based on the fact that James Murphy, (Assistant Executive Director/Administration) certified that these records did not exist at the time of the request. Therefore, the Council need not address the security defense raised by the Custodian.
3. Item number 3 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – The Custodian is to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.
4. Item number 4 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – The Custodian is to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.
5. Item number 5 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – This portion of the complaint is dismissed based on the Custodian’s certification that these records never existed.

The Custodian is to provide responses to the Executive Director, Paul Dice, as ordered in “1,” “3” and “4” above within five (5) business days from receipt of the Interim Decision.

The Government Records Council received the Custodian’s response to the Interim Order on May 26, 2004. In regards to Item #1 the Custodian has provided a list and certification for all documents in its possession at the time of the Complainant’s September 9, 2003 request. For Item’s 3 and 4 the Custodian provided an estimate of copy costs, as well as the number of pages for the documents requested.

The Complainant sent a June 1, 2004 e-mail to the GRC stating that he believes Mr. Murphy is not being honest in regards to the information he certified he didn’t have.

The custodian sent a June 4, 2004 fax to the GRC stating that the complainant has picked up the documents requested in connection with the above GRC complaint number. The required cost for same and the outstanding balance has been satisfied.

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the case based on the fact that the Custodian has complied with all aspects of the Interim Decision reached by the GRC.

Analysis

No analysis needed at this time

Documents Reviewed

• May 13, 2004 – Interim Order of the GRC
• May 26, 2004 – Custodian’s response to the May 13, 2004 Interim Order of the GRC
• June 1, 2004 – E-mail from the Complainant to the GRC
• June 4, 2004 – Fax from the Custodian to the GRC

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

Return to Top

Interim Decision on Access

At the May 13, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the May 7, 2004 Executive Director’s Supplemental Findings and Recommendations and all related documents submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. Therefore, the Council hereby orders that:

1. Item number 1 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – The Custodian is to provide a certification listing all documents in its possession at the time of the Complainant’s September 9, 2003 Open Public Records Act request and which is/are responsive to same. Said response shall not be limited to just personnel records.
2. Item number 2 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – This portion of the complaint is dismissed based on the fact that James Murphy, (Assistant Executive Director/Administration) certified that these records did not exist at the time of the request. Therefore, the Council need not address the security defense raised by the Custodian.
3. Item number 3 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – The Custodian is to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.
4. Item number 4 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – The Custodian is to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.
5. Item number 5 of “Relevant Records Requested” in the Supplemental Findings and Recommendations – This portion of the complaint is dismissed based on the Custodian’s certification that these records never existed.

The Custodian is to provide responses to the Executive Director, Paul Dice, as ordered in “1,” “3” and “4” above within five (5) business days from receipt of the Interim Decision.

Interim Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 13th Day of May, 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 

Decision Distribution Date:  May 19, 2004

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Relevant Records Requested:

1. All communications, including documents, memos and E-mails, concerning Mr. Michael Galdieri.
2. Copies of the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as office personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03.
3. Copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days.
4. Administrator James Murphy’s records as they relate to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03.
5. Copies of all correspondence, maintenance reports, service reports and memos sent or received with reference to Jersey City Incinerator Authority employee hand scanner/time clocks not working and/or not working properly.

Request Made: September 8, 2003
Response Made:  September 16, 2003
Custodian: Oren K. Dabney, Sr.
GRC Complaint Filed: December 3, 2003

Executive Director’s Findings and Recommendations

At its March 11, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the March 11, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of Executive Director set forth below and all related documentation submitted by the parties.

1. Order the Custodian to certify whether the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03 did or did not exist as of the date of the request. 
2. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the electronic time scan reports might be exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security or computer program security and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records do not exist because they are destroyed after six months.
3. Order the Requester to revise his request for copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days within five business days to be more specific regarding date, author and subject (employee) of the records.
4. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the copies of the daily log book as it related to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information contained within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the request is too vague for the Custodian to comply with the request.
5. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in it September 16, 2003 response that the records relating to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03 were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records will be made available upon the Requester’s payment of the statutorily mandated fee for reproduction of the records.
6. Order the Custodian to certify whether records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock did or did not exist as of the date of the request.
7. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statement in the September 16, 2003 response that the records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock were exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security and its statement in the Statement of Information that no such records existed as of the date of the request.

