2004-85

Final Decision

At its August 12, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the August 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 complaint on the basis that the timeliness issue does not rise to a level of a knowing and willful violation of the Open Public Records Act in the totality of the circumstances as the Custodian certified that he repeatedly contacted, or made attempts to contact, the Complainant, in a timely manner.

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 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

Relevant Records Requested: 

1. Copy of the food service contract for the jail and who the other bidders were
2. How many times the Mobile Command Center, K9 Unit and SWAT unit responded to emergencies in the past five years
3. Yearly budget for the above units, what training is required and the cost of said training (including continuing education units required)
4. Overtime records for all Correctional Officers and Jail Guards for the last five years
5. Copy of all jail accreditations and terms of accreditations (i.e. what do they provide for you?)
6. Copy of all accreditations awarded to the Sheriff. How did he achieve them, which ones are necessary for the performance of the job?
7. List of all training that Sheriff Oxley has received during his tenure and the cost of said training.
8. Itinerary for the Sheriff’s recent trip to Pakistan and expenses for the trip.  Expenses for the Under-sheriff and any other county employee who went on the trip.
9. Copy of the personnel list
10. Copy of the following expenses for the last three years (for all employees of the jail and Sheriff’s office): Cell phones, travel and related expenses, training and related expenses, miscellaneous expenses.

Request Made:   5/21/2004  
Response Made: 6/1/2004
Custodian:   Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office – Mr. Freeman, Records Custodian
GRC Complaint Filed:  6/24/2004

Background

Complainant’s Case Position

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on June 24, 2004 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 et. seq. alleging that the custodian did not respond in a timely manner to her request. She alleges that it took the Custodian longer than the lawful time period allotted by the Open Public Records Act. While the Custodian did notify her that the records would be delayed he did not offer an explanation until after the deadline.

Public Agency’s Case Position

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, the Custodian in their Statement of Information certified that there was ongoing communication with the Complainant regarding her request and the time period in which she would receive records. On June 1, 2004, the Custodian mailed a written response to the Complainant, stating that her request would take twelve days to be filled. The Custodian specifically certified that he made contact with or attempted to make contact with the Complainant on the following dates:

6/1/04 –  Written response was sent to the Complainant

6/18/04 –  Custodian left message with Ms. Burlett’s co-worker that records were still being assembled.

6/21/04 –  Complainant returned 6/18/04 call and Custodian explained that he was still getting the information together, but he would have it by the end of the week.

6/24/04 –  Message was left with co-worker of Complainant stating that records requested were available for pick up.

6/28/04 –  Complainant called the office and indicated that the records would be picked up on 7/1/04.

7/2/04 –  Custodian left message for Complainant with a co-worker because the records were not retrieved on 7/1/04

7/6/04 –  Custodian left a message for Complainant with co-worker

7/8/04 –  Complainant retrieved the records from the Custodian

Analysis

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) “ 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 not later than seven business days after receiving the request…” Also, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) states, “If the 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.”

In this case the Custodian was not able to grant access to the Complainant within seven days, however he did mail written correspondence to the Complainant letting her know that her documents would be available in twelve days, but he did not explain the reason for the delay. The Custodian failed to have the records available on the twelfth day, but did not notify the Complainant until two days after the promised date. At this time he explained to the Complainant that he was gathering information regarding her request and this was the cause of the delay. 

While the Custodian did delay in having the requested records available, he has certified that he kept an open line of communication with the Complainant. When he was unable to contact the Complainant, he left messages with her co-workers. He has certified and provided to the Government Records Council staff, names and dates of those persons that he left messages with.

Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in preparing the Findings and Recommendations for this case:

1. June 24, 2004 – Denial Of Access Complaint Form
2. July 21, 2004 – Statement of Information (inclusive of but not limited to the following)

1. Custodian’s records of conversation

2. Documents provided to the Complainant

Conclusions and Recommendation of the Executive Director

The executive director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the case on the basis that:

1. The timeliness issue does not rise to a level of a knowing and willful violation of the Open Public Records Act under the totality of the circumstances.
2. The Custodian has legally certified that he had made attempts to contact or contacted the Complainant in a timely manner.

August 3, 2004

Return to Top