NJ Seal
State of NJ - Government Records Council Email Grc

2006-73

- Final Decision
- Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
- Interim Order I
- Supplemental Findings and Recommendations
- Interim Order
- Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Final Decision

June 25, 2008 Government Records Council Meeting

 

Tina Renna

    Complainant

         v.

Union County Alliance

    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2006-73

 

 

 

At the June 25, 2008 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the June 18, 2008 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 Union County Alliance is not a public agency in accordance with the determination in Dan Miller v. Union County Alliance, Superior Court of New Jersey – Law Division: Union County (Docket No. UNN-L-2909-07).  Thus, this complaint requires no further adjudication since the requirements of OPRA only apply to public agencies.

 

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 25th Day of June, 2008

 

 

Robin Berg Tabakin, Chairman
Government Records Council

 

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

David Fleisher, Secretary
Government Records Council 

 

Decision Distribution Date:  July 2, 2008

 

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

June 25, 2008 Council Meeting

 

Tina Renna[1]

      Complainant

 

               v.

 

Union County Alliance[2]

      Custodian of Records

GRC Complaint No. 2006-73

 

 

Records Relevant to Complaint:

  1. All expenses associated with the Union County Directions Newspaper Issue VII Fall 2005; printing bids, printing bills, artwork bids, artwork bills, postage bills, mail services bills, ad commitment invoices, and bills to advertisers.
  2. All expenses associated with the Union County Directions Newspaper Issue VI Spring 2005; printing bids, printing bills, artwork bids, artwork bills, postage bills, mail services bills, ad commitment invoices, and bills to advertisers.

 

Request Made: October 11, 2005

Response Made: October 11, 2005

Custodian: Michael Murray, President

GRC Complaint Filed: April 10, 2006 

 

Background

 

June 27, 2007

            Government Records Council’s (“Council”) Interim Order. At its June 27, 2007 public meeting, the Council considered the June 20, 2007 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, found that due to the contested facts surrounding this case, the case shall be referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency under OPRA, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 and, as such, whether the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the requested records.

 

July 5, 2007

Council’s Interim Order distributed to the parties.

 

[The GRC received information that the issue of whether the named custodial agency is, in fact, a public agency for purposes of OPRA was being litigated in the Superior Court of New Jersey – Law Division: Union County (Dan Miller v. Union County Alliance, Docket No. UNN-L-2909-07).  Such action was filed with the court on August 20, 2007.  The transcript from such proceedings indicates that Judge Kathryn A. Brock determined that the Union County Alliance is not a public agency for purposes of OPRA due to the lack of control Union County had over the Alliance.  The Judge’s October 3, 2007 order denied the relief sought in the Order to Show Cause and dismissed the plaintiff’s verified complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed Judge Brock’s order in the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court and such appeal was dismissed on April 16, 2008.

 

The GRC received documentation substantiating Judge Brock’s determination and order, as well as the Appellate Division’s dismissal on June 5, 2008.]

 

Analysis

 

Based on Judge Brock’s determination in Dan Miller v. Union County Alliance, Superior Court of New Jersey – Law Division: Union County (Docket No. UNN-L-2909-07), the Union County Alliance is not a public agency for purposes of OPRA.  Therefore, this complaint requires no further adjudication since the requirements of OPRA only apply to public agencies.

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the Union County Alliance is not a public agency in accordance with the determination in Dan Miller v. Union County Alliance, Superior Court of New Jersey – Law Division: Union County (Docket No. UNN-L-2909-07).  Thus, this complaint requires no further adjudication since the requirements of OPRA only apply to public agencies.

 

 

 

Approved By:

Catherine Starghill, Esq.

Executive Director

 

 

June 18, 2008

                       



[1] No legal representation on record.

[2] No legal representation on record.

Return to Top

Interim Order I

 

June 27, 2007 Government Records Council Meeting

 

Tina Renna

    Complainant

         v.

Union County Alliance

    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2006-73

 

 

 

At the June 27, 2007 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the June 20, 2007 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 Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that, due to the contested facts surrounding this case, the case shall be referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency under OPRA, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 and, as such, whether the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the requested records.

 

 

Interim Order Rendered by the

Government Records Council

On the 27th Day of June 2007

 

 

Vincent Maltese, Chairman

Government Records Council

 

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

David Fleisher, Secretary

Government Records Council 

 

Decision Distribution Date:  July 5, 2007

 

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations

Reconsideration

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

June 27, 2007 Council Meeting

 

Tina Renna[1]                                                                         GRC Complaint No. 2006-73

Complainant

 

            v.

 

Union County Alliance[2]

Custodian of Records

 

 

Records Relevant to Complaint:

  1. All expenses associated with the Union County Directions Newspaper Issue VII Fall 2005; printing bids, printing bills, artwork bids, artwork bills, postage bills, mail services bills, ad commitment invoices, and bills to advertisers.
  2. All expenses associated with the Union County Directions Newspaper Issue VI Spring 2005; printing bids, printing bills, artwork bids, artwork bills, postage bills, mail services bills, ad commitment invoices, and bills to advertisers.

