Borough of Lawnside

Page history last edited by John Paff 2 yrs ago

Paff v. Lawnside Borough Council

Docket No. CAM-L-7027-06

Updates:

I recently filed two motions that will hopefully conclude my Open Public Meetings Act court case against the Lawnside Borough Council.

My first motion, filed on October 30, 2007, asked the Court to schedule a hearing on December 7, 2007 at which the nonpublic meeting minutes will be reviewed in camera (i.e. with the judge and Borough's lawyer looking at the unredacted minutes and me looking at the redacted minutes) so that it can be determined which parts that are presently redacted can be publicly disclosed.

The second motion, filed on November 8, 2007, is one for summary judgment. It seeks a final resolution to the third and fourth counts of my Amended Complaint. Those counts, respectively, challenge: 1) the fact that the Borough Council put no detail in its closed session minutes regarding the nature of “personnel matters” privately discussed, and 2) the legality of the Borough Council meeting with prospective land “redevelopers” in nonpublic sessions. This motion is scheduled to be heard on December 7, 2007, at the same time as the in camera review of the 2006 closed session minutes.

Both motions are available at the links below.

Background:

On September 5, 2006, I requested that the Lawnside Borough Council send me copies of the resolutions that it passed during 2006 to authorize its nonpublic (i.e. closed or executive) meetings as well as the minutes from those nonpublic meetings. State law clearly requires that such resolutions be passed (see N.J.S.A. 10:4-13) and that “reasonably comprehensible” minutes be recorded and made “promptly available” to the public (see N.J.S.A. 10:4-14). Shortly thereafter, the Borough Attorney denied my request for the meeting minutes but provided me public meeting minutes containing some general, non-specific motions that purported to be the resolutions that authorized the nonpublic meetings

I believed that the motions weren't adequate and that it was illegal for the minutes to be totally suppressed. Therefore, on October 12, 2006, I filed my lawsuit and in late January 2007 I filed my "summary judgment" motion. (Summary judgment is a way to dispose of a case quickly, without a trial, and is appropriate when there aren’t any factual questions and all that needs to be done is for the judge to apply the law to the facts.)

The Borough's attorney provided me with the nonpublic meeting minutes on March 21, 2007, shortly before the date that the summary judgment motion was to be heard, and then argued that his eleventh-hour release of the minutes moots that part of my complaint that demands production of those minutes. I argued that the minutes provided are redacted (i.e. blacked out) so heavily that they are practically worthless and that the court should not dismiss that part of my case. (Interestingly, the attorney didn’t provide me with all of the minutes. The minutes from the June 7, 2006 meeting apparently cannot be located.)

On March 30, 2007, Camden County Superior Court Judge Francis J. Orlando heard argument on the case and on April 13, 2007, he granted my motion for summary judgment. He ordered the Borough Council to a) pass resolutions before going into nonpublic session that described the topics to be discussed in more detail, b) to make the nonexempt parts of its nonpublic meeting minutes available no later than 60 days after a nonpublic meeting, c) to provide him [i.e. Judge Orlando] with unredacted copies of the 2006 nonpublic meeting minutes under seal so that he could see if they really warranted the redactions (this is called an “in camera” review), and d) submit a certification to me and the Court explaining exactly why each redaction was made to the 2006 nonpublic meeting minutes. Judge Orlando’s Order, an audio recording of the March 30, 2007 hearing and other records are available at the links below.

On April 27, 2007, the Borough Council’s lawyer submitted the certification required by the Order. I objected to the certification because I believed that it was vague and didn’t adequately explain the reasons for the redactions. On May 10, 2007, I filed a motion to compel the Borough Council to provide a better, more detailed certification. Also, after reviewing the closed session minutes that were revealed to me on March 21, 2007, I felt that they were illegal in two respects: 1) that they didn’t provide any detail as to what “personnel matters” the Borough Council privately discussed, and 2) that the Borough Council met with prospective land “redevelopers” in nonpublic sessions. Accordingly, I included within my motion a request to amend my complaint to address these two matters.

Despite the Borough Council’s objection, Judge Orlando granted my motion on June 8, 2007. The signed order, an audio of the proceedings, and other documents are available at the links below.

Links to Case Documents and Proceedings:

Below are links to a) my summary judgment motion, b) the Borough’s response, and c) my reply to that response. Note that two of the files, the "Certification of John Paff" and the "Certification of the Borough Administrator," are quite large and may take a while to download. I think that readers will find these certifications interesting, especially because the Administrator's contains the Borough's 2006 nonpublic meeting minutes (which are sloppily written and very brief) that have never before been made public.

Court Proceedings

An audio recording of the March 30, 2007 hearing before Judge Orlando is on the Internet at

http://www.veotag.com/player/?u=zhxtszyyrj

An audio recording of the June 8, 2007 motion hearing before Judge Orlando is on the Internet at

http://www.veotag.com/player/?u=lgxdwaojue

For the Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief (225 Kb)

Certification of John Paff (3,287 Kb)

Borough’s Response to Summary Judgment Motion (88 Kb)

Certification of Borough Administrator (2,236 Kb)

Reply to Borough’s Response (139 Kb)

April 13, 2007 Court Order (111 Kb)