2004-221

At its April 14, 2005 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the April 7, 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 dismissed the case on the basis of the Custodian’s certification that explained the specific records requested do not exist.

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 14^th Day of April, 2005
Diane Schonyers, Vice-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: April 20, 2005

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Michael Halpern GRC Complaint No. 2004-221
Complainant
v.
Borough of Collingswood
Custodian of Records

Request Made: October 1, 2004
Response Made: October 8, 2004
Custodian: Bradford Stokes/Alice Marks
GRC Complaint filed: December 17, 2004

October 1, 2004
Written Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Request - Complainant seeks Any and all solicited and unsolicited proposals to the Borough for the development/redevelopment of Peter Lumber lot. The Complainant stated that he is seeking records that were referred to in the public town meeting.

October 8, 2004
Custodian’s letter to the Complainant stating that the requested records do not exist.

October 22, 2004
Custodian’s response to revised request stating that the request was not for records.[2]

January 13, 2005
Statement of Information from the Custodian stating that, “no government records were provided because no such records exist.” Also, the mayor certified that, “The Borough has not engaged in any form, formal or otherwise, of competitive bidding, nor has the Borough, in connection with the Peter Lumber redevelopment project, requested, received or maintained any item which would be included within the definition of “government records” pursuant to the applicable statutes.

Whether the Records Custodian violated N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 by not providing the government record responsive to the request?

Government record" or "record" means any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business by any officer, commission, agency or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof, or that has been received in the course of his or its official business by any such officer, commission, agency, or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof. The terms shall not include inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material.

The Custodian did respond to the Complainant that the records requested do not exist. The Custodian has also certified to the same. The Mayor has also certified that, “any such reference by me, as well as any other Borough official verbally or in writing, was intended to reference basic writings, sketches, concepts and/or expressions of interest which have been conveyed to me and other Borough officials regarding the Peter Lumber redevelopment project… The Borough has not engaged in any form, formal or otherwise, or competitive bidding, nor has the Borough, in connection with the Peter Lumber redevelopment project, requested, received or maintained any item which would be included within the definition of “government record” pursuant to the applicable statutes.”

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss this case on the basis that the Custodian has certified that the specific records requested do not exist.

Approved By:
Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council
April 7, 2005

[1] Records request was revised, however the request is not dated.

[2] Date of revised records request is unkown.