Paff: Middletown taxpayers must reimburse teachers pension fund $3.8 million.

From time to time I've posted press releases from the NJ Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG) and when appropriate I've reposted from the John Paff blogs, "Random notes on NJ government" and "NJ Open Government Notes".  John Paff and NJFOG advocate for open and transparent government and work to ensure that government agencies are following OPRA and OPMA laws.

Besides being an advocate for open government, John Paff also writes about noteworthy issues and recent court cases on his blogs, that bring to light issues that may normally be overlooked.

One such case that might have gone over overlooked if it weren't for John Paff writing about last week was a December 22, 2016, decision of the NJ Appellate Court, that stated the Middletown Board of Education must reimburse its pension fund  $3.8 million for passing out unapproved "illegal" early retirement incentives to school district employees in 2007.

Last week, during the rush leading up to Christmas, a time when a story like this can be easily missed, the Middletown Patch picked-up on it and word began to spread.

I first saw the Patch article posted on Facebook a December 23rd and made a mental note to myself to go back later and read any comments.  I later shared John Paff's blog post to the Middletown New Jersey Facebook page. It has since been shared 17 times and has dozens of reactions and comments.

Reprinted here is John Paff's original posting from his blog "Random notes on NJ government":

An appeals court today affirmed a ruling requiring the Middletown Board of Education (Monmouth County) to reimburse its pension fund $3,815,600 for offering Board employees an "illegal" early retirement incentive.

According to the Appellate Division's December 22, 2016 opinion, the Middletown school board approved a "sidebar agreement" with the local teachers union on October 22, 2007 that offered tenured teachers who retired or resigned prior to June 30, 2008 $225 for each unused sick day up to a maximum of $40,000. The agreement similarly offered non-certified union members $125 per sick day up to a maximum of $20,000.

The next day, an Audit Supervisor with the Division of Pensions and Benefits, who had heard about the offering, said that the offering needed to be reviewed by the Division and asked the Board for specific information which the Board provided on November 5, 2007. By then, five teachers and a secretary had exercised their rights under the sidebar agreement.

On August 1, 2008, the Division informed the Board that the early retirement benefit was "impermissible" and directed the Board to "provide a final list of all individuals" that had taken advantage of it so that a Division actuary could "develop the acceleration cost of this incentive which in turn will be billed to [the Board]." Although the Board responded to the Division on August 11, 2008, the Division did not get back to the Board until February 6, 2014. On that date, the Division informed the Board that it was "responsible for the additional pension liabilities created" by its unauthorized early retirement incentive. The Division calculated the present value of those pension liabilities at $5,429,900 and invoiced the Board for that amount.

The Board appealed the Division's decision and invoice to Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund (TPFA) Board of Trustees. On December 14, 2014, the TPFA affirmed the Division's ruling that the early retirement incentive was illegal but reduced the assessment to $3,815,600 and allowed the Board to pay that amount over a five year period at no interest.

The Board filed another appeal which was resolved by the TPFA's March 13, 2015 written decision. That decision held that 41 employees ultimately took advantage of the sidebar agreement's early retirement incentive and that those early retirements burdened the pension fund.

The Appellate Division rejected the Board's appeal of the TPFA's ruling. The court found that the Board "approved the Sidebar Agreement without consulting the Division or obtaining approval and then implemented the Sidebar Agreement after receiving a letter from the Division stating approval was required before such a plan could be implemented." The court also noted that the Board failed to provide any actuarial evidence to contest the findings of the Division's actuary.

Keep in mind that this case is nearly 10 years old. Other than Joan Minnuies, no other current BOE member was there at the time, that of course, will change when Lenora Caminiti rejoins the BOE when it reorganizes next month. She was there as well back in 2007 and her and Joan Minnuies have some explaining to do.

Now the questions are; What does the newly constituted 2017 Middletown Board of Education do about this issue and what will the plan for reimbursing the pension fund be? At this time it's anyone's guess. I'm sure there are or will be intense discussions going on.

I would hope that whatever decision is made, it will be the least disruptive to taxpayers and repayment spread out over a reasonable amount of time. The last thing I'd like to see however would be some sort of bond issue to repay the pension fund. That would only cost taxpayers more in the long run with fees and interest.

Free NJFOG OPRA/OPMA Forum in Perth Amboy on September 20 !

Join NJFOG the evening of September 20, 2016 for a discussion of the state’s open public records and meetings laws. This event is being provided at no cost to attendees with thanks to our sponsor, The Amboy Guardian.