 

Request Made: October 11, 2005

Response Made: October 11, 2005

Custodian: Michael Murray, President

GRC Complaint filed: April 10, 2006  

 

Background

 

August 10, 2006

At the August 10, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considers the August 3, 2006 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, issued an Interim Order which finds that:

 

  1. In considering the meaning of a public agency as explained by the court in The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425, 846 A.2d 659 (April 2004), the GRC decision in Fallstick v. Haddon Township Business Partnership, GRC Case No. 2004-73 (October 2004) and the characteristics of the Alliance’s organizational structure, the Alliance is a public agency pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  Therefore, the Alliance is subject to the provisions of OPRA and is required to respond to OPRA requests for records. 
  2. The Custodian should respond to the OPRA request subject of this complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 et. seq., either granting access or denying access to the requested records. In the event of a denial of access, the legal basis for any denial must be explained pursuant to UN.J.S.A.U 47:1A-5.g. and N.J.S.A.U 47:1A-6.
  3. The Custodian shall comply with "2." above within seven (7) business days from receipt of this Interim Order and simultaneously provide certified confirmation of compliance to the Executive Director.

 

August 10, 2006

            Custodian’s telephone conversation to the GRC requesting reconsideration of the Council’s August 10, 2006 Interim Order. The Custodian alleges that he did not receive copies of the last few submissions Complainant gave to the GRC which were considered in the Findings and Recommendations of the Executive director on August 10, 2006. The Custodian expresses his desire to move the Council for reconsideration of its August 10, 2006 decision.

 

August 10, 2006

            Custodian’s e-mail to the GRC. The Custodian states that the Union County Alliance (the “Alliance”) was not created by the County of Union, but was organized by a group of community leaders representing several components of Union County’s economic and academic factions. The Custodian also states that an initial grant of $25,000 was provided to the Alliance from Union County and was derived from a Department of Higher Education grant and used to sponsor the Alliance’s first business networking event in 1993. The Custodian further states that the Alliance was created by people with a vested interest in the survival and economic turnaround of the County of Union at a time when County government could not get the job done on its own. The Custodian alleges that Union County was in an economic shambles and over the ensuing six years the County experienced an economic renaissance through the efforts of the Alliance and its membership. The Custodian credits the Alliance and its coalition of Labor, Business, Academia and Government with making the change happen.

 

August 11, 2006

            By e-mail to the GRC, the Custodian requests copies of all of Complainant’s submissions which were not previously forwarded to him.

 

August 11, 2006

            By e-mail to the parties, the Executive Director states that a motion for reconsideration will be presented to the Council on September 14, 2006.[3] The Executive Director further states that all submissions of the parties must be received no later than August 31, 2006.

 

August 11, 2006

            By e-mail to the Executive Director, the Complainant asserts that the schedule for submissions proposed by the Executive Director in her August 11, 2006 e-mail will deprive the Complainant of her due process rights by preventing her from responding to the Custodian’s final submissions. The Complainant states that she would like at least a week after her receipt of the Custodian’s submissions within which to respond.

 

            Later in the day, Complainant e-mails the Executive Director reiterating her concerns regarding the schedule for submissions. The Complainant also proposes that the Custodian be required to submit evidence and arguments for reconsideration as one unified, comprehensive filing, rather than in a “piecemeal fashion.”

 

August 11, 2006

            The Custodian’s e-mail to the Executive Director. The Custodian contends that, because he will be responding to materials submitted by the Complainant on which he was not copied, the Complainant should have no opportunity to respond to the Custodian’s submissions prior to the reconsideration of this matter.

 

August 14, 2006

            The Executive Director’s e-mail to the Custodian. The Executive Director states that the GRC is reviewing its files to ascertain those documents submitted by the Complainant on which the Custodian was not copied. The Executive Director further states that when such documents are confirmed, the GRC will forward copies to the Custodian.

 

August 30, 2006

            The Custodian submits a letter to the Council in support of his contention that the Alliance is not a public agency.            

 

August 31, 2006

            The Custodian’s e-mail to the Executive Director. The Custodian states that the Complainant altered a document which she presented to the Council in support of her complaint. This document, which the Complainant submitted to the Council as “Exhibit 6,” is a letter dated November 1, 2000 from Summit Adgroup, Inc. to Ms. Anne Marie Kay of the Union County Alliance, the subject of which is a November 3, 2000 newsletter mailing. The copy of the letter submitted to the Council is not signed.

 

August 31, 2006

            The Complainant’s e-mail to the Executive Director. The Complainant states that she received the Custodian’s latest submission by Federal Express.[4] The Complainant alleges that when she failed to copy the Custodian on her submissions to the Council, it was the responsibility of the Council to provide copies to the Custodian. The Complainant asserts that she considers the Custodian’s latest submission to be an appeal of the Council’s August 10, 2006 decision.

 

September 1, 2006

            The Executive Director’s e-mail to the Complainant requesting a certification regarding the unsigned November 1, 2000 letter from Summit Adgroup to Anne Marie Kay of the Union County Alliance.


 

September 1, 2006

            The Custodian submits a fax to the Council of the unredacted November 1, 2000 letter from Summit Adgroup to Anne Marie Kay of the Union County Alliance. The unredacted letter shows that the letter was signed by Joseph Renna, the Complainant’s husband, as an employee of the Union County Alliance.

 

September 1, 2006

            The Complainant’s e-mail to the Executive Director. The Complainant states that the November 1, 2000 letter from Summit Adgroup to Anne Marie Kay of the Union County Alliance which she submitted to the Council as “Exhibit 6” is an early version of the letter which was unsigned. The Complainant contends that the version submitted to the Council by the Custodian is a later, signed version of the same document. The Complainant denies any disingenuity in submitting the letter to the Council.

 

June 19, 2007[5]

            At the request of the GRC, the Custodian faxes to the GRC a copy of the contract between the Union County Alliance and Union County for 2005.

 

 

Analysis

 

Whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency?

