Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
2
Request Made: August 20, 2009
Response Made: None
Custodian: Randall Wood
GRC Complaint Filed: September 16, 2009
5
Background
November 18, 2009
Government Records Council’s (“Council”) Interim Order in GRC Complaint No.
2008-183. At its November 18, 2009 public meeting, the Council considered the
November 10, 2009 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all
related documentation submitted by the parties for GRC Complaint No. 2009-259. The
Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations.
The Council, therefore, found that:
“Because evidence exists which contradicts the asserted basis for the denial of
access, and because the Custodian has failed to provide the requested Statement
of Information in the instant matter, the GRC is unable to determine whether the
Custodian unlawfully denied the Complainant access to the records responsive to
his request. Thus, this complaint should be referred to the Office of
Administrative Law for a hearing to resolve the facts to determine whether the
Custodian unlawfully denied the Complainant access to the records requested, and
if so, for a further determination of whether the Custodian knowingly and
willfully violated OPRA and unreasonably denied access under the totality of the
circumstances.”
December 30, 2009
GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law
(“OAL”).
December 21, 2010
Government Records Council’s (“Council”) Interim Order in GRC Complaint No.
2009-259. At its December 21, 2010 public meeting, the Council considered the
December 14, 2010 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all
related documentation submitted by the parties for GRC Complaint No. 2008-183. The
Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations.
The Council, therefore, found that:
1. Because the Complainant has established that the Council’s November 18, 2009
Final Decision was 1) based upon a “palpably incorrect or irrational basis” or 2) it
is obvious that the GRC did not consider the significance of probative, competent
evidence, and has shown that the GRC acted arbitrarily, capriciously or
unreasonably in failing to consolidate the instant matter with Edwards v. Housing
Authority of Plainfield (Union), GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 (Interim Order
[dated November 18, 2009]), said motion for reconsideration is granted.
Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996); D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242
5
The GRC received the Denial of Access Complaint on said date.
Robert F. Edwards v. Housing Authority of Plainfield (Union), 2008-183 & 2009-259 – Supplemental Findings and
Recommendations of the Executive Director
3
N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990); In The Matter Of The Petition Of Comcast
Cablevision Of South Jersey, Inc. For A Renewal Certificate Of Approval To
Continue To Construct, Operate And Maintain A Cable Television System In The
City Of Atlantic City, County Of Atlantic, State Of New Jersey, 2003 N.J. PUC
LEXIS 438, 5-6 (N.J. PUC 2003).
2. This complaint should be consolidated with Edwards v. Housing Authority of
Plainfield (Union), GRC Complaint No. 2008-183 (Interim Order [dated
November 18, 2009]) and referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a
hearing to resolve the facts to determine whether the Custodian unlawfully denied
the Complainant access to the records requested, and if so, for a further
determination of whether the Custodian knowingly and willfully violated OPRA
and unreasonably denied access under the totality of the circumstances.
December 21, 2010
Council’s Interim Order distributed to the parties.
January 4, 2011
GRC Complaint No. 2009-259 transmitted to OAL.
February 6, 2012
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mumtaz Bari-Brown’s Initial Decision. The
ALJ FINDS that although the Custodian possessed records regarding Elmwood Gardens
that [Mr.] Lewis Hurd (“Mr. Hurd”), Executive Assistant to the PHA, provided to the
Planning Board, he did not unlawfully deny access to the responsive records because the
Complainant’s two (2) OPRA requests are invalid under OPRA as blanket requests for a
class of various documents. Specifically, the ALJ states that the GRC tasked him with
determining:
“… whether the [C]ustodian … unlawfully denied [the Complainant]
access to [government records] allegedly utilized during a meeting held by
the Planning Board, and if so, whether the [C]ustodian, or any other public
official, knowingly and willfully violated OPRA and unreasonably denied
access under the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at pg. 5.
The ALJ stated that:
“I have carefully considered the whole of the record and credible evidence
and observed the witnesses’ demeanor to determine whether the
[C]ustodian … for [the PHA] unlawfully denied [the Complainant] access
to government records and, if so, whether the conduct knowingly and
willfully violated OPRA and unreasonably denied access under the totality
of the circumstances. The circumstances in this matter include a record
that reveals an ongoing contentious relationship between parties.
[Mr. Hurd] testified that prior to the Planning Board meeting he provided
the Planning Board with documents, and pictures of the existing buildings
and site. Thereafter, on July 28, 2008, he attended the Planning Board