(NJFOG handbook)

Come learn about the laws that provide public access to government records and meetings and that allow citizens greater insight into the operations of state and local governments in New Jersey.

This is a rare opportunity to meet and talk with acclaimed open government advocate John Paff, who will be speaking along with attorney Walter Luers.

The night of the event is also a great time to join NJFOG to get a free gift with membership, while supplies last.

The forum is open to everyone, so please help us spread the word, and feel free to bring your questions on September 20. Handouts and light refreshments will be provided.


For more information click here.

Baum: Email Lawsuit Sought "Right of Review" Prior to Release of Information

I am writing to provide some clarity regarding the lawsuit filed with respect to Twp Committeeman Tony Fiore's request for emails sent between myself and the library director on our personal email accounts.

 There seems to be limited understanding about the lawsuit, so let me clarify a few points. First, I filed the suit. Per my understanding of the process, we were applying for a TRO (temporary restraining order) which, if granted, would have prevented release of emails between private accounts temporarily. Certainly, not all correspondence between private email accounts, regardless of the subject matter, is public in nature, and therefore a privacy interest exists.

 Essentially, what we were seeking was a right of review in order to raise objection to the release of certain emails, or certatin parts of emails, or certain attachments which are non-public in nature. And in fact there was little I was objecting to based on review of my own records.

The judge did not grant the TRO, chose not to give me an opportunity for review, and ruled that emails with regard to library business (public business) could be released. So faith was put in the library's attorney, Armen McOmber, who represented himself (the library) as the records custodian and the right person to do the review. And he should have been diligent in complying with the law by making all appropriate redactions. However, it appears he didn't redact anything, including my phone number and personal work products. This clear failure demonstrates why a person with a privacy interest should have a legal right of review.

Certainly, had the situation been reversed -- had I requested Mr. Fiore's emails -- Fiore would have had that opportunity.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Linda Baum

APP: Judge's email ruling abets petty politics

In today's editorial section of the Asbury Park Press, the APP has chimed in on the petty politics that passes as governing these days in Middletown.

But before getting to the opinion piece, here's a little background info of my own to fill you in:

Middletown's former mayor, current Township Committeeman Tony Fiore, prior to having himself appointed to the Middletown Library's Board of Trustees last month, requested the township clerk to file a "blanket" OPRA request for 18 months worth of correspondences (both private and public) between library advocates Linda Baum and Melanie Elminger and library director Susan O'Neal. He was seeking information as to how members of the public could have "confidential" library information before that information was made "public" during library board meetings.

In response to this blanket email Ms. Baum, who is a candidate for Township Committee and a frequent contributor here, filed a temporary restraining order lawsuit against Fiore's request, seeking the "right of review" of any emails released to ensure that proper care was given while redacting personal information.

Last week Judge Larry Lawson denied her request stating that the emails in question were of public nature and therefore should be released without review of Ms. Baum, entrusting library board attorney Armen McOmber to properly redact information that was private in nature.

In the days since the release of the emails, Ms. Baum's privacy concerns have been validated. Mr. McOmber was not diligent in complying with the law by making appropriate redactions before the release of the emails. He failed to redact person information such as Ms. Baum's phone number and personal work products.

This clear failure demonstrates why a person with a privacy interest should have a legal right of review and why Ms. Baum's suit was not frivolous in nature.

Now here is what the APP had to say:

You expect local politicians now and then to engage in childish antics. What you don’t expect is for a judge to encourage such behavior. 

But that’s what happened last week when Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson ruled that emails between Middletown Library Director Susan O’Neal and Township Committee candidate Linda Baum are public records and should be released. 

Lawson should have refused the request, given the absence of any real public interest.
Middletown Committeeman Anthony Fiore turned to the courts to seek release of the emails and other written correspondence, including those regarding library business sent from O’Neal’s personal account, after he suspected library staff was giving information to the public before the library trustees were aware of it, in order to create “political theater.”
The emails may have been poor form on the part of Baum and O’Neal, but hardly an act so egregious that the court should get involved. There is no hint of illegality in the emails Fiore was seeking, and he seemed less motivated by principle than by politics. 

Fiore insisted, however, that his request was made in the public interest: “To me, (the emails were) undermining the board’s position, even though it didn’t have an opinion at the time,” he said. 

Really? How can an opinion be undermined before an opinion is even proffered?
Judge Lawson should have kept out of it. 

Baum said through her lawyer that she would not appeal. That’s good news. Somebody has to be the grown-up.