 

OPRA defines a public agency as:

“…[a]ny of the principal departments in the Executive Branch of State Government, and any division, board, bureau, office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by such department; the Legislature of the State and any office, board, bureau or commission within or created by the Legislative Branch; and any independent State authority, commission, instrumentality or agency. The terms also mean any political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any division, board, bureau, office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by a political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any independent authority, commission, instrumentality or agency created by a political subdivision or combination of political subdivisions.”  N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Most definitions of “public agency” under New Jersey statutes and the Administrative Code resemble that contained in OPRA. However, the Open Public Meetings Act ("OPMA") contains a definition of a “public body” which requires that an entity, “... (1) consist of ‘two or more persons’ and (2) be ‘collectively empowered as a voting body’ (3) ‘to perform a public governmental function affecting the rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of any person or collectively authorized to spend public funds.’ N.J.S.A. 10:4-8a...” The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425 (App. Div. 2004). 

In Lafayette Yard, the City of Trenton,  seeking to revitalize its city center, empowered a nonprofit corporation to oversee the use of public bond funds to develop a hotel and convention complex. A local newspaper’s reporter was excluded from certain deliberations regarding financial matters and was also denied access to copies of minutes and other documents. The Appellate Division held that the nonprofit was both a “public body” subject to the open meetings requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-1 et seq., and a “public agency” required under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., to release documents to requestors.

In so doing, the court noted that:

 

“to be subject to the OPMA, a “public body” must (1) consist of two or more persons” and (2) be “collectively empowered as a voting body” [and] (3) “to perform a public governmental function affecting the rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of any person or collectively authorized to spend public funds.” N.J.S.A. 10:4-8a (emphasis added). Lafayette Yard, 368 N.J. Super. at 433.

The court also noted the definition of a “public agency” in OPRA at N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1:

“[a]ny of the principal departments in the Executive Branch of State Government, and any division, board, bureau office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by such department; the Legislature of the State and any office, board, bureau or commission within or created by the Legislative Branch; and any independent State authority, commission, instrumentality or agency. The terms also mean any political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any division, board, bureau, office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by a political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any independent authority, commission, instrumentality or agency created by a political subdivision or combination of political subdivisions.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

The Appellate Division held that: 

  1. a private, non-profit corporation created for the express purpose of redeveloping property donated to it by the city of Trenton,
  2. having a Board of Trustees appointed by the Mayor and City Council,
  3. with the mandated reversion of the donated property after the completion of the project and repayment of the debt,
  4. having corporate bylaws requiring the distribution of all assets to the city upon the dissolution or liquidation of the corporation,
  5. having a Disposition Agreement with the city that designates the city as the “agency” and the corporation as the “redeveloper” pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -49, and
  6. having the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the project

qualified the corporation as a “public body” under OPMA.  The court further held that the corporation was "an ‘instrumentality’ created by the City and a ‘public agency’ under the OPRA for essentially the same reasons that it is a ‘public body’ under the OPMA.” Id. at 442.

The decision of the Superior Court that Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp. qualifies as a “public body” was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court (The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 183 N.J. 519 (2005)).   See also Snyder v. American Association of Blood Banks, 144 N.J. 269 (1996) (finding that the legislature did not create or authorize the AABB to perform a specific governmental purpose); Williams v. National Car Rental System, Inc., 225 N.J.Super. 164 (1988) (finding that the broad powers conferred upon the Port Authority leave no doubt that it is a public authority or public agency); Blazer Corporation v. NJ Sports and Exposition Authority, 195 N.J.Super. 542 (1984) (citing Wade v. N.J. Turnpike Authority, 132 N.J.Super. 92 (Law Div. 1975), "The Court noted the official comment to N.J.S.A. 59:1-3: ‘The definition of 'Public Entity' provided in this section is intended to be all inclusive and to apply uniformly throughout the State of New Jersey to all entities exercising governmental functions.’”).

The Certificate of Incorporation for the Union County Alliance shows that the Alliance was incorporated as a private, non–profit corporation on February 23, 1994. The Alliance’s Certificate of Incorporation states that:

“[t]he Corporation is organized exclusively for, and its activities shall be limited to, charitable, educational, civic and social purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code …[including]:

(a) To establish, develop, coordinate and maintain a coalition of business, finance, health, government, labor, housing, transportation, education, cultural and art organizations, existing and to be organized, having a presence in Union County, New Jersey, for the purposes of revitalizing, improving, enhancing, strengthening and maintaining the economy and quality of life in Union County, New Jersey.

(c) To establish programs and develop resources to secure contributions, gifts, grants, devises or bequests from individuals, foundations, partnerships, associations, governmental bodies or public or private corporations, and to maintain, use and apply the whole or any part of the income therefrom and the principal thereof the support, by donation, loan or otherwise, the efforts of organizations whose purposes and goals are consistent with the purposes of the Corporation in revitalizing, improving, enhancing, strengthening and maintaining the economy and quality of life in Union County, New Jersey.”

A Rider to the Certificate of Incorporation states:

“Membership in the Alliance is limited to government agencies and authorities, educational institutions, trade, business and professional leagues, civil and cultural organizations, labor unions, hospitals, religious bodies and the like. No private individuals or private business corporations (aside from health care providers) may become members. The Alliance represents a joining together of these organizations who operate in or near Union County, New Jersey, in order to achieve the purposes of the Alliance.

The more particular purposes of the Alliance are reflected in the names of its subcommittees. Under the bylaws, subcommittees have been created in the areas of transportation and infrastructure, environmental, economic competitiveness, education and work force training, social services, cultural affairs and others. Presently, the Alliance is spearheading a project to build a train station on a busy commuter rail line, which is known as the Townsley Station Project. Similarly, the Alliance is involved in a project to clear the way for much-needed dredging of the busy Port of Elizabeth Harbor.

