2004-74

Final Decision

At its August 12, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the August 3, 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.  The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis of:

1. The Custodian was in compliance with the Open Public Records Act by providing a timely response on June 16, 2004 to the request that was received on June 9, 2004.
2. The Custodian did not receive payment for the actual duplication cost of the requested records, therefore, was not required under the Open Public Records Act to release said copies.

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, and 25 W. Market St., PO Box 006, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006.

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 12^th Day of August, 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

Records Requested: 

1. Updated itemized breakdown of my parole eligibility dates on a parole eligibility calculation sheet of my NJ State sentence of 20 years with 10 years mandatory indictment #94-10-1222, date of sentence October 30, 1995, jail credits 614 and my future eligibility term of 24 months received on October 27, 2003. 
   
2. Request that the breakdown of the 24 month future eligibility term and the work and minimum credits received on the 24 month future eligibility term to reduce the actual parole eligibility date up to the current date. 

Request Made: April 20, 2004[1]
Response Made: June 16, 2004
Custodian:   Carla Shabazz
GRC Complaint filed: June 8, 2004[2]  

Background

Complainant’s Case Position

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on June 8, 2004 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et. seq. alleging that the Custodian did not respond to his April 20, 2004 Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) request for the above mentioned records. 

The Complainant asserts that he requested records on April 20, 2004 pertaining to the update of his parole status and never received a response from the Custodian. 

Public Agency’s Case Position

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian asserts that her office responded to the OPRA request on June 16, 2004 by a letter to the Complainant advising him of the $1.50 copy costs for the requested records.  The Custodian states in the letter that upon receipt of payment, the records would be disclosed to the Complainant. 

In the July 13, 2004 certification, the Custodian states that her office did not receive the Complainant’s OPRA request, which was postmarked June 4, 2004, until June 9, 2004.    

The Custodian certifies on July 13, 2004 that the $1.50 payment for the copies of the records was never received; therefore, she did not disclose the records to the Complainant.

Analysis

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

1. OPRA provides that “…a custodian of a government record shall grant access to a government record or deny a request for access to a government record as soon as possible, but no later than seven business days after receiving the request…” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i).  The Complainant’s April 20, 2004 request was postmarked June 4, 2004 and received by the Custodian on June 9, 2004.  The Custodian responded to the Complainant’s April 20, 2004 request on June 16, 2004.  The Custodian’s June 16, 2004 letter advised the Complainant of the copy charges for the records requested and that the records would be released after payment was received. The Custodian responded to the request within the statutory time period.  The Custodian fulfilled its duties under OPRA and no further action is needed.
   
2. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(b) provides that “[a] copy or copies may be purchased by any person upon payment of the fee prescribed by law or regulation, or if a fee is not prescribed by law or regulation, upon payment of the actual cost of duplicating the record.”  The Custodian provided a certification dated July 13, 2004, stating that the Complainant never responded to the June 16, 2004 letter requesting payment for copies of the records requested.  The Custodian was proper in withholding the copies of the records until payment is received for the duplication of said records.

Documents Reviewed

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

1. April 20, 2004 – Complainant’s OPRA request to the NJ State Parole Board
   
2. June 2, 2004 – Custodian’s acknowledgement of Complainant’s OPRA request
   
3. June 8, 2004 – Complainant’s Denial of Access Complaint
   
4. June 16, 2004 – Custodian’s response to Complainant’s April 20, 2004 request
   
5. June 16, 2004 – Council’s Offer of Mediation to Complainant and Custodian
   
6. June 24, 2004 – Council’s request for Statement of Information from the Custodian
   
7. July 14, 2004 – Custodian’s Statement of Information and certification
   
8. July 28, 2004 – Custodian’s revised Statement of Information and certification

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Director

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council find that:

1. The Custodian is in compliance with OPRA by providing a timely response on June 16, 2004 to the request that was received on June 9, 2004.
   
2. The Custodian did not receive payment for actual duplication cost of the requested records, therefore, is not required under OPRA to release the copies of the requested records.
   
3. Based upon items #1 and #2, the case should be dismissed.

Prepared By:

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

August 3, 2004

Return to Top