Activists, poll watchers, lawyers, state auditors and state public defender offices hate it. Journalists, freedom advocates, data reporting company LexisNexis, the general public, and even a few politicians hate it.
But after more than seven hours of incendiary testimony, state lawmakers on two committees decided to move forward with controversial emergency legislation that watchdog groups warn would destroy the public's access to New Jersey's government records. agreed.
By the time the Senate Appropriations Committee recorded its vote Monday night, half of its members had long since disappeared after instructing their colleagues to record it as a “yes” vote, and critics said the fraud was I am even more convinced that it was fraudulent from the beginning.
“Boos” and other words erupted from the packed room after the council's local government committee passed the bill by a 5-2 vote early Monday. When the Senate Budget Committee approved the bill on a 9-4 vote shortly after 6 p.m., the room was nearly empty, with only a few weary cynics still there.
Rep. Brian Bergen (R-Morris) was not on the committee that considered the bill, but he stopped by both committees to hear testimony.
“We're becoming less and less transparent. Are you kidding?” Bergen said. “Obviously, if you wrote this down and read it to me, I would think it was a joke. But this is actually how we do things. ”
Multiple people who testified against the bill Monday said the bill's sponsors, Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) and Rep. Joe Danielsen (D-Middlesex), did not respond to calls or emails. accused of being.
Mr. Sarlo ran away from a group of reporters after Monday's Senate committee vote, and Mr. Danielsen told a New Jersey Monitor reporter that coverage of the bill was misrepresenting changes in the bill.
“More than half of them are increasing access to, creating, or improving the document. Who would have the courage to print it? It's fake news. As far as I know, this “is dishonest and speaks to the integrity of all journalists,” he said.
Most of those testifying Monday don't think so.
They warned that the bill would undermine transparency, make records harder for everyone to obtain, increase corruption, and reduce accountability. Several stakeholders publicly told the committee that no amendments could save the bill and urged lawmakers to “kill the bill.”
“The proposals you are considering to remove many elements of OPRA and create new restrictions amount to limiting and restricting our democracy as enshrined in our Constitution,” the statement said, via public records. said Asbury Park Press journalist Joe Strapp, who shared the revealing story. request.
This bill would amend the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), which guarantees people's rights to certain government records. Under the 29-page bill, “draft” documents would be private. Government agencies would be able to exempt records and seek court orders against requesters deemed to be nuisances. Data brokers will be prohibited from obtaining public documents. And the government would be able to compile more information from records.
Lawmakers said the law had not been updated since it was enacted in 2002 and accused commercial clients of abusing the law in ways unimaginable when it was passed.
Sarlo also blamed a rise in “creepy” requests for police body camera footage and other forms of exploitation of vulnerable women and children, but gave no specifics. It was not possible to quantify it.
Lori Bucklew of the New Jersey Federation of Municipalities was one of the few people to testify in support of the bill. Privacy issues require updated laws, she said.
“OPRA was enacted at a time when dial-up internet was at the cutting edge, Google was in its infancy, and identity theft was like the big brother borrowing a driver's license to get into a college bar.” Buckelew said. “After 20 years, not a week goes by that we don't hear about a data breach or a request to protect personally identifiable information. Under these bills, we will have those protections.”
John Donadio, executive director of the New Jersey Association of Counties, also supports the bill, particularly efforts to limit records requests by companies and data brokers.
He told lawmakers that his group surveyed county officials and found that each county responds to about 250 to 3,000 OPRA requests a year, with rural counties such as Salem receiving fewer requests and Bergen receiving fewer requests. He said that densely populated counties, such as the U.S., have reported a high number of requests. More than half were commercial clients, he added.
Mika Rasmussen, director of the Lebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, denied this account.
“You asked about the number of requests in the state as if that were a bad thing,” Rasmussen said. “I think this shows the number of people in the state who care about state government. And I say with all due respect that that's a good thing.”
Critics disputed claims that modernization and cost concerns prompted the bill, and accused lawmakers of rushing it to cover secrecy.
“Corruption does not necessarily occur in the following ways. gold bars or Build muscle your way He will be a primary candidate for the Senate. It’s time for groups like this to act against the public interest,” said Woodbridge resident Scott Golich. “It makes a lot of sense that both organizations are doing this at the same time, and it's coordinated at the last minute. Let's be clear: The people in this room own the data.”
James Walters, a former Hamilton police officer and frequent OPRA filer, seconded that sentiment, telling MPs, “When you suppress transparency, you suppress accountability.”
Several critics complained that lawmakers did not take their opinions into account when crafting the bill, pushing back on Sarlo and Danielsen's claims that they consulted with stakeholders.
“It's great that we met with the federation and other people, but this process here didn't include the people who would actually submit the OPRA application,” said Food and Water Watch organizer and journalist said Charlie Kratovil, a frequent OPRA filer. “They are not at the table and this matter is being rushed forward. So the only appropriate course of action is to pump the brakes, vote no, and gather input before taking any action.” I think.”
Critics were particularly angry at lawmakers who balked at the bill but approved it. Rep. John Allen (D-Hudson) voted in favor of the bill, even though he said he would not support the bill on the floor without significant amendments.
Asked if those who testified against the bill felt heard, he said he would ask them.
“No,” one critic shouted as he passed.
“Okay, then,” Allen replied.
The bill will be reintroduced to lawmakers Thursday for consideration by the Legislature's Appropriations Committee. The full parliament is scheduled to meet on Monday, but Sarlo declined to say whether the bill would be voted on then, and the list of bills has not yet been posted online.
Get the morning headlines delivered to your inbox