In carrying out its mission, the Alliance intends to work closely with federal, state and local elected officials and heads of administrative agencies, as well as with persons in the business community, such as the heads of corporations doing business in Union County and the heads of trade groups such as the Union County Chamber of Commerce and the Linden Industrial Association.”

The Alliance is authorized by its Certificate of Incorporation to:

“raise and distribute funds either directly, or through related organizations or other organizations in furtherance of the purposes of the Corporation as such purposes are expressed in Article Second [of the Certificate of Incorporation]….

[t]o issue its own bonds, notes, debentures, certificates of indebtedness and other evidences of indebtedness, certificates of interest, or other exchanges therefore or in payment thereof or otherwise to make payment therefore; to give collateral for funds borrowed; to create or cause the creation of, to dissolve or cause the dissolution of or to merge corporations or associations which have as their exclusive purposes purposes which qualify such as exempt corporations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code.”

A Resolution of the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders dated September 16, 1993 indicates that the Board authorized a $25,000 grant to the Alliance to supplement a grant awarded the Alliance by the New Jersey Department of Higher Education. This Resolution states that the mission of the Alliance is:

“to coordinate an effective action for the recovery and progress of …[Union] County by working with existing groups to design and implement a long range plan for the revitalization of Union County; to provide vigorous support for the efforts of existing organizations that are consistent with the purposes of the Alliance and to act aggressively to achieve objectives that will benefit Union County that are not clearly within the jurisdiction of any single group[.]”

Pursuant to the Optional County Charter Law, N.J.S.A. 40:41A-1 et seq., Union County operates under a county manager form of government as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:41A through 40:41A-58  and presently conducts its affairs through the administrative code of the county adopted under the terms of N.J.S.A. 40:41A-125. See County of Union v. State of New Jersey, 149 N.J. Super. 399 (Law Div. 1977). The formation or dissolution of any commission or agency by Union County is therefore governed by N.J.S.A. 40:41A-26, N.J.S.A. 40:41A-27, and N.J.S.A. 40:41A-30, which would seem to require that such formation or dissolution be accomplished by Resolution of the Freeholders.  See County of Union, supra, 149 N.J.Super. at 402. 

 

            Neither party has presented to the Council a Resolution of the Freeholders of Union County authorizing the formation of the Union County Alliance. Absent such a Resolution, it is clear that the County Manager does not possess the statutory authority under N.J.S.A. 40:41A-1 et seq. to form an entity such as the Alliance.

The Certificate of Incorporation reflects that the Alliance’s initial Board of Trustees included the Union County Manager, who also executed the Certificate of Incorporation. The Bylaws state that the County Manager and the Chairman of the Union County Board of Freeholders are appointed by virtue of their office to serve on the Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors of the Alliance. According to its Bylaws, the conduct and management of the affairs of the Alliance are vested in its Board of Directors.

            At the time of its incorporation, the Alliance included members of the Board of Directors who also served on two levels of Union County government, and who were appointed to the Board of Directors by virtue of their office. The Alliance is empowered to perform governmental functions, specifically, to revitalize, improve, enhance, strengthen and maintain the economy and quality of life in Union County, New Jersey. The Alliance “spearheaded” certain community projects, including construction of a train station on a busy commuter line and clearing the way for the dredging of the Port of Elizabeth Harbor. The Alliance received an initial grant of funds from the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders and is empowered to distribute funds and issue bonds, notes, debentures, etc. None of these financial instruments, however, appears to be guaranteed by Union County. See Lafayette Yard, supra. The Certificate of Incorporation is silent with regard to the Alliance’s “creation” by Union County in its capacity as a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey. 

 

Neither party has submitted to the Council a Resolution of the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders authorizing the formation of the Union County Alliance. The Optional County Charter Law, N.J.S.A. 40:41A-1 et seq., suggests that only the Board of Chosen Freeholders possesses the authority to create an entity such as the Alliance. The Bylaws do not specify that Union County is to have any right of oversight or management of the Alliance. Finally, the 2005 vendor contract is inconclusive regarding whether the Union County Alliance is an “authority, commission, instrumentality or agency created by” Union County. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

 

The evidence of record is therefore inconclusive regarding whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 and is therefore    subject to the requirements of OPRA. It is therefore appropriate to refer this matter to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency under OPRA and as such whether the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the requested records.

 

 

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that, due to the contested facts surrounding this case, the case shall be referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency under OPRA, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 and, as such, whether the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the requested records.

 

Prepared By:               

Karyn Gordon

                        In House Counsel

 

 

Approved By:

Catherine Starghill, Esq.

Executive Director

 

June 20, 2007             



[1] No legal representation listed on record.

[2] No legal representation listed on record.

[3] After due consideration, the Motion for Reconsideration was not presented to the Council based upon the August 10, 2006 Interim Order and GRC procedures.

[4] The Custodian’s August 30, 2006 document submission to the Council.

[5] Additional e-mail submissions by the parties in September, 2006 did not address the substance of the allegations contained in the Denial of Access Complaint.

Return to Top

Interim Order

Tina Renna

    Complainant

         v.