The Council voted to adopt the entirety of the Executive Director’s March 11, 2004 Findings and Recommendations and ordered the custodian to reply to Executive Director, Paul Dice, regarding Items “1,” “2,” “4,” “5,” “6” and “7” above within ten  (10) business days of receipt of the Councils Interim Decision.  The Council further ordered the requestor to reply to Executive Director, Paul Dice, regarding Item “3” above within ten (10) business days of this Interim Decision. The Complainant and Custodian both responded as ordered.

Having reviewed all of the submissions from the parties, the Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council proceed as follows:

1. Item number 1 of “Relevent Records Requested” above – The Council should order the Custodian to provide a certification listing all documents in its possession at the time of the Complainant’s September 9, 2003 Open Public Records Act request and which is/are responsive to same. Said response shall not be limited to just personnel records.
2. Item number 2 of “Relevent Records Requested” above – The Council should dismiss this part of the complaint based on the fact that James Murphy, (Assistant Executive Director/Administration) certified that these records did not exist at the time of the request. Therefore, the Council need not address the security defense raised by the Custodian.
3. Item number 3 of “Relevant Records Requested” above – The Council should order the Custodian to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.
4. Item number 4 of “Relevant Records Requested” above – The Council should order the Custodian to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.
5. Item number 5 of “Relevant Records Requested” above – The Council should dismiss this portion of the complaint based on the Custodian’s certification that these records never existed.

Analysis

Item #1, September 8, 2003 OPRA Request

• September 16, 2003 Response from Custodian – The Custodian asserts that item #1 relates to personnel information “which is potentially excepted from disclosure.” Further, the Custodian advised the Complainant that unless the Complainant asserted that one of the exemptions in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 applied to him, that the documents would not be disclosed on the basis of the employees’ reasonable expectation of privacy.
• March 2, 2004 Custodian’s Statement of Information – The Custodian states that the Complainant’s personnel file was provided to him on December 19, 2003.

The Custodian erred by limiting its response to personnel matters contained in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10.  That personnel records are the sole documents sought in item #1 of the Complainant’s September 9, 2003 request is an assumption on the part of Custodian. The file does not indicate that Complainant limited his request to only personnel documents. The Custodian should provide a certification listing all documents in its possession at the time of the Complainant’s September 9, 2003 Open Public Records Act request and which is/are responsive to same. Said certification should not be limited to just personnel records

Item # 2, September 8, 2003 OPRA Request

• September 16, 2003 Response from Custodian – The Custodian asserts that the Jersey City Incinerator Authority (“JCIA”) are currently in the process of determining whether the OPRA exemptions in connection with both security and computer programs are applicable to this request.
• March 2, 2004 Custodian’s Statement of Information – The Custodian states that the time scan reports for the dates requested are kept by James Murphy for a six-month period and then destroyed. Accordingly, the JCIA does not have reports for the times requested.
• March 29, 2004 – Custodian’s Response to the Council’s March 11, 2004 Interim Order – The Custodian asserts that after having reviewed the “Handbook for Records Custodians” a government record is not “an Administrative or technical information regarding computer hardware, software, and networks that, if disclosed, would jeopardize computer securitym [sic], and therefore is an exception to disclosure.” It is also stated that a government record does not consist of Security measures and surveillance techniques that, if disclosed, would create a risk to the safety of persons, property, electronic data, or software.” The JCIA is of the opinion that these exceptions to the definition of a “government record” apply to not only the “hand scanner” but the administrative data that is generated from the electronic time scan report.”
• Complainant’s response to the Council’s March 11, 2004 Interim Order – “Mr. Chairman [Maltese], there exists TWO sets of records with nearly the same information. Mr. Murphy’s and the computer generated records. The reason there exists two sets of records is simple. The hand/time scanners have not been serviced properly, and have not been functional on numerous occasions. The hand/time scanners do not unlock magnetic doors. There is no security value of the hand/time scanners what so ever. The purpose of the hand/time scanners is simply to track employee arrival time and departure time. Mr. Webster has been less than truthful.”

Based on the fact that James Murphy, (Assistant Executive       Director/Administration) certifies in the March 29, 2004 Interim Order that these records did not exist at the time of the request, the Council should dismiss this part of the Complaint. Therefore, the Council need not address the issue of security.

