2003-28M

Final Decision

At its July 10, 2003 public meeting, the Government Records Council considered Complaint #2002-28 filed pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., against the Borough of Glassboro. The Complaint challenged the custodian's behavior towards the requestor in fulfilling a request for a copy of a petition on file with the clerk and the custodian's decision to compel the requestor to pay for a complete copy of the minutes of two Borough Council meetings when the requestor sought only specific pages. The custodian subsequently refunded the requestor the copy fees paid for all but the pages the requestor sought.

The Council considered the requester's Complaint, the custodian's Statement of Information, a communication from the requestor dated April 30, 2003 and the Executive Director's Findings and Recommendations dated July 10, 2003.

The Council having decided by affirmative vote of five Council members at its July 10, 2003 meeting voted to adopt and incorporate herein the Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director, and dismiss the Complaint.

A copy of this Order shall be served on the requester, the custodian and all legal counsel of record.

/s/ Vincent P. Maltese, Chair
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.
/s/ Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council

Dated: July 16, 2003

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendation of Executive Director

Executive Director's Recommendation

Relevant Record(s) Requested: Copy of petition presented to Borough Council at 11/26/02 meeting; Selected pages of Council meeting minutes of 11/26/02; selected pages of Council meeting of 12/10/02
Request made: December 2, 2002 and February 25, 2003.
Custodian: Mary Ann Ashenfelter, Clerk
Request denial: N/A

This complaint involves a dispute between the requester and the custodian on two matters: actions taken by the custodian in ultimately providing access to a petition, and a decision of the custodian, subsequently remedied, in providing a full document, instead of excerpts as the requester asked.

As the documents were provided on a timely basis, and a refund was provided for the additional documents, there does not appear to be a reason for the Council to fine or reprimand the custodian and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

Statements of Facts

The requestor filed a Denial of Access Complaint on March 13, 2003 citing denial of access on two occasions, December 2, 2002 and February 25, 2003. Throughout the proceeding, neither party provided the Council a copy of an OPRA request form. The custodian signed an agreement to mediate dated March 25, 2003 but on April 2, 2003, the requestor declined mediation. The custodian submitted her Statement of Information (SOI) on April 25, 2003.

Request #1
On December 2, 2002, the requestor made a request from the custodian for a copy of a petition concerning the requestor. The custodian asserted in the SOI that the requestor received the petition on December 2, 2002.

The requestor claimed in the complaint, that the initial petition the custodian gave her had the words "original and re-circulate" on the top of it and did not have the number of signatures on it which she understood it would have. The custodian advised her that the petition was the only one she had. The requestor claims that the custodian subsequently advised her that she had given her the wrong copy, then gave her the copy with more signatures on it and grabbed the first copy of the petition and ripped it up in front of her. The requestor claims that the custodian refused to give her another copy of the ripped up document and in response to her statement that she was going to file a complaint with the police department, told her to go ahead. The requestor claims that while she was waiting for the police sergeant to take her complaint, the custodian gave her a replacement copy of the ripped up document.

The custodian claims in the SOI that the requestor was given two pages of the relevant petition. The custodian asserts that when she realized that the petition was not given in its entirety, she substituted the incomplete page with the correct document and did not rip the page out of the requestor's hand or tear the page up in her face

Request #2
On February 25, 2003, the requestor made a request for the pages of minutes concerning the public portion of the Borough of Glassboro Council meeting for the dates of November 26, 2002 and December 12, 2002. The custodian asserts that the requestor received the meeting minutes on February 25, 2003.

The requestor claims that even though she only requested the pages concerning the public portion of two separate Borough Council meetings held on November 26, 2002 and December 10, 2002, she was made to pay for the entire minutes because the custodian did not want the minutes to be "taken out of context."

The custodian asserts that she charged the requestor for the full minutes on both dates because she felt the minutes should be purchased in their entirety. However, the custodian asserts and documents with copies of relevant documents, that on April 23, 2003, the requestor was refunded for the copies she did not request. The custodian also asserts that the Complaint should be dismissed for a lack of factual basis and because it is frivolous.

In the complaint, the requestor asks that the custodian be reprimanded and fined for her conduct with respect to both requests.

The requestor sent an April 30, 2003 communication to the GRC asserting that because of the Open Records Act, she has now been able to get information about her town and that the custodian is asserting her own rules and blocking the receipt of public information instead of following GRC guidelines.

Analysis and Conclusion

This Complaint does not involve an access issue under OPRA because the requestor has received all of the records she requested. Additionally, the requestor has been reimbursed for the cost of the copies that she did not request. The only issue remaining for GRC consideration is the alleged conduct of the custodian that the requestor claims should subject the custodian to reprimand or fine under OPRA.

Even if the custodian's manner was less than polite, a subject on which there are conflicting facts and on which the GRC does not make a decision, the requestor still received access to the petition she sought on the day she requested it. However, the Governing Body, as employer, may elect to review the requestor's allegations of inappropriate conduct with the custodian. To avoid errors in the future, the custodian should take care to inspect records before tendering copies to requestors.

Likewise, with respect to the minutes, even though the requestor was required to pay for more copies than she wanted, the requestor did receive access to the records she sought and a refund for those copies she did not. The custodian should note that there is no requirement in OPRA that documents such as minutes need be provided in their entirety.

Based on the foregoing, the Executive Director concludes that there is no basis to fine or reprimand the custodian; in that there was no denial of access, and that, therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed.

/s/ Marc H. Pfeiffer, Acting Executive Director
Government Records Council
Dated: July 10, 2003

Return to Top