2004-198

Final Decision

At its April 11, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the April 4, 2006 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, therefore, finds that the Complainant has not submitted any correspondence to the Council regarding his failure to appear for his proceeding at the Office of Administrative Law. Therefore, the case is closed without further action. 

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.  Proper service of submissions pursuant to any appeal is to be made to the Council in care of the Executive Director at the State of New Jersey Government Records Council, 101 South Broad Street, PO Box 819, Trenton, NJ 08625-0819. 

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 11^th Day of April, 2006

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

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

Robin Berg Tabakin, Secretary
Government Records Council 

Decision Distribution Date:  April 21, 2006

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Records Relevant to Complaint:

1. Any and all recorded telephone and 911 calls from October 7, 2004. 1600 hours to 2359 hrs.
2. Any and all recorded telephone and 911 calls from October 8, 2004. 1200 hours to 2359 hours.
3. Any and all recorded radio transmissions for October 7, 2004. 1600 hours to 2359 hours.
4. Any and all recorded radio transmissions for October 8, 2004. 1200 hours to 2359 hours.

Request Made: October 20, 2004
Response Made: October 27, 2004
Custodian:  Capt. John Demarest
GRC Complaint filed: November 23, 2004

Background

June 14, 2005

Government Records Council’s (“Council”) Interim Order.  At its June 9, 2005 public meeting, the Council considered the June 3, 2005 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, therefore, referred the case to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

1. Whether the $60,007.08 special service charge is reasonable and based upon the actual cost of providing redacted copies of the records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c)?
2. The basis for changing the original fee of  $216.75 to the special service charge of $60,007.08? Were any of the four records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint provided and included in the $216.75 fee?
3. Whether the radio transmissions and telephone records need to be completely transcribed in order to fulfill the request?
4. Whether there was a lawful explanation for appropriate redactions or non-disclosure of records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6?
5. Whether supplying the requested records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint is considered a substantial disruption of operations?

March 21, 2006

The Office of Administrative Law sent written correspondence to the GRC stating that the Complainant in this case failed to appear at the March 13, 2006 hearing. The Office of Administrative Law further stated that the Complainant had 13 days from receipt of the March 17, 2006 notice to contact the Office of Administrative Law and the Council with any excuse for his failure to appear.

Analysis

The Complainant failed to appear for his scheduled proceeding at the Office of Administrative Law. The notice from the Office of Administrative Law stated that the Complainant had 13 days to submit any excuse for his failure to appear to their office and the Council.

As of March 30, 2006 the Complainant has not submitted any correspondence regarding his failure to appear for his proceeding at the Office of Administrative Law to the Council to the Council. Therefore, the Council should close the case with no further action.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the Complainant has not submitted any correspondence regarding his failure to appear for his proceeding at the Office of Administrative Law to the Council. Therefore, the Council should close the case with no further action.

Prepared By:  Kimberly Gardner, Case Manager

Approved By:
Catherine Starghill
Executive Director
Government Records Council

April 4, 2006

Return to Top

Interim Decision on Access

At the June 9, 2005 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the June 3, 2005 Executive Director’s 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 referred the case to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

1. Whether the $60,007.08 special service charge is reasonable and based upon the actual cost of providing redacted copies of the records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c)?
2. The basis for changing the original fee of  $216.75 to the special service charge of $60,007.08? Were any of the four records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint provided and included in the $216.75 fee?
3. Whether the radio transmissions and telephone records need to be completely transcribed in order to fulfill the request?
4. Whether there was a lawful explanation for appropriate redactions or non-disclosure of records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6?
5. Whether supplying the requested records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint is considered a substantial disruption of operations?

Interim Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 9^th Day of June, 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:  June 14, 2005

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Records Requested:

1. Any and all recorded telephone and 911 calls from October 7, 2004. 1600 hours to 2359 hrs.
2. Any and all recorded telephone and 911 calls from October 8, 2004. 1200 hours to 2359 hours.
3. Any and all recorded radio transmissions for October 7, 2004. 1600 hours to 2359 hours.
4. Any and all recorded radio transmissions for October 8, 2004. 1200 hours to 2359 hours.

Request Made:   October 20, 2004
Response Made: October 27, 2004
Custodian:   Capt. John Demarest
GRC Complaint filed: November 23, 2004

Background

October 20, 2004
Written Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Request - Complainant seeks multiple police logs, operating procedures, memos, bulletins, radio transmissions, and recorded telephone calls.