Sunshine Week; A Time To Shine Light On Proposed Law That Would Roll Back Transparency

by Linda Baum
March 10, 2013

March 10th marks the start of “Sunshine Week”, so named to shed light on the importance of open government and public access to information. Its arrival is timely because amendments to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) are now working their way through the New Jersey legislature.

Bill S2512 (A3712) is intended to modernize and reform the OPRA law. However, one key provision will not result in reform at all and may instead dramatically curtail governmental transparency. The matter involves just one little word – changing “shall” to “may” – with respect to court award of plaintiff’s legal fees. The change would eliminate the guaranteed recovery of fees for a successful suit.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the result will be far fewer challenges when governmental entities deny access to public information, even when access is denied in clear violation of the law. Not only will this reduce transparency, but it creates an incentive for fraud and abuse by government.

Even when a suit is brought, the army of publicly-funded lawyers available to governmental offices creates an unfair advantage. This emphasizes the need to empower the public by ensuring their legal costs are recoverable if they win.

Senator Loretta Weinberg is a primary sponsor of S2512. Please take a moment to call or email the Senator to urge her to keep mandatory fee-shifting in the OPRA law. Please call her at (201) 928-0100 or send her an email via website http://www.njleg.state.nj.us.

Walter Luers, president of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJFOG), penned the below letter opposing the change to the fee provision. The letter is intended for use as a draft by other organizations and members of the public in their correspondence with state legislators. Mr. Luers does a very good job explaining the issue.

*****

Honorable Loretta Weinberg
District Office
545 Cedar Lane
Teaneck, NJ 07666

Re: S2512

Dear Senator Weinberg:

I am writing to oppose any amendment of the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA’) that changes the requestor’s entitlement to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees from “shall” to “may.” In particular, I am writing with respect to S2512.

As you know, mandatory awards of reasonable attorneys’ fees to prevailing members of the public have been in OPRA since it was first passed. Mandatory fee-shifting guarantees that there will be at least some lawyers who are willing to handle OPRA cases for members of the public and non-profit groups who do not have the resources to pay lawyers the several thousand dollars it costs to bring an OPRA case in Superior Court.

If citizens and non-profits who are denied access to public records are also denied access to lawyers, they will be effectively disenfranchised and will not be able to participate meaningfully in government.

Unfortunately, government agencies routinely deny access to public records. Municipalities deny access to settlement agreements. County prosecutors deny access to criminal files, even for closed cases. Police departments deny access to routine arrest records. State agencies deny access to records on the basis that the records requests are “overbroad,” even in cases when the records are easily identifiable. While there are always exceptions, there continues to be a strong culture against disclosure. That can only be countered with strong activism through many means, including the Court system, with the assistance of competent, diligent and experienced legal counsel.

Relative to the resources of citizens, public agencies are immensely powerful. The State of New Jersey has its own law firm – the Office of the Attorney General – to defend it in OPRA cases. All counties have in-house counsel or powerful law firms that routinely represent them. The larger cities and municipalities have lawyers who work in-house or have lawyers on retainer. Every municipality has access to lawyers who regularly advise them on legal matters, including OPRA. As you know, taxpayers pay for all of these lawyers.

Mandatory fee-shifting in OPRA is not an advantage; rather, it was intended to level the playing field. The attorneys who work for public agencies and who handle OPRA cases are guaranteed payment, regardless of outcome. If the attorneys who work for public entities are guaranteed to be paid no matter what happens in a case, then it is only fair that lawyers who handle OPRA cases against public entities should be paid a reasonable fee in every case in which they prevail.

I emphasize that attorneys’ fees must be reasonable. While fee-shifting itself is mandatory, Courts and judges already have broad discretion to determine the amount of those fees, relative to the success achieved (among other factors).

If the fee-shifting provision in the law is changed to “may,” it will create, at best, a tremendous amount of uncertainty regarding the circumstances under which attorneys would be entitled to fees. This uncertainty will reduce the public’s access to competent lawyers.

For these reasons, I urge you to retain mandatory fee-shifting in OPRA.

Sincerely,
[NAME]

APP Editorial: Make storm aid fully transparent

In today's Asbury Park Press there is an excellent editorial regarding governmental transparency in regard to Hurricane Sandy relief aid.

As the editorial states regarding Governor Christie, you can't rip into others (the National Flood Insurance Program) unless you yourself are willing to be held to the same standards instead of  "a weak-willed bureaucrat."