Item #3, September 8, 2003 OPRA Request

• September 16, 2003 Response from Custodian to Complainant– The Custodian asserts that this request seeks personal information regarding particular JCIA employees. “These employees have an expectation of privacy unless otherwise shown, defeats a request under OPRA.”

The JCIA directs attention to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10, the legislature’s mandate on the disclosure of pension and personnel files and states “[S]hould you fulfill one of the exemptions found in this section [N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10] you may be entitled to some of the information requested, and the JCIA will be glad to provide same.

• March 2, 2004 Custodian’s Statement of Information – The Custodian believes that Mr. Galdieri is referring to a red diary kept by James Murphy. It states that Mr. Murphy’s book is several hundred pages, front and back, and would take hours to reproduce. They state that if the request were less vague, it may be easier to comply with and would be provided to Mr. Galdieri once payment was received.

• April 14, 2004 The Complainant’s response to the Council’s March 11, 2004 Interim Order – Complainant clarifies that he seeks copies of James Murphy’s, “daily logbooks (kept in composition and journal notebooks) and/or time log book used by the dispatch office for the period 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03 and “arrival and departure times of any and all employees utilizing the hand scanner on those dates, myself included.”

Per the Complainant’s clarification of documents requested, the Council should order the Custodian to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.

Item #4, September 8, 2003 OPRA Request

• September 16, 2003 Response from Custodian – The Custodian asserts that this request seeks personal information regarding particular JCIA employees. “These employees have an expectation of privacy unless otherwise shown, defeats a request under OPRA.”
• March 2, 2004 Custodian’s Statement of Information – The Custodian states that this request will be produced once Mr. Galdieri pays the JCIA for the statutorily mandated fees.
• March 29, 2004 Custodian’s Response to the Council’s March 11, 2004 Interim Order – The Custodian states that this request will be produced once Mr. Galdieri pays the JCIA for the statutorily mandated fees.

Based on the Custodian’s agreement to grant access to the documents requested, the Council should order the Custodian to provide access to the requested information pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47: 1A-1 et seq. Such access shall be made following the custodian having provided the requestor with an estimate of copy costs, if applicable, and the requestor’s acceptance of same.

Item #5, September 8, 2003 OPRA Request

• September 16, 2003 Response from Custodian – The JCIA asserts that information regarding or relating to the “hand scanner” poses a security risk and is, therefore, not subject to disclosure.
• March 2, 2004 Custodian’s Statement of Information – The Custodian asserts that there is no documentation on file with respect to this portion of the request.
• March 29, 2004 – Custodian’s Response to the Council’s March 11, 2004 Interim Order – The Custodian asserts that these records never existed.

Based on the Custodian’s certification that these records never existed, this part of the complaint should be dismissed.

The record reflects that custodian’s counsel raised several additional defenses. However, to the extent that they were not dispositive of the issues raised by the complainant, they have not been discussed in this analysis.

Documents Reviewed

• September 8, 2003 – Complainant’s Records request
• September 16, 2003 – Custodian’s response to the request
• March 2, 2004 – Custodian’s Statement of Information
• March 11, 2004 – Interim Order of the GRC
• March 29, 2004 – Certification from the Custodian
• March 29, 2004 – Custodian’s response to the Interim Decision
• April 14, 2004 – Complainant’s e-mail response to the Interim Order of the GRC

________________________

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

April 7, 2004

Return to Top

Interim Order on Access

At its March 11, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the March 11, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of Executive Director set forth below and all related documentation submitted by the parties.

1. Order the Custodian to certify whether the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03 did or did not exist as of the date of the request. 
2. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the electronic time scan reports might be exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security or computer program security and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records do not exist because they are destroyed after six months.
3. Order the Requester to revise his request for copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days within five business days to be more specific regarding date, author and subject (employee) of the records.
4. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the copies of the daily log book as it related to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information contained within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the request is too vague for the Custodian to comply with the request.
5. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in it September 16, 2003 response that the records relating to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03 were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records will be made available upon the Requester’s payment of the statutorily mandated fee for reproduction of the records.
6. Order the Custodian to certify whether records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock did or did not exist as of the date of the request.
7. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statement in the September 16, 2003 response that the records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock were exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security and its statement in the Statement of Information that no such records existed as of the date of the request.