Union County Alliance

    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2006-73

 

 

 

At the August 10, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the August 3, 2006 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:

 

  1. In considering the meaning of a public agency as explained by the court in The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425, 846 A.2d 659 (April 2004), the GRC decision in Fallstick v. Haddon Township Business Partnership, GRC Case No. 2004-73 (October 2004) and the characteristics of the Alliance’s organizational structure, the Alliance is a public agency pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  Therefore, the Alliance is subject to the provisions of OPRA and is required to respond to OPRA requests for records. 
  2. The Custodian should respond to the OPRA request subject of this complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 et. seq., either granting access or denying access to the requested records. In the event of a denial of access, the legal basis for any denial must be explained pursuant to UN.J.S.A.U 47:1A-5.g. and N.J.S.A.U 47:1A-6.
  3. The Custodian shall comply with "2." above within seven (7) business days from receipt of this Interim Order and simultaneously provide certified confirmation of compliance to the Executive Director.

 

 

Interim Order Rendered by the

Government Records Council

On The 10th Day of August, 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, Vice Chairman & Secretary
Government Records Council 

 

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Tina Renna[1]                                                    GRC Complaint No. 2006-73
Complainant

 

            v.

 

Union County Alliance[2]

Custodian of Records

 

 

Records Relevant to Complaint:

  1. All expenses associated with the Union County Directions Newspaper Issue VII Fall 2005; printing bids, printing bills, artwork bids, artwork bills, postage bills, mail services bills, ad commitment invoices, and bills to advertisers.
  2. All expenses associated with the Union County Directions Newspaper Issue VI Spring 2005; printing bids, printing bills, artwork bids, artwork bills, postage bills, mail services bills, ad commitment invoices, and bills to advertisers.

 

Request Made: October 11, 2005

Response Made: October 11, 2005

Custodian: Michael Murray, President

GRC Complaint filed: April 10, 2006  

 

Background

October 11, 2005

            Complainant’s Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) Request. The Complainant is seeking documents to include bids and bills, showing expenses for production of two (2) issues of the Union County Directions Newspaper.

 

October 11, 2005

            Custodian’s e-mailed response to the OPRA request. The Custodian responded within one (1) business day of the request. The Custodian states that the Union County Alliance (“Alliance”) is not a government entity and is not subject to OPRA.

 

April 10, 2006

            Denial of Access Complaint filed with the Government Records Council (“GRC”) with the following attachments:

  • October 11, 2005 OPRA requests
  • October 11, 2005 Custodian’s e-mailed response to the OPRA request
  • January 4, 2006 Statement on Passing of Former County Manager Ann Baran
  • Certificate of Incorporation of Union County Alliance, Inc.
  • Pamphlet, “The Union County Alliance – A Coalition for Action”
  • April 18, 1994 Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120 and cover letter

   

The Complainant states that she submitted two (2) requests for government records to the Custodian. The Complainant states her requests were denied because the Custodian claims that the Alliance is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity and therefore not a public agency subject to the provisions of OPRA. The Complainant asserts that the Alliance is a public agency. The Complainant attached the April 14, 1994 Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120 and cover letter which indicate that:

 

  1. at the time of the filing, the Alliance was operating under a grant from Union County approved by resolution in 1993 following an initial grant from the NJ Department of Higher Education, and
  2. office space, secretarial and similar assistance was being provided by Kean College.

 

 The Complainant claims that the Alliance is an instrumentality created by the County of Union based on the following;

 

  1. the Alliance was formed by Ann Baran, former Union County Manager,
  2. the Alliance’s Certificate of Incorporation indicates Ann Baran, c/o Union County Administration Building as one of the three Initial Board of Trustees and Incorporators,
  3. membership in the Alliance is limited to governmental entities and the Alliance specifically excludes individuals and private business corporations from membership,
  4. a pamphlet entitled “The Union County Alliance – A Coalition for Action” lists Ann Baran, Union County Manager as part of the Executive Committee, and
  5. the Alliance was initially funded by a grant from Union County.

 

April 11, 2006

            Offer of Mediation sent to both parties. Neither party agreed to mediate this matter.

 

April 20, 2006

            Request for the Statement of Information (“SOI”) sent to the Custodian. The GRC also requested the following:

  • The documents that brought the organization into existence and which outline its operations such as the (1) certificate of incorporation and (2) bylaws, and 
  • A certification stating if any ordinance, resolution or agreements exist discussing the relationship between the organization and any state or local government agency.

 

April 20, 2006

            Custodian’s response to the request for SOI with the following attachments:

  • Certificate of Incorporation of the Union County Alliance, Inc., and
  • Bylaws of the Union County Alliance, Inc. as amended February 2001.

 

The Custodian states that the Alliance is not a public agency pursuant to the decision in The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425 (April 2004).

 

The enclosed Certificate of Incorporation provides that:

  1. the Alliance is a nonprofit corporation created exclusively for charitable, educational, civic and social purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
  2. the Alliance was created to revitalize and strengthen the economy and quality of life in Union County, NJ,
  3. membership in the Alliance is limited to government agencies and authorities, educational institutions, trade, business and professional leagues, civic and cultural organizations, labor unions, hospitals, religious bodies and the like,
  4. the County Manager and Freeholder Chairman are appointed ex officio by virtue of their position to serve on the Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors,  
  5. the Certificate of Incorporation was executed and signed by County Manager Ann Baran and President of Kean College Dr. Henry J. Ross
  6. County Manager Ann Baran and President of Kean College Dr. Henry J. Ross are listed as the Initial Incorporators, indicating their addresses as “care of” the Union County Administration Building and Kean College respectively, and
  7. upon dissolution of the Corporation, assets shall be distributed for one or more purposes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or shall be distributed to the federal government or to a state or local government for a public purpose. Any such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the Superior Court of NJ of the county in which the principle office of the Corporation is located.  