As the editorial also states Christie isn't the only one that has issues with transparency, in a paragraph that all too well describes Middletown the APP states, "More transparency should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Governing bodies in New Jersey, on all levels, cannot be trusted to spend money appropriately without substantial public oversight. They’ve proven that time after time after time, and far too often the degree of abuse is only discovered after the fact, when the money is gone and there’s little to be done beyond pointing a few fingers." It is nearly impossible to get a straight answer from anyone associated with the Middletown governing body when the issue deals with any type of finances.

New Jersey's elected and appointed officials need to do a much better job at being transparent. Holding back information lead to corruption and the dishonestly of our officials and the distrust of the citizenry.

Here's what the APP editorial has to say:

Politicians can make some very strange distinctions when it suits them.

Consider Gov. Chris Christie, who has generated so much good will — and scored quite a few political points for himself — with his fist-pounding, bipartisan determination in demanding aid for Sandy recovery and vowing the resurrection of the Jersey Shore.

He wants money, he wants relief for residents, he wants to get moving with reconstruction efforts, and he wants all of it fast. On Tuesday, he ripped into the National Flood Insurance Program for a lack of urgency in resolving claims, no doubt earning more than a few “Go, Governor” responses from victims struggling in the storm’s aftermath.

Yet when it comes to additional government transparency to assure that the funds pouring into the state for recovery purposes are being spent properly and efficiently, Christie’s tone changes dramatically. The can-do, make-it-happen governor is instead transformed into a weak-willed bureaucrat.

Democrats are pushing a bill that would require online document postings detailing the distribution of storm recovery money and the issuance of state contracts. Christie has been hesitant to agree to the plan, conceding the potential value of such transparency, but not if it “takes away from having bodies on the ground.”

So our state government doesn’t have enough manpower to be transparent? That’s nonsense — and Christie knows it. What does “on the ground” really mean in practical terms anyway? Are we to believe that someone’s going to stop hammering nails to repair a roof or fail to hand-deliver an aid payment for someone’s next meal so they can instead post a few documents online?

Christie wants everyone else to come through for New Jersey; he pulled no punches insisting that federal officials do whatever it takes to speed the processing of the flood insurance claims. He should demand the same efficiency from his own state government. And we find it difficult to believe the state can’t manage to provide more spending information online without somehow compromising the overall response to the storm.

More transparency should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Governing bodies in New Jersey, on all levels, cannot be trusted to spend money appropriately without substantial public oversight. They’ve proven that time after time after time, and far too often the degree of abuse is only discovered after the fact, when the money is gone and there’s little to be done beyond pointing a few fingers. That distrust has been earned by both parties and by countless means, and it does not change with a new leader, or an overhauled administration. It is a permanent stain.

That doesn’t mean every politician is dishonest. Far from it. But it does mean policies must be dictated by an assumption that corruption could be anywhere, and that the best antidote is as open a government as possible.

It is a certainty that less public scrutiny of Sandy recovery spending will lead to more of that money being wasted. Lawmakers need to help avert that before the funds evaporate. So let us all see exactly what’s going on.

Is HIPAA Being Used To Avoid Disclosure Of Public Information?

Cross posted from MiddletownDemocrat.org

by Linda Baum

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996 and became effective on July 1, 1997.

The law included a new rule requiring a person’s express approval for release of his or her medical records that is intended to protect a person’s right to privacy with respect to personal health information. And that is only right. However, in what may be a misapplication of the law, HIPAA is often cited by governmental offices to deny access to non-private information.

Because health benefits continue to be one of the greatest cost drivers for municipalities, it’s important that citizens be able to obtain the information needed to evaluate program costs. Further, governmental entities should be required to reveal exactly who is on their rolls for health benefits in order to reduce the potential for fraud and abuse. For example, it is commonly held that appointed professionals are not eligible to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits, and we should be able to verify that they aren’t receiving them.

I’ve learned that, unfortunately, the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) doesn’t guarantee access to non-private health benefits information the way it does to many other public records. In fact, OPRA requests for this information are typically denied.

In 2005, a New Jersey Superior Court ruled in the case of Michelson vs. Wyatt that, with respect to governmental entities, the public has a common law right to information about type of health benefits by name of enrollee for eligible employees, officials, and retirees. Thus, who is on a town’s rolls for health benefits should be public information.

Earlier this year, I submitted a request to Middletown under New Jersey common law for the names of persons who are receiving paid medical benefits from the Township. Adopting a position that other municipalities in New Jersey have rejected, Middletown refuses to provide the information. The Township maintains that the federal HIPAA privacy regulations supercede New Jersey law and bar the release of this information.

