The New Jersey State Legislature on Monday repealed the Open Records Act, despite public and media outcry and warnings of government overreach. It reversed decades of progress.
The bill, passed by large majorities in both the House and Senate, would cut off access to a wide range of public documents and data if signed by Gov. Phil Murphy. This bill would allow groups like the League of Local Governments to provide access to records (records paid for by taxpayers) that would place an undue burden on local government clerks who are also compensated by taxpayers. It was promoted as a necessary reform after people complained that it was too expensive.
Open government advocates said the bill pretends to be a reform but is actually a way to withhold important information from the public.
It was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) and Anthony Bucco (R-Morris), and in Congress by Rep. Joseph Danielsen (D-Somerset) and Rep. Victoria Flynn (R-Mo.). proposed by Monmouth). Danielsen and Flynn took time to defend the bill on the floor before Monday's vote, but Sarlo did not and Bucco was not present.
They all stand in stark contrast to former Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who became synonymous with open government as a champion of open records laws.
in the state senate
State Senate President Nick Scutari said after the Senate vote that the bill is an effort to save taxpayers money.
The bill was being considered in the Senate Budget Committee last week, and lawmakers said it focused on restricting data intermediation and commercial access. However, provisions regarding the regulation of data brokers were removed from the final version of the bill.
Scutari also said the Democratic-controlled Legislature has been exempt from the bill since it was introduced, and the bill's sponsors have listened to the concerns of New Jersey's small-town mayors.
“This is not about us. This is what I heard on my first day as Senate President of the Federation of Local Governments, when I had not even been sworn in yet,” he said.
There were 21 votes in favor and 10 votes against. Nine state senators who were not present did not vote, including state senators James Holzapfel, Shirley Turner, and Bucco.
One lawmaker said after the session that not voting is tantamount to voting against the bill, but he respects the efforts of sponsors.
State Sen. Andrew Zwicker voted against the bill in both committees in March and last week. “From what I understand, this is going to make voting even more difficult,” he said after the voting session. [to get records]that's my concern.
“I think we could have improved with the amendment, but it wasn't enough to warrant a vote for the bill,” Zwicker said.
in parliament
Danielsen declined to comment on the bill to reporters before the vote, but stood up and defended it, saying there are “big problems with the current law” and that it is necessary.
“This is a good bill that continues to protect transparency, continues to protect the rights of the public, and continues to protect taxpayer resources and dollars.”
After speaking for more than 10 minutes about the bill, Danielsen was asked by his colleague across the aisle, Rep. Brian Bergen, if he would like to answer questions about the bill. Mr. Danielsen declined.
Bergen said the bill would hinder transparency and potentially create opportunities for the government to sue claimants.
Assemblymembers John Azariti and Dawn Fantasia also spoke out against the bill.
Fantasia praised the sponsors for recognizing the problems with the law, but also about her time in Sussex County's county government and the filings she and her county government colleagues made regarding Andover's nursing home issues during the pandemic. He also talked about requests. Four years later, she said, she still hasn't received the documents she requested. This bill does not solve the problems they faced.
The bill passed the House of Commons with 44 votes in favor, 25 votes against, one abstention, and 10 no votes.
Will government records be “readily available”?
The bill passed committees in both chambers on Thursday and Friday after hours of testimony opposed by proponents.
The bill originally passed a Senate committee in March, but was removed from the House committee minutes before it was due to be debated that week.
But there were no such delays this month, and despite votes against the bill in each committee (three in the state Senate and one in the state House), the bill ultimately moved forward.
The latest version of the bill removes the presumption of access provision at the beginning of the OPRA Act that reads, “Government records shall be readily accessible,” and the Senate majority ruled that this provision was “not required by law.” It will remain a part of it,” he said. OPRA Act. ”
Spokesman Richard McGrath said: “That provision is not removed from the OPRA Act, it is simply removed from the bill.” ” he said.
Advocates from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, New Jersey Working Families, and New Jersey Citizens Action have publicly opposed the bill since it was first introduced in March, but everyone agrees that It's not that I think it's a bad bill.
Representatives from groups such as the League of Local Governments, the New Jersey School Boards Association, and the New Jersey Association of Counties support the bill. Spokespeople for some of these organizations, including the league's executive director, Michael Cera, said they would like to see more laws restricting public access to government records and data.
Since the bill was first heard in committee in March, it has been sponsored by Republicans in both chambers, including Bucco in the Senate and Flynn in the House.
Our view:The amended OPRA bill is complete bogus.Governor Murphy vetoes this affront to democracy
What does this law do to water down OPRA?
The updated bill includes new additions to the ability to make anonymous requests and removal of call and email logs and digital calendar exclusions.
We're also implementing more stringent requirements for how you can request things like text and email, including specific accounts, times, topics, and titles.
Provisions restricting access to metadata have been amended to allow access only to “parts that identify the author's name, the identity of the editor, and when the changes were made.”
Language restricting data brokers and commercial entities that resell information obtained through OPRA has been removed.
The portion that remains largely intact includes one of the most controversial, known as a fee-shift clause. The provision previously required archivists who failed to properly provide records to pay claimants' attorney fees, according to the judge.
The bill originally provided that if a public entity is found to have knowingly violated the law or unreasonably denied access, the winner of an OPRA lawsuit “may be entitled” to receive legal costs. changed. The amended bill still removes the attorney's fees requirement, but would not allow it if the denial was unreasonable or if the agency “acted in bad faith or knowingly and willfully violated the law.” , allowing the judge to decide that the payment of costs is justified.
The proposed amendments state that if a “search of records is made with the intent to substantially impede the performance of a government function,” a court may “issue a confidentiality order limiting the number and scope of claims that a claimant may make.” It also includes language that allows for
This law, first enacted in 2002, requires local, county, and state government agencies to provide the public with access to New Jersey government records.
Katie Sobko covers the New Jersey State Legislature. Email: sobko@northjersey.com