October 27, 2004
Custodian responded to the request via e-mail stating that the cost of the records would be approximately $200.00 and requesting a $100.00 deposit.

October 28, 2004
The Complainant sent an e-mail advising that a money order was being sent for $220.00 and requesting additional records.

November 23, 2004
The Complainant submitted the Denial of Access Complaint in which he states that while he did receive records, “…the audiocassette I received only contained a few recorded telephone calls.  I did not receive any radio transmission. Neither Captain Demarest nor John Mitch advised that these records did not exist or that they were not public, they simply ignored the request…” He also stated that the charges were excessive.

February 10, 2005
Custodian’s Statement of  Information stated that only the portion of calls regarding the “incident in question” were supplied to the Complainant. The Custodian also stated that the Complainant was not provided with any and all recordings because of provisions within OPRA.[1]

March 1, 2005
Letter sent to the Custodian from GRC staff requesting certification of additional information and explanation of the Statement of Information. Specific questions were:

• Please explain why the charges associated with the cost of fulfilling this request, is $216.75?
• Please identify all documents, recordings, and transmissions related to this complaint and identify (pursuant to the law) why they may not be disclosed in whole or part?
• Please explain why your original response to the request does not imply or state that the records request is an excessive burden that would substantially disrupt operations?
• Please state when you informed the requestor of the substantial disruption of business operations information, since your original response told him the cost and deposit needed to obtain the records?
• Please identify the number of calls and transmission that occurred in the time frame referenced in the request that are applicable to the complaint?
• Please identify what database system, or record of information is being relied upon to obtain the number of calls and transmissions.

March 3, 2005
Letter response to the March 1, 2005 letter from the Records Custodian that stated:

• Woodbridge Township Ordinance authorizes fees charged.
• Privacy issues must be addressed and redacted before documents may be released.
• Captain Demarest was not aware of whether he notified Mr. Slate of excessive burdens that would disrupt operations.
• The system utilized for telephone and radio transmissions is the Dictaphone Freedom System and will not break down a specific time period for certain calls, for 24 hours there are approximately 6000 calls.

March 24, 2005
Certification and detailed response from the March 1, 2005, request for information from the GRC staff. This certification stated that the cost of providing the records at issue in the complaint would be $60,007.08.

April 25, 2005
Letter sent to the Custodian requesting additional certification and explanation for the special service charge. Specifically asked, were the questions adopted by the Government Records Council in Case #2004-55 (Fisher v. Dept. of Law & Public Safety) with regard to Special Service Charges.

April 26, 2005
Certification response to the April 25, 2005 letter.[2]

May 4, 2005
Certified response from the Custodian which detailed special service charges and explanations as adopted by the Government Records Council in Case # 2004-55. (Fisher v. DLPS/DOL)

Analysis

Whether the Records Custodian violated OPRA by not providing the government records responsive to the request?

OPRA provides that all,

“government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this state, with certain exceptions…” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.

There are a number of issues in this case that are unclear and in dispute and require more in depth proceedings before a determination can be rendered in this case.  Therefore, it is recommended that the Council refer the case to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

1. Whether the $60,007.08 special service charge is reasonable and based upon the actual cost of providing redacted copies of the records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c)?
2. The basis for changing the original fee of  $216.75 to the special service charge of $60,007.08? Were any of the four records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint provided and included in the $216.75 fee?
3. Whether the radio transmissions and telephone records need to be completely transcribed in order to fulfill the request?
4. Whether there was a lawful explanation for appropriate redactions or non-disclosure of records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6?
5. Whether supplying the requested records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint is considered a substantial disruption of operations?

Conclusions and Recommendations
The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council refer the case to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

1. Whether the $60,007.08 special service charge is reasonable and based upon the actual cost of providing redacted copies of the records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c)?
2. The basis for changing the original fee of  $216.75 to the special service charge of $60,007.08? Were any of the four records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint provided and included in the $216.75 fee?
3. Whether the radio transmissions and telephone records need to be completely transcribed in order to fulfill the request?
4. Whether there was a lawful explanation for appropriate redactions or non-disclosure of records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6?
5. Whether supplying the requested records at issue in the Denial of Access Complaint is considered a substantial disruption of operations?

Prepared By:  Kimberly Gardner, Case Manager

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

June 3, 2005

Return to Top