That is not only frustrating, but alarming. All New Jersey residents have the right to know the basis for property taxes in their communities. As I believe the Michelson decision established, HIPAA does not deny that right.

***
Ms. Baum has been an outspoken advocate for government transparency and fiscal accountability and continues to push for rightful disclosure of information that is in the public interest.

The Citizens Campaign: Insider Tips For Accessing Public Records

Back on November 18th the Hyperlocal News Association along with the Citizens's Campaign held a workshop on OPRA and the Sunshine Law, I couldn't attend but a few people that I know did.

From all accounts, including the video of the workshop below, it was a lively and insightful event that engaged all that were in attendance and provided a wealth of information to those that believe in honest, open and transparent government while giving guidance to those who are interested in how to file OPRA requests with their local governing bodies or governmental entities.

Of particular interest to those who live in Middletown and have ever tried to get information from the Middletown Sewerage Authority (TOMSA), this workshop made it clear that TOMSA is in clear violation of the OPRA law.

People who have inquired about TOMSA policies for providing documents like the budget or bill lists, are told that they are only in paper form and that those in the TOMSA office don't have the ability to scan them, so documents can't be provided via email or CD.

If there are any documents that just happen to be in electronic form, only TOMSA Director Patrick Parkinson can approve a request to deliver it via email or on CD. Parkinson then, in violation of existing OPRA rules and fee schedules, determines how much to charge requesters for information requested.

As a case in point, when Sean Byrnes was a sitting Committeeman on the Middletown Township Committee, he was charged an outlandish fee of $75 for a copy of the TOMSA budget! How crazy is that?

The video below is long, it runs for an hour and 42 minutes and I hope that readers can sit through it because when the floor is opened up for a Q&A a lot of problems that people are having trouble with in other towns sounds eerily similar to those problems that people in Middletown come up against when requesting information.

As an FYI to go along with this, NJ State Senator Lorretta Weinberg is working to update the Sunshine and OPRA laws. Senate bill S. 1351 increases from 48 hrs to 3 days the advance notice requirement for agendas, and brings the OPRA law (passed in 1975) up to date with technology, among other changes.

Letting The Sunshine In; Two Recent Rulings That Middletown Should Heed

Two recent rulings on aspects of the sunshine law by judges last week are interesting because these rulings indirectly deals with Tony Fiore's statement that Township officials discuss meeting agenda items before scheduled public meetings.

John Paff, if you have not heard of him, is a Libertarian that challanges towns in NJ to verify that they are following Open Public Meetings Act and fulfilling OPRA requests correctly. He has won many lawsuits forcing towns to comply with the law.

In two press releases issued last week Mr. Paff discusses the outcomes of each:

Burlco Prosecutor: Evesham official "unwittingly" violated Sunshine Act

In an August 4, 2011 letter to the attorney for the Eveham Township Council, Burlington County Prosecutor Robert D. Bernardi said that "Evesham Township officials did unwittingly run afoul of the prohibitions contained in the Open Public Meetings Act" by discussing public business by way of e-mail communications. Prosecutor Bernardi, however, declined to impose fines against the officials because that it was a not a "knowing" violation and that "educating public officials who may have mistakenly violated the provisions of the statute is far more effective than the imposition of nominal fines."

The prosecutor's letter, which is on-line here, http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011216TS//b10804BurlcoProsEvesham.pdf was sent in response to a complaint filed by the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Open Government Advocacy Project.

Bergen Judge orders officials to stop using personal e-mail accounts

In an August 4, 2011 decision, Bergen County Superior Assignment Court Judge Peter E. Doyne considered, among other issues, the question of public officials using private e-mails to discuss public business. Judge Doyne ultimately concluded that using personal e-mail accounts for public business "appears highly questionable" and "order[ed] counsel for [the municipality] to circulate a memorandum among all pertinent Borough employees directing they use only their public e-mail accounts, rather than private accounts, when conducting town business."

This is the first such holding of which I'm aware and it may be useful in convincing other government officials to sent official e-mail communications solely through their governmental e-mail accounts. Judge Doyne's decision is on-line here. http://ogtf.lpcnj.org/2011216T8//DoyneWoodcliffLake.pdf

Many thanks to Kevin M. O'Brien, who filed and prosecuted this lawsuit without the aid of an attorney.

