BERKELEY – The Township Council once again asked for a change in the state law that allows people to have township officials retrieve public documents for them.
The Open Public Records Act allows people access to town information, but some say that it is being abused. Several members of the governing body and administration spoke recently about how they feel strongly that government should be transparent. However, there has been an unintended cost that is being passed on to the taxpayer.
Councilman John Bacchione noted that as of October 24, public record requests have cost the township $79,876.50 during the course of 2022.
“We have to answer (the requests),” he said. “It’s really something the state has to review. Berkeley Township doesn’t charge or profit. Why burden the taxpayers for questions they don’t even know they’re being asked?”
Township Clerk Beverly Carle said that this not only costs finances for attorneys’ fees, but there is a time sink for the employees who could be doing other things.
“We provide records electronically for free. If someone wants a copy of a birth certificate, they have to pay $5.” She used this as a way to compare some services where residents pay versus some where they don’t, wondering where the line should be drawn.
The Township Council crafted a resolution asking the state to look at OPRA and have a solution where the municipality is not impacted.
The issue is to keep requests from being frivolous. But how would one define frivolous?
Township Engineer Ernie Peters said sometimes the requests are extremely specific. There are some answers that are on the township’s website. The questioner should be able to just look it up, instead they are asking a township employee to do their homework for them.
“Nobody is taking away the right of the public to see public records,” Business Administrator John Camera said. However, if something is already on the town’s website, employees can’t just point them in the right direction. They have to follow the petitioner’s request.
Councilman Thomas Grosse said that if the township is asking the state to fix something, the state would be more likely to act on specific suggestions. They are not likely to respond to something that just says “fix your problem.”
Township Attorney Lauren Staiger said that the last two times the township reached out to the state for relief they listed specific changes.
If, for example, a person has a frivolous lawsuit against the town, it can be thrown out of court. But there’s no guidance on how to define a frivolous request. Additionally, there’s no guidance on the pay rate of a municipal attorney, if the denial goes to court. One other suggestion would be that the town only has to pay if they lose their OPRA suit.
Recently, there has been a push by clerks and other officials in towns across the state to address the costs – in terms of time and money – that these requests cause.
Stafford Police Chief Thomas Dellane, who is also the president of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, took issue with it as well. He said that law firms ask for car crash reports to create a client list. Therefore, they are using taxpayer funds (in the form of paying town employees) to generate revenue for their company.
Manchester Township Clerk Sabina Martin made comments during a meeting in her town earlier this year that mirrored the ones being made in Berkeley. She also felt that some people were using it as a way to attack the town.
“(OPRA) is used as a tool for litigation against the town which costs taxpayer money for defense. We haven’t lost an OPRA case yet but it is costing you money in the process and they aren’t even township residents. I think it is really insulting to the residents that this is happening,” she said.
In 2019, the Municipal Clerks’ Association of New Jersey called for a study commission to review the law.
That group crafted a sample resolution for towns to pass which said that OPRA is “a well-intended law that has spiraled out of control, due to the volume and nature of requests, the cost to taxpayers in responding to the requests, and the potential liability in having to pay disproportionate prevailing party attorney’s fees should the requests turn into litigated matters, as well as the liability in determining which documents shall be released, with or without redaction, while attempting to maintain individual privacy.”
