2004-51

Final Decision

At its September 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the September 3, 2004 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, dismissed the case on the basis of:

1. The Custodian did not violate the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) by seeking clarifications of the items at issue in the April 1, 2004 request pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 (g).
2. The Custodian was proper in denying access to said records and met the burden of proving that clarification was needed in order to fulfill the overbroad OPRA request. 
3. The Complainant did not refine or resubmit the items at issue to the Custodian concerning the April 1, 2004 request; therefore, no further action is needed.

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 9^th Day of September, 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

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Relevant Records Requested:

1. All bills pertaining to the running of the bus garage and transportation office.
2. All documents pertaining to the maintenance of each individual bus.
3. All documents pertaining to the State inspection of each bus.

Request Made:  April 1, 2004
Response Made: April 2, 2004
Custodian:   Joseph Passiment, Business Administrator
GRC Complaint Filed:   April 26, 2004

Background

Complainant’s Case Position

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council (“Council”) on April 26, 2004 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et. seq. alleging that the Custodian did not disclose all bills pertaining to the running of the bus garage and transportation office, all documents pertaining to the maintenance of each individual bus and documents pertaining to the State inspection of each bus as requested on April 1, 2004.   

The Complainant states that an Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) request was sent to the Manalapan-Englishtown Regional School District seeking records pertaining to the all bills for running the bus garage and transportation office, all records pertaining to the maintenance of each bus and all records pertaining to the State inspection of each bus. 

The Complainant only disputes three out of the six items requested and contends that the Custodian violated OPRA by denying the requests on the basis that the requests are too broad in scope.[1] 

The Complainant also alleges that the Custodian, in asking her to refine her OPRA request, offered no assistance.  On June 9, 2004, the Complainant did submit additional information reiterating her position as stated in the Denial of Access Complaint.

Public Agency’s Case Position

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian contends that a response to the April 1, 2004 OPRA request was made on April 2, 2004.  The Custodian asserts that two documents were released to the Complainant pertaining to the certificate of occupancy for the bus repair facility and the construction costs of the bus garage.  On April 2, 2004, the Custodian denied the other four requests asking for clarification and resubmission of the requests.1  The Custodian explains in his April 2, 2004 response that the OPRA request would need to be more specific by including a bus number or ranges of dates in order to be fulfilled.  The Custodian certifies that the Complainant never clarified her April 1, 2004 OPRA request. 

The Custodian, in the Statement of Information dated May 17, 2004, asserts that the Government Records Council was contacted in dealing with the Complainant’s requests.  The Custodian contends, “[t]he situation was explained to Erin Mallon of the GRC.  Ms. Mallon instructed the District as to how to respond to the very open ended requests being made by [the Complainant].  Ms. Mallon also consulted Mr. Paul Dice on several issues pertaining to employee payroll records.” 

Analysis

The following corresponds directly with the “Conclusion and Recommendations of the Executive Director” listed below.

1. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5 (g) provides that “[i]f a Custodian is unable to comply with a request for access, the Custodian shall indicate the specific basis therefore on the request form and promptly return it to the requestor.”  The Custodian responded to the Complainant’s April 1, 2004 OPRA request on April 2, 2004.  The Custodian sought clarification for records pertaining to the all bills for running the bus garage and transportation office, all records pertaining to the maintenance of each bus and all records pertaining to the State inspection of each bus because the volume of information was too broad in scope.  Under the circumstances, the Custodian reasonably sought clarification from the Complainant for a range of dates or bus numbers in order to fulfill the OPRA request.  The Custodian also sought clarification for records pertaining to payroll information; however, the payroll information is not at issue in this complaint. The Custodian, nonetheless, certifies that he never received a clarified OPRA request for the three (3) items in question from the Complainant.  The Custodian is proper in requiring clarification when a request is too broad in scope and a reasonable basis exists to seek said clarification.  The Custodian, therefore, is not responsible for fulfilling the     April 1, 2004 OPRA request because it is too broad in scope and the Complainant has failed to clarify the request.
2. 2.OPRA provides that a Custodian “…shall have the burden of proving that a denial of access is authorized by law.”  N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.  The Custodian stated in his April 2, 2004 response to the Complainant’s OPRA request that in order to fulfill the request it needed clarification.  The Custodian additionally conveyed that a range of dates or bus numbers would suffice in helping to clarify the April 1, 2004 OPRA request.  In stating specific reasons for the denial of access and offering alternatives that would clarify the request, the Custodian has met the burden of proving that the denial of access was proper under OPRA.
3. 3.On July 7, 2004, Council’s staff sent a letter to the Complainant suggesting the request be refined and resubmitted, as requested by the Custodian, however, to date, no request was resubmitted pertaining to 2004-51.[2]  The Custodian is not responsible for the April 1, 2004 OPRA request because it is too broad in scope and the Complainant has failed to clarify the request.

In reference to the Custodian’s Statement of Information, The GRC staff did not provide legal advice to the Custodian, simply pointed the Custodian to the sections in OPRA that might be relevant in regard to the request and the advised the Custodian to seek legal counsel to assist in the matter.

Documents Reviewed

The following records were reviewed in preparation for this “Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director”

1. April 1, 2004 – Complainant’s OPRA request
2. April 2, 2004 – Custodian’s response to OPRA request dated April 1, 2004 releasing two records and requesting clarification on other items
3. April 26, 2004 – Denial of Access Complaint form
4. April 28, 2004 – Offer of Mediation to Complainant and Custodian
5. May 10, 2004 – Request for Statement of Information
6. May 17, 2004 – Statement of Information with attachments of OPRA request and Custodian’s response
7. June 1, 2004 – Government Records Council staff letter to Custodian regarding various inquiries made to the Council’s staff
8. June 9, 2004 – Complainant’s letter to the Council reiterating her position from the Denial of Access Complaints.
9. July 7, 2004 – Council’s staff’s letter to Complainant seeking refined OPRA request to be sent to the Custodian.

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council find that:

1. The Custodian did not violate the Open Public Records Act by seeking clarifications of the items at issue in the April 1, 2004 request.
2. The Custodian was proper in denying access to said records because he has met the burden of proving that clarification is needed in order to fulfill the OPRA requests. 
3. The Complainant did not refine or resubmit the items at issue to the Custodian concerning the April 1, 2004 request; therefore, no further action is needed.
4. The Council should dismiss this complaint on the basis of #1, #2 and #3 directly above. 

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

September 3, 2004

Return to Top