 

April 25, 2006 

            E-mail from the Custodian to the GRC. The Custodian states that although County Manager Ann Baran was a driving force in the creation of the Alliance her role was exclusive of her position with the County. The Custodian states that the Alliance does not have a reporting relationship with the County of Union. The Custodian goes on to claim that while government representatives serve on the Board of Directors, government officials comprise only one-fourth of the Board of Directors; the remaining positions are held by individuals in academia, labor and business.  

 

 

 

 

May 17, 2006

E-mail from the GRC to the Custodian. The GRC requests that the Custodian state whether or not the April 18, 1994 Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120 and cover letter, filed by the Alliance in April 2004 and provided by the Complainant as an attachment to the Denial of Access Complaint, is an accurate copy of that filing.

 

May 17, 2006

E-mail from the Custodian to the GRC. The Custodian states that the April 18, 1994 Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120 and cover letter is a copy of the original document that established the Union County Alliance as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt corporation.

 

June 13, 2006

            E-mail from the GRC to the Custodian. The GRC requests that the Custodian provide further clarification as to the functions of the Alliance. (See GRC questions and Custodian’s corresponding responses in the chart shown under July 27, 2006 below.)

 

June 27, 2006

            E-mail from the Custodian to the GRC.

 

June 13, 2006 – Questions posed by the GRC to Custodian

June 27, 2006 – Response from the Custodian to the GRC

What activities does the Union County Alliance perform to fulfill its mission?

  • The Custodian states that the Alliance is working with business and industry in Union County to hold an economic development conference in September 2006; the purpose of which is to convey the need for federal and state funding for projects within Union County and to discover the next steps for Union County strategic plan, which was drafted by the Alliance.
  • The Custodian states that the Alliance holds quarterly networking meetings for leaders in business, government, academia, and labor to listen to speakers from various organizations and discuss issues pertinent to the economic development of Union County.
  • The Custodian also indicates that the Alliance hosts a Public Safety Day meant to offer the public comprehensive information on police, fire and emergency services available in Union County.
  • The Custodian states that the Alliance also publishes a newspaper, Directions, to inform the public of available programs in Union County.

 

Was Kenneth L. Estabrook, Esq. an employee of the County at the time of the incorporation of the Union County Alliance?

 

The Custodian contends that Kenneth L. Estabrook, Esq. was not an employee of the County of Union at any time.

What is the corporation’s percentage of government funding v. percentage of private funding?

The Custodian states that in 2005 40% of the operating budget was from government grants and 60% from private companies and project management.

Does County/State/local government own the property where the facilities of the Union County Alliance are located?

The Custodian asserts that the Alliance is not located in a County/State/local government owned property.

Who pays the salaries of the employees of the Union County Alliance? Are these individuals receiving County/State/local government benefits?

The Custodian states that the Alliance received a grant for one (1) salary and benefits and sends those monies to the County of Union so that one employee[3] can receive benefits and no other employee receives County/State/local government benefits.

 

July 20, 2006

            Complainant’s E-mail Submission to the GRC. The Complainant provided an article dated July 17, 2006 from The Inside Edge by Wally Edge[4] (an Internet website affiliated with PoliticsNJ.com) entitled “GOP watchdog says Stender’s husband won county printing jobs”, which indicates that the husband of an assemblywoman has won printing contracts with Union County, including the Union County Alliance even though he was not the lowest bidder. The Complainant also included an article from the News Record/Patriot [5] entitled “Union County: Outcasts Assail Ex-Employer.” This article states that:

 

  1. the Union County Alliance is a bi-partisan business partnership founded by former acting Governor Donald DiFrancesco and Democratic Sen. Raymond Lesniak, with the goals of jump starting economic development, improving quality of life, and working with public and private groups to implement a long-term plan for lasting prosperity in the county,
  2. GOP Sen. Tom Kean Jr. is an honorary co-chairman,
  3. Twice a year the Alliance publishes Union County Directions, a report on government programs, business news and upcoming events that is mailed to every home in the county,
  4. a study commissioned by the Alliance showed its partnership with the freeholder board has produced more than $6 billion in development,
  5. the Alliance has supported county quality of life efforts by also conducting a study in 2002 on health issues, which serves as a policy-making document

July 23, 2006

            Complainant’s facsimile submission to the GRC with attachments[6]:

  • July 23, 2006 Star Ledger article “Dems deny flier is campaign lit,”
  • List of Resolutions of Union County,
  • June 18, 2002 Letter from Ann Marie Kay, Executive Vice President of the Alliance to the Postmaster, and
  • October 23, 2001 Letter from the County of Union Department of Finance to the Union County Alliance.

 

The Complainant submitted documents supporting her assertion that the Alliance is a public agency. The Complainant asserts that the Union County Directions newsletter is sent out labeled “Postal Patron.” The Complainant alleges this is a distinction that only government organizations can use and has provided one of the Alliance’s mailings in support of this. The Complainant states that the newsletter is designated as “political.” The Complainant states that the newsletter is produced in the County Administration building using county employees and equipment and is mailed to every postal patron only days before the Primary and General Election Day, featuring freeholders who are up for re-election throughout its pages.

 

In the List of Resolutions of Union County submitted by the Complainant it appears that Resolution 1303-98 awarded a contract to Union County Alliance (with the address listed as Kean University, P.O. Box 411, Union, New Jersey) to provide support for the long term planning for the revitalization of Union County in an amount not to exceed $35,000.

 

The July 23, 2006 Star Ledger article states that:

 

  1. the Alliance was founded in 1994 as a bipartisan organization to promote local economic development. The corporation still boasts both Democrats and Republicans on its board and is registered as a tax-exempt, 501(c)(4) organization, which allows it to engage in political activity.
  2. Union County provides the Alliance with roughly 80 percent of its $300,000 annual budget.
  3. Freeholders also grant the Custodian (who is the Executive Director of the Alliance) use of a county-owned 2002 Ford Explorer.
  4. Kean University provides offices for the Alliance's three staff members.