Tony Fiore and others on the Township Committee should take heed in these two rulings and make sure that when there are communications between Township Committee members and others in the administration, that they use their official township email addresses to do so. In this way they ensure that a record of their conversations are accessible to the public

Private correspondences between officials to discuss Township business, knowingly or unknowingly is a violation of the sunshine law, but more importantly is a violation of the public's trust.

How Many Emails Did Middletown Receive When It Requested Resident Input Into Defeated School Budget? Not Close To 700 That Scharfenberger Stated

Well it seems that Middletown's sorry excuse for a Mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger, has been caught yet again in a gross exaggeration of facts, which leads to the impression that the additional $500K over and above the previously agreed to $1.6M worth of budget cuts that the Board of Education presented to the Middeltown Township Committee back on May 3rd and May 6th was politically motivated.

This latest example comes from the many emails that were sent to the township's website, after Sharfenberger came up with the brilliant idea to fore go an open public meeting to discuss further budget cuts that should be made to the Middletown school budget which was defeated on April 20th.

Scharfenberger stated at the May 17th Township Committee meeting and was quoted by all of the local newspapers that cover Middletown, that some 700 emails were sent to him via the suggestion portal that was set up on the township website for residents to voice their opinion on what items should or should not be cut from the school budget. Three days later a press release was posted on the township website stating that thanks to the residents for their input and that only 600 emails were gathered. Now after obtaining a copy of all those emails from the Township, I come to find out that the really number of emails sent in by residents was 501.

That's a pretty big difference if you ask me, more so if you consider that many of the emails seem to be duplicates or have nothing whatsoever to do with suggestions on how to trim the defeated school budget, like spam and self indulgent compliments on defeating the budget. After looking through them, it really looks as if only 300 or so could be considered as legitimate.

Which leaves the question of exactly how many residents sent suggestions to the portal? Were only 50, 100 or 501 residents responsible for sending them all of those emails? We'll never know for sure because only a small percentage of residents decided to sign their names to them, which was after all their prerogative, considering that the Township suggested that comments be left anonymously.

For anyone interested in reading all those emails themselves you can do so by clicking >>> Here

Note: For those that thought that their comments and suggestions would be kept confidential I am sorry to inform you otherwise, your comments are part of the public record for all to see whether you supported further school budget cuts or requested that the budget should stand as was at the time of the April 20th vote. Anyone could submit an OPRA request and receive the same information that I have.

Walsh back Emails being open through OPRA

I recieved the following Press release from Democratic Candidate for Middletown Township Committee, Partica Walsh and thought I would pass it along.

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Publication

July 28, 2008

POC: Patricia A. Walsh
Democrat for Township Committee
Tel: (908) 601-1252
Email: awalsh386@aol.com

Walsh back Emails being open through OPRA

MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP (MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ): Middletown Democrat for Township Committee
Patricia A. Walsh said she would lobby to make E-mails written from township-owned
computers accessible to the public through OPRA.

“I believe it is the public’s right to know what happens on the machines they buy,”
Walsh said. “A public servant should always be mindful that the taxpayers are the boss,
and it is to them they are accountable.”

Walsh said it is her intention to lobby to create a more transparent government in town
because it is what is right. “There can be excuses for not doing what is right, which
is what this Township Committee is giving the public, but that can never live up to being
as good as just doing the right thing.”

Walsh said she is seeking the Township Committee’s support in a program of backing up
all existing Emails, to ensure that any potentially unauthorized correspondences by
members of the administration are not destroyed.

Specifically, Walsh said she wants correspondences preserved where it involved
communications between department heads, attorneys, members of the governing body, and
historical information where it involves E-mail discussions about sensitive issues such
as COAH and the recent aborted tax assessment of Middletown.

In addition, Walsh said she wants to preserve all existing files on administration
desktops, to review these and ensure that unauthorized programs and actions have not been
taken by the administration in the performance of their duties in town.

“I do intend to clean house, with the help of the committee, and make any township
officials who have been remiss in their duties accountable,” Walsh said.

But beyond accountability for the past, Walsh said permanently opening up taxpayer-access
to E-mails by the administration is just “good government.”

Walsh admitted there are some E-mails that, by law, would not be able to be open for
public review. However, she said those would amount to a relatively small percentage of
the whole.

“This township has been governed by people who are comfortable in secrecy and executive
privilege for too long. They have lost their way and have forgotten that the Town Hall
they wield power from is the property of the taxpayers of Middletown and is not their
private domain,” Walsh concluded. “It is my intention to offer the Middletown
Committee’s majority a fresh lesson in government, which has always been intended to be
by the consent of the governed, and not instead of it.”