CNBNews

The OPRA Saga began on....

July 2004 Gorman made a records request for the following:

1. Patrol vehicle      video assigned to Officer William Johnson

July 20, 2004 request

1. Police committee      meeting minutes from 3/3/04 to the present
2. Documents      related to the circumvention of security procedures within the department
3. Records in which      the Chief notified members of the GCPD that the Mayor raised concerns      about postings on nj.com
4. Review all      relating info to access into the nj.com site from any computer of the GCPD
5. Documents and/or      tapes relating to the nj.com internal investigation
6. Information      regarding the harassing phone call to Robert Gorman
7. Documents      relating to the harassing phone call internal affairs investigation
8. A copy of the      CJP schedule
9. Documents and/or      tapes relating to the tag light ticket internal affairs investigation
10. All      tickets issued under Ordinance 73-15 for the past ten years
11. “no tag light”      tickets issued by the GCPD and all tickets/warnings issued on said pullovers      in the past 5 years
12. All records in      which the Chief notified members of the GCPD that then Mayor Gorman raised      concerns of speeding by members of the GCPD
13. Copies of any      and all policies and procedures relating to the enforcement of City      Ordinance 73-15 and/or 73-16

Gorman received the information he requested, with some exceptions. For the most part the argument for the last four years has been over the video tape that was recorded by the camera inside the police car on the night he was ticketed. Gorman received the section of the tape that pertained to his ticket but he wanted the entire tape released to him.

From the record:

• · Custodian’s counsel stated: “While Mr. Gorman was still the Mayor of Gloucester City there was uncomplimentary material posted on NJ.com. It is stated that Mr. Gorman believed that some of these postings were made by Gloucester City Police Officers, and he also believes they could have made these posts while on duty at police headquarters. Apparently, while he was Mayor, Mr. Gorman requested that the Police Department investigate these allegations.

• · “Mr. Gorman believed that the Gloucester City Police Department was attempting to harm and/or harass him and now wants to review the results and status of the various internal investigations he requested while he was still mayor of Gloucester City.”  Custodian’s counsel states that Executive Order Number 11 specifically precludes the disclosure of personnel records; therefore the Complaint should be dismissed because he is seeking records excluded from OPRA.

• · In regards to request number 2, seeking all “documents relating to alleged activities of circumvention, included but not limited to the IP address of the sender along with date and time, subnet mask, along with date and time, and any data relating to postings captured through cookies, previous pages sender came from, and names of persons (fictitious or not) registering for said postings.” Counsel states, “quite simply, this request was properly denied because it does not seek a public record. Specifically, OPRA only applies to “Any paper,…document,…information stored or maintained electronically or by sound recording…or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business.” They also state that Mr. Gorman is “seeking information concerning alleged internet access by the police department. This information is certainly not required to be “made, maintained or kept on file” and therefore, does not meet the definition of a public record under the act. The City’s response was correct and Mr. Gorman’s Complaint should be dismissed.”

• · In regards to the Complainant’s requests for all tickets issued under Ordinance 73-15 for the past ten years and, “no tag light” tickets issued by the GCPD and all tickets/warnings issued on said pullovers in the past 5 years, it is stated that he was advised that the City’s Municipal Court attempted to but could not conduct a search for the documents based on the fact that the Municipal Court can only search by defendant’s last name or ticket/summons number. Counsel also states, “Mr. Gorman was advised of this and did not respond or object.”

• · On August 2, 2004 the City responded to the videotape request of July 2, 2004. Custodian’s counsel states, “The videotape contains personal information including audio and visual references to social security numbers, driver license numbers, criminal records and other confidential information. Because the references were both audible and visual, the City was unable to redact the confidential information.”

• GRC Counsel responded to the Complainant’s November 8 e-mail on November 22. With regard to the Complainant’s request for the videotape the City reiterates their position set forth in its prior submission. Counsel states, “The City does have limited editing ability to provide segments of both the video and audio tape, but does not have the ability to provide the videotape while excluding the audio portions of the tape. In addition, the videotape from other vehicle stops continues to allow the visual observation of personal information on computer screens as well as the audio transmissions of confidential information. The City lacks the capability to provide the expertise editing that allows for the complete incision of all confidential materials in a manner which protects the unrelated individuals’ privacy.”

• Custodian’s counsel cites N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5.g. which permits a records custodian to deny a request that would substantially disrupt agency operations after attempting to reach a reasonable solution that accommodates the interests of the requestor and the agency. Counsel goes on to state that the Complainant’s initial requests for records were onerous and therefore the parties did in fact engage in settlement negotiations. Moreover, Custodian’s counsel states that they had agreed in principle to a settlement as evidenced by the attached letters from Mr. James Maley, Esq. to Mr. Robert Gorman dated September 2, 2005 and September 19, 2005. Custodian’s counsel states that the Complainant refused to execute a settlement agreement even after the City, pursuant to what the City understood to be an agreement to settle, allowed him to view portions of the MVR tape.

   

            

This past Monday, via Email, Chris Donnelly, Media spokesperson for the GRC wrote, "At a public meeting held in Trenton on June 25^th, 2008 the GRC ruled that the tape was not exempt from disclosure as advisory, consultative, or deliberative material, as was being claimed by Gloucester City’s Custodian of Record (Maley). 

"The GRC did find, however, that the tape was exempt from disclosure because, balancing the Complainant’s need for the police mobile video recorded tape versus the potential for harm should the tape be disclosed, it is clear the potential for harm outweigh(ed) the Complainant’s need for access. 

 “Accordingly, the Complainant was lawfully denied access to the requested mobile video recorded tape. Hope this clears it up”, wrote Donnelly.

READ THE ENTIRE GRC TRANSCRIPT

Related: All Things Gorrman