 

The June 18, 2002 letter from Ann Marie Kay, Executive Vice President of the Alliance to the Postmaster, submitted by the Complainant indicates that the County of Union and the Alliance share a postal account.

 

In the October 23, 2001 letter from the County of Union Department of Finance to the Union County Alliance, the Director of the Department of Finance asks that the Alliance submit their $150,000 voucher to the County Manager, outlining details of how the funds would be spent and the goals and objectives of that spending. The letter goes on to state that payment for this voucher and invoice must be approved by the Board of Chosen Freeholders before a check can be distributed. 

 

August 3, 2006

            Complainant’s E-mail Submission to the GRC with the following attachment:

  • Kean University Employee List

 

The Complainant adds that an officer of the Alliance, Ann Marie Kay, is listed as a state employee on the Kean University Employee list.

 

Analysis

 

Whether the Union County Alliance is a public agency?

 

OPRA defines a public agency as:

“…[a]ny of the principal departments in the Executive Branch of State Government, and any division, board, bureau, office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by such department; the Legislature of the State and any office, board, bureau or commission within or created by the Legislative Branch; and any independent State authority, commission, instrumentality or agency. The terms also mean any political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any division, board, bureau, office, commission or other instrumentality within or created by a political subdivision of the State or combination of political subdivisions, and any independent authority, commission, instrumentality or agency created by a political subdivision or combination of political subdivisions.”  N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

The Custodian states that the Alliance is not a public agency pursuant to the decision in The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425 (April 2004). The Complainant claims that the Alliance is an instrumentality created by the County of Union and is therefore a public agency subject to OPRA.

 

Most definitions of "public agency" under NJ statutes and the Administrative Code resemble that contained in OPRA. However, the Open Public Meetings Act ("OPMA") defines "public body" as a commission, authority, board, council, committee or any other group of two or more persons organized under the laws of this State, and collectively empowered as a voting body to perform a public governmental function affecting the rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits, or other legal relations of any person, or collectively authorized to spend public funds.  N.J.S.A. 10:4-8a.

OPMA's definition of public body requires that an entity, "... (1) consist of 'two or more persons' and (2) be 'collectively empowered as a voting body' (3) 'to perform a public governmental function affecting the rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of any person or collectively authorized to spend public funds.' N.J.S.A. 10:4-8a..." The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425, 846 A.2d 659 (April 2004). 

In that case, the court held that:

 

  1. a private, non-profit corporation created for the express purpose of redeveloping property donated to it by the city of Trenton,
  2. having a Board of Trustees appointed by the Mayor and City Council,
  3. with the mandated reversion of the donated property after the completion of the project and repayment of the debt,
  4. having corporate bylaws requiring the distribution of all assets to the city upon the dissolution or liquidation of the corporation,
  5. having a Disposition Agreement with the city that designates the city as the "agency" and the corporation as the "redeveloper" pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -49, and
  6. having the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the project

qualified the corporation as a "public body" under OPMA.  The court further held that the corporation was "an 'instrumentality' created by the City and a 'public agency' under the OPRA for essentially the same reasons that it is a 'public body' under the OPMA." Id. at 442,670.

The decision of the Superior Court that Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp. qualifies as a "public body" was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court (Times of Trenton, 183 N.J. 519,  874 A.2d 1064 (June 2005)).   See also Snyder v. American Association of Blood Banks, 144 N.J. 269, 676 a.2d 1036 (1996) (finding that the legislature did not create or authorize the AABB to perform a specific governmental purpose); Williams v. National Car Rental System, Inc., 225 N.J.Super. 164, 541 A.2d 1125 (1988) (finding that the broad powers conferred upon the Port Authority leave no doubt that it is a public authority or public agency); Blazer Corporation v. NJ Sports and Exposition Authority, 195 N.J.Super. 542, 480 A.2d 953 (1984) (citing Wade v. N.J. Turnpike Authority, 132 N.J.Super. 92, 332 A.2d 232 (Law Div. 1975), "The Court noted the official comment to N.J.S.A. 59:1-3: 'The definition of 'Public Entity' provided in this section is intended to be all inclusive and to apply uniformly throughout the State of New Jersey to all entities exercising governmental functions.'").

Additionally, two rules in the Administrative Code define "public agency" more precisely than other rules and statutes by adding the following language to the usual definition, "... agencies exercising sovereign powers of government."  This language is very illustrative of the meaning of public agencies, as explained by the court in the Lafayette Yard cases cited above. While other state statutes and rules do not include this language, it appears that the New Jersey Supreme Court confirms that "exercising sovereign powers of government" is required for an entity to be deemed a public body or agency.

In Fallstick v. Haddon Township Business Partnership, GRC Case No. 2004-73 (October 2004), the GRC found that the business partnership, incorporated by the municipal clerk, was an instrumentality created by a political subdivision or a combination of political subdivisions.