The Council voted to adopt the entirety of the Executive Director’s Findings and Recommendations and orders the custodian to reply to Executive Director, Paul Dice, regarding Items “1,” “2,” “4,” “5,” “6” and “7” above within ten business days of receipt of the Councils Interim Decision.  The Council further orders the requestor to reply to Executive Director, Paul Dice, regarding Item “3” above within ten business days of this Interim Decision.

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

Relevant Records Requested: 

1. All communications, including documents, memos and E-mails, concerning Mr. Michael Galdieri.
2. Copies of the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as office personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03.
3. Copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days.
4. Administrator James Murphy’s records as they relate to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03.
5. Copies of all correspondence, maintenance reports, service reports and memos sent or received with reference to Jersey City Incinerator Authority employee hand scanner/time clocks not working and/or not working properly.
6. Copy of the minutes from the Board of Commissioners’ meeting held October 22, 2003.

Request Made: September 8, 2003
Response Made:  September 16, 2003
Custodian: Oren K. Dabney, Sr.
GRC Complaint Filed: December 3, 2003

Recommendations of the Executive Director

This Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) Complaint filed December 3, 2003 alleges denial of an OPRA request to the Jersey City Incinerator Authority (“Authority”) seeking copies of various communications, log books, reports and other records relating to employees’ time reporting systems.

The Custodian asserts in the Statement of Information that the requested records, except all communications concerning Mr. Michael Galdieri which was provided to the Requester pursuant to a later request, either did not exist at the date of the request, were too vague for compliance with the request, or the Requester must pay the statutorily mandated fee for reproduction of the records.

The Acting Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council:

1. Order the Custodian to certify whether the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03 did or did not exist as of the date of the request. 
2. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the electronic time scan reports might be exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security or computer program security and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records do not exist because they are destroyed after six months.
3. Order the Requester to revise his request for copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days within five business days to be more specific regarding date, author and subject (employee) of the records.
4. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the copies of the daily log book as it related to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information contained within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the request is too vague for the Custodian to comply with the request.
5. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in it September 16, 2003 response that the records relating to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03 were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records will be made available upon the Requester’s payment of the statutorily mandated fee for reproduction of the records.
6. Order the Custodian to certify whether records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock did or did not exist as of the date of the request.
7. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statement in the September 16, 2003 response that the records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock were exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security and its statement in the Statement of Information that no such records existed as of the date of the request.

Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in preparing the Findings and Recommendations for this case:

• September 8, 2003 – Requester’s OPRA Request
• September 16, 2003 – Custodian’s Response to the OPRA Request
• November 22, 2003 – Denial of Access Complaint
• January 15, 2004 – Offer to Mediate sent to the Requester
• January 21, 2004 – Requester’s Refusal to Mediate
• March 2, 2004 – Custodian’s Statement of Information  (only documents pertinent to GRC case 2003-153 were used for review)

Conclusion

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council:

1. Order the Custodian to certify whether the daily electronic time scan reports for each environmental inspector/officer, as well as personnel, for 1/29/03 through 1/31/03 and 2/24/03 through 3/7/03 did or did not exist as of the date of the request.
2. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the electronic time scan reports might be exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security or computer program security and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records do not exist because they are destroyed after six months.
3. Order the Requester to revise his request for copies of the daily log book as it relates to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days within five business days to be more specific regarding date, author and subject (employee) of the records.
4. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in its September 16, 2003 response that the copies of the daily log book as it related to employee vacation, personal, sick and compensation days were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information contained within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the request is too vague for the Custodian to comply with the request.
5. Order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statements in it September 16, 2003 response that the records relating to employee vacation, sick and personal time for all non-union personnel for 1/28/03 through 4/11/03 were exempt from disclosure due to the personal nature of the records and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 which provides that personnel and pension records are not considered government records except for certain information within them (i.e. payroll records) and its statements in the Statement of Information that the records will be made available upon the Requester’s payment of the statutorily mandated fee for reproduction of the records.
6. Order the Custodian to certify whether records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock did or did not exist as of the date of the request.
7. Further order the Custodian to explain the inconsistency between its statement in the September 16, 2003 response that the records regarding the proper or improper function of the employee hand scanner and time clock were exempt from disclosure because they might jeopardize building security and its statement in the Statement of Information that no such records existed as of the date of the request.

________________________

Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

Return to Top