In the case at hand, the documents submitted by the Complainant and the Custodian’s Certificate of Incorporation and Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120, and By-Laws provide that:

  1. the Alliance is a nonprofit corporation created exclusively for charitable, educational, civic and social purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
  2. the Union County Alliance is a bi-partisan business partnership founded by former acting Governor Donald DiFrancesco and Democratic Sen. Raymond Lesniak, with the goals of jump starting economic development, improving quality of life, and working with public and private groups to implement a long-term plan for lasting prosperity in the county,
  3. GOP Sen. Tom Kean Jr. is an honorary co-chairman,
  4. membership in the Alliance is limited to government agencies and authorities, educational institutions, trade, business and professional leagues, civic and cultural organizations, labor unions, hospitals, religious bodies and the like,
  5. the County Manager and Freeholder Chairman are appointed ex officio by virtue of their position to serve on the Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors,  
  6. the Certificate of Incorporation was executed and signed by County Manager Ann Baran and President of Kean College Dr. Henry J. Ross
  7. County Manager Ann Baran and President of Kean College Dr. Henry J. Ross are listed as two (2) of the Initial Incorporators, indicating their addresses as “care of” the Union County Administration Building and Kean College respectively,
  8. at the time of filing Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120, the Alliance was operating under a grant from Union County, following an initial grant from the NJ Department of Higher Education,
  9. the Alliance received a grant for one (1) salary and benefits and sends those monies to the County of Union so that one employee[7] can receive benefits and no other employee receives County/State/local government benefits,
  10. Union County provides the Alliance with roughly 80 percent of its $300,000 annual budget,
  11. Freeholders also grant the Custodian (who is the Executive Director of the Alliance) use of a county-owned 2002 Ford Explorer,
  12. Kean University provides offices for the Alliance's three staff members at Union County Alliance, Kean University, P.O. Box 411, Union, New Jersey,at the time of filing Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120, office space, secretarial and similar assistance was being provided by Kean College, and upon dissolution of the Corporation, assets must be distributed for one or more purposes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or must be distributed to the federal government or to a state or local government for a public purpose. Any such assets not so disposed of must be disposed of by the Superior Court of NJ of the county in which the principle office of the Corporation is located, a study commissioned by the Alliance showed its partnership with the freeholder board has produced more than $6 billion in development, and the Alliance has supported county quality of life efforts by also conducting a study in 2002 on health issues, which serves as a policy-making document.

 

The Custodian’s Certificate of Incorporation was executed and signed by the County Union County Manager Ann Baran and President of Kean College Dr. Henry J. Ross, indicating their addresses as “care of” the Union County Administration Building and Kean College, respectively. The Certificate of Incorporation establishes that the County Manager and Freeholder Chairman are appointed ex officio by virtue of their position to serve on the Executive Committee and/or Board of Directors. Further, the Certificate of Incorporation states that upon dissolution of the Corporation, assets must be distributed for one or more purposes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or must be distributed to the federal government or to a state or local government for a public purpose. Any such assets not so disposed of must be disposed of by the Superior Court of NJ of the county in which the principle office of the Corporation is located.

 

Form 1024: Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(a) or for Determination Under Section 120 shows that the Alliance was operating under a grant from Union County, following an initial grant from the NJ Department of Higher Education. Additionally, this document states that office space, secretarial and similar assistance was being provided by Kean College, which is a public university subject to OPRA.

 

The Custodian states that the Alliance received a grant for one (1) salary and benefits and sends those monies to the County of Union but no other employee receives County/State/local government benefits.

 

The Complainant provided a recent Star Ledger article which alleges that Union County provides the Alliance with roughly 80 percent of its $300,000 annual budget. This article also indicates that Freeholders grant the Custodian (who is the Executive Director of the Alliance) use of a county-owned 2002 Ford Explorer. The article goes on to state that Kean University provides offices for the Alliance's three staff members at Union County Alliance, KeanUniversity, P.O. Box 411, Union, New Jersey.

 

Thus, in considering the meaning of a public agency as explained by the court in the Lafayette Yard case, the GRC decision in Fallstick and all the factors listed above, the Alliance is a public agency pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  Therefore, the Alliance is subject to the provisions of OPRA and is required to respond to OPRA requests for records. 

 

Hence, the Custodian should respond to the OPRA request subject of this Complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 et. seq., either granting access or denying access to the requested records. In the event of a denial of access, the legal basis for any denial must be explained pursuant to UN.J.S.A.U 47:1A-5.g. and N.J.S.A.U 47:1A-6.

.

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that:

 

  1. In considering the meaning of a public agency as explained by the court in The Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 368 N.J.Super. 425, 846 A.2d 659 (April 2004), the GRC decision in Fallstick v. Haddon Township Business Partnership, GRC Case No. 2004-73 (October 2004) and the characteristics of the Alliance’s organizational structure, the Alliance is a public agency pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  Therefore, the Alliance is subject to the provisions of OPRA and is required to respond to OPRA requests for records. 
  2. The Custodian should respond to the OPRA request subject of this complaint pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 et. seq., either granting access or denying access to the requested records. In the event of a denial of access, the legal basis for any denial must be explained pursuant to UN.J.S.A.U 47:1A-5.g. and N.J.S.A.U 47:1A-6.
  3. The Custodian shall comply with "2." above within seven (7) business days from receipt of this Interim Order and simultaneously provide certified confirmation of compliance to the Executive Director.

 

 

Prepared By:

                        Colleen C. McGann

                        Case Manager

 

 

Approved By:

Catherine Starghill, Esq.

Executive Director

 

 

                       



[1] No legal representation listed.

[2] No legal representation listed.

[3] The Custodian has not provided information as to who this employee is or what position they hold.

[4] http://politics.nexcess.net/insideedge/2006/07/gop_watchdog_says_stenders_hus.html

[5]http://www.new-jersey.ws/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=8778Published by Divine Media, Inc. in the July 28, 2005 issue of the News Record/Patriot


[6] Only those documents not previously provided are being included.

[7] The Custodian has not provided information as to the title or position held.

